Having a coach know the rules should lead to less confrontation with the officials.... if the official is also knowledgeable.
If the official is not... it can be very confrontational and difficult - for the coach to maintain his composure and for the official to maintain control of the game.
Passing out the Part I test and not requiring individual effort to complete it doesn't gain anything. Somebody has the answers, everyone copies, and they all turn them in... so what?
A coach waving a rulebook at you during the game is going to be very upsetting. I don't have time to give interpretations during the game or to justify my actions given his understanding of the rules.
It is a two edged sword.
Should they know the rules? Absolutely. But, as you all know, rule knowledge is not the only requirement for being a good official (or a good coach). I'm estimating that a good official is 20% rules knowledge and 80% judgement/social skills.
No coaches take the test here in Eastern Idaho. In fact, on Part II test night, the majority of the officials all work together with open books. This can be good if the discussions are retained, but judging from some of the stupid things I see called... I don't think they retained much.
JV official called a jump ball during a follow-up tap attempt after a fast break with about 10 seconds left in a 2-point game. No one even questioned him. I asked him about it after the game. Said he saw the ball spin off of the tapper's hand and knew he had to call a jump. Perhaps it was because he wasn't even to the division line yet as he transitioned from lead to trail. If anyone, especially a coach, had known what he was calling, they would have shot him right there, drug him off the court, and finished the game with one official.
Actually we quit shooting officials a few years back here in Idaho.
