Annual "Rules Test" Scores

[Kansas Ref]

Despite the obvious level of rules knowledge, casebook wisdom, and preponderance practical experience that is present amongst Forum writers, I would wager that none of you have ever scored a perfect "100%" on the annual rules exam from the NF.

Please bear in mind that the intent of this post is not to question your aforementioned knowledge, but rather to state that it is ''impossible'' to get a score of "100%". Why? Because the rules test invariably contains clerical/typographic and procedural errors in the creation of the actual test questions. Ergo, making it feasibly ''impossible" to score a 100%. I have even asked folks if they intentionally answered a question "wrong" just to get it "right"--with prior knowledge that a particular question was incorrectly written/worded/phrased. However, when they tried this ruse, they still got the question wrong.

The test is either 50 or 100 questions long as I recall--with a requirement of 75% for Certification Passing. For the record, the highest I ever scored was a 93%. Some of my local ref colleagues have said they scored a 97% but never a "100%"--even the local association president.

Agreeably, I cannot request your 'proof' of a perfect score if you ever had one, but it just seems to me that because of the afore-stated reasons no one has ever scored a 100%.

[Raymond]

I have scored 100 at least once. Don't remember if that was after an adjustment was made for incorrect questions.

[justacoach]

Definitely possible......are you butthurt about something?

When is the last time an assignor (or coach, partner, player or fan) asked you about your test score?

My 100% score on a written test is no assurance I can referee effectively.

People who fixate on test scores usually suffer from other major issues that preclude advancement and success.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Definitely possible......are you butthurt about something?

When is the last time an assignor (or coach, partner, player or fan) asked you about your test score?

My 100% score on a written test is no assurance I can referee effectively.

People who fixate on test scores usually suffer from other major issues that preclude advancement and success.

**like whoa, pump your brakes "justcoach" & "SCO"...if you read the prelude to my query you would see that it has Nothing to do with 'ego' or anything, it's just a simple question that addresses the impossibility of said score based on human error in the writing of said testing document.
We all know that a test score has no bearing on officiating ability...but that's not the point. For example there are folks who pass the "Kansas state driving test" with a 100% who cause more accidents than others who score lower.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

**like whoa, pump your brakes "justcoach" & "SCO"...if you read the prelude to my query you would see that it has Nothing to do with 'ego' or anything, it's just a simple question that addresses the impossibility of said score based on human error in the writing of said testing document.
We all know that a test score has no bearing on officiating ability...but that's not the point. For example there are folks who pass the "Kansas state driving test" with a 100% who cause more accidents than others who score lower.

Find it hard to conceive this subject just innocently popped into your train of thought.

BTW, I have Freud genes in my bloodline

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

The test is either 50 or 100 questions long as I recall--with a requirement of 75% for Certification Passing. For the record, the highest I ever scored was a 93%. Some of my local ref colleagues have said they scored a 97% but never a "100%"--even the local association president.

I'm pretty sure all the questions are weighted equally, so I don't see how someone can get an "odd number" percent on a 50-question test.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

**like whoa, pump your brakes "justcoach" & "SCO"...if you read the prelude to my query you would see that it has Nothing to do with 'ego' or anything, it's just a simple question that addresses the impossibility of said score based on human error in the writing of said testing document.

There's no query or question in your original post.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm pretty sure all the questions are weighted equally, so I don't see how someone can get an "odd number" percent on a 50-question test.



There's no query or question in your original post.

Bob, didn't there used to be 2 parts to the test? 50 questions each?

And he did have a "Why?" in there...

Do any associations represented on here still use the test scores for ranking purposes? I believe the local association here still does.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Bob, didn't there used to be 2 parts to the test? 50 questions each?

And he did have a "Why?" in there...

Do any associations represented on here still use the test scores for ranking purposes? I believe the local association here still does.

We use test scores, but we use our own test, not the NFHS test.

[SC Official]

Ok, what is the point of this thread? Are you trying to make yourself feel better about scoring lower or something? If you want to score higher, study more.

And your score on a test doesn't mean s*** if you can't referee.

And I've gotten 100% on the NFHS test multiple times. The people who complain the most about it generally have poor rules knowledge to begin with.