At the March Referee Committee meeting the idea of already qualifying all professional games as "challenging" and thus acceptable for assessment was proposed. The board decided to enact a trial period of one year under this proposition for D3 games only. The rationale behind the proposal is that many referees "make the game look easy," or less-challenging than it really is simply by doing a fantastic job. A game that has all the potential to blow up and present a myriad of challenges for the referee suddenly looks non-assessable simply because the referee knew how to keep things under control. This is something I've thought about many times over the past decade or so. Throughout my career I have had numerous assessments where the assessor deemed the game not challenging enough. However, if that assessor had been in my position he would be more in tune to the intricacies of player interactions which could very easily have incited a "challenging" game. I'll admit that in one upgrade assessment I purposely ignored a hotspot for the sake of making the game challenging so that I would pass the assessment. It is not something I am proud of and would never do again, and I do not recommend any other referee ever try it. At the time I simply couldn't risk not having another "non-assessable" game as the registration deadline was approaching. Anyway, I'd like to hear others thoughts about this enigma. Do your job and the game is too easy. Don't do your job and you fail the assessment. Do something in between and it isn't for the good of the game itself. It's almost as if USSF's assessment process promotes the referee placing his own advancement over the spirit of the game by doing what I did above in order to upgrade. I don't have a solution other than to simply accept certain games as automatically "challenging" based on the history of the teams.