|
Let me elaborate on why I think this is a poorly written question. If I am writing a test designed to trip up people, I write it the way this question is.
If I really want to mess with people and have them arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, then I get Congress or the NCAA rules committee to write the test.
But if I want to write a basic test that tests and reinforces basic rules knowledge, I write it in a more straightforward manner, giving all of the necessary info within the question. Seems to me that a Part I test in anything should be straightforward, get you back into the flow of thinking about the sport, and just make sure that you have or have retained basic knowledge of the rules, especially the new changes. Ideally, such a test will take an average official about 15-30 seconds per question to answer. A little bit longer on the ones that they need to look up.
I haven't seen the entire test, so perhaps overall they did a good job. But I don't like this particular question. Thinking that the signaler can not block during the rest of the down, may indeed be easier than thinking that he can not block until the end of the kick, but if that is the case, why not just change the rule to say that if it is that much easier?
Ok, end of soapbox.
|