Test?

[JRutledge]

I was discussing this issue at another discussion board, and I thought it would be appropriate here.

How important do you feel that these test that we take are for the NF (or anyone for that matter)?

And do you think that your success on them determine your competence as an official? For example if the official that gets 100% on the test a better official than the one that gets 80%?

[PAULK1]

I think that if the test was the only criteria you were judged by then you would not have a complete picture
of an official. The tests do serve a purpose to get officials into the rule books. They can also show desire
to improve. I have seen many new officials start out with
low scores only to improve as the years go by, and I have also seen veterans score their 10th 75 in row. To get the complete picture on any offical camps, cinics, meeetings, Testing, floor exercises and evaluations through out the season are what should be looked at.

[BktBallRef]

PaulK is correct. The Fed exam does not test the total comptence of an official. It's just part of the bigger picture. But it is a great indicater of whether a person studies the rules and has strong rules knowledge.

How important do you feel that these test that we take are for the NF (or anyone for that matter)?

In NC, it's very important. You must make 80 or better and have a cumulative point total of 80 or better on the NCHSAA points system to work playoff or holiday tournament games. Why wouldn't a person who had aspirations of improving and moving up want to make a high as possible on the test? I can't think of a reason. I don't want to be on the floor with that offical who makes 75 on the test year after year. That person doesn't know the rules and will get you in trouble sooner or later.

And do you think that your success on them determine your competence as an official? For example if the official that gets 100% on the test a better official than the one that gets 80%?

I don't believe that the 100 official is necessarily better than the 80 official. But I'd bet that, in most cases, his attitude, demeanor, appearance, mechanics, and judgment. I know his rules application is better. There's more desire there to be a better official.

Tonight I watched 3 JV officials botch a play where a player's name wasn't in the book. If they had known the rule they wouldn't have screwed it up. Do you think they made a very good impression on the supervisor? I don't.

Exam results are an indication of two things,your rules knowledge and your desire to get better.

[bob jenkins]

It's necessary, but not sufficient.

IOW, someone who scores well may or may not be a good official.

Someone who doesn't score well (in general) would not be a good official.

If I have a choice between working with two partners, and all I know about them is that one scored 100 on the test and one scored 75, then I'll choose to work with the one that scored 100. If the two scores are 96 and 95, then it doesn't make any difference.

And, of course, it depends somewhat on how the test is administered.

[Hawks Coach]

In a completely different arena, I have dealt with the exact same issues and come to similar conclusions. I served as an aircrew evaluator for the Navy for 10 years. To evaluate aircrewman, we give open and closed book exams. If they pass the exams, they can take a checkride in which we evaluate their ability to perform their duties. Fail the test, you don't qualify for the ride.

In my experience, there were people that were great "book knowledge" people who could not perform under pressure. Many of them also had poor people skills, which are not conducive in an environment that demands teamwork and cooperation under heavy stress. Perfect scores on the test did not predict ability to perform. But I never had anyone achieve bare minimums on the test that then impressed me with their superior ability during the check ride. Those that did well on the performance side always started with outstanding test scores.

To perform in a superior fashion, you must by definition have at least above average knowledge. But having above average knowledge does not in any way guarantee you can perform well.