Things that make you go hmmmmm...

[euby]

The problem I have with the tests are their feeble attempt to trick you with one word. ie: "recommended" instead of "must be" and that kind of crap.

I would be much happier with the questions being straight forward and then they could use whatever format of answers they want.

[ranjo]

Originally Posted by euby

The problem I have with the tests are their feeble attempt to trick you with one word. ie: "recommended" instead of "must be" and that kind of crap.

I would be much happier with the questions being straight forward and then they could use whatever format of answers they want.

I have always complained about the use of words to trick you into responding with an incorrect answer. Like most of you, I have taken the NFHS test (closed book in my board) for many years. But as my understanding of the rules became more solid, I discovered those words did make a difference in the context of most of the rules.

We get our tests back with a form that tells what questions we missed. After going back to the rule book to look up a miss, I have usually discovered I didn't know the rule as well as I thought.

The better you know the rule, the less chance of getting it wrong from some type of tricky wording.

[Tweet]

Well,

Our board uses the IAABO test instead of the NFHS test, and it has the same problem of the questions not being clear. However, i can tell you that it does not matter how the question is phrased because if you know the rules then you will know the answer. They gotta make the sentence sound complicatd because otherwise, let's face it, everybody would have 100% on the exam.

The IAABO test in particular focuses very heavily on new rules followed by last year's new rules and then the rest. Just last year there were 4-5 out of 50 questions about the same new rule with the SAME situation just rephrased differently. If you get familiar with the test you are writing, especially like somebody suggested if you read old tests, you can recognize the patterns and score high easiy.

Rules as they are written in the book are fairly simple and straightforward. It's either a travel or it is not, it is either a foul or it is not. Hence, the tests can only be as difficut as the rues themselves. It's either true or false.

And let's not forget, if you don't know the rule when you have minutes to ponder about one situation how in the world can you judge the same situation on the court when you have a few seconds to make the call.

if you love refereeing then you gotta love the rules

peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by euby

The problem I have with the tests are their feeble attempt to trick you with one word. ie: "recommended" instead of "must be" and that kind of crap.

I would be much happier with the questions being straight forward and then they could use whatever format of answers they want.

It's not a trick question if you know the rules. The specific wording is relevant and important. "Recommended" means there is a choice. "Must" implies no choice. Is a player who is fouled recommended to shoot the FTs or must that player shoot the FTs (excepting injury, etc.).