NFHS 2006 Part 1 TEST

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Submitting answers to a test obtained in a manner not in line with the intentions of the testing body is unethical...its cheating. For example, If the organization administering the tests expects to hand out the test and have it's members take it on the spot, it would be unethical for any of those members to obtain the test or its answers prior to that time. It would also be unethical for someone to knowingly provide such a person with the test or its answers.

These principles are not variable or subjective. They are the basic to the definitions of honor and integrity.

Well said.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Not a thing.

Never know. They might some day.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How someone dresses vs. taking a test are apples and oranges. They may both standards but of a different nature.

Underdressing is not unethical. Perhaps unprofessional, but not unethical. Plus the manner of dress says absolutely nothing about the ability or character of the person.

I did not say anything about how you dress as being unethical. I only talked about dress in the context of how things will vary based on where you live and the level you are working. When I work college games it is expected that we wear suits and much more than we do at the HS level. And at the college level Hank Nichols made it clear it was OK for those to take the NCAA test with people "sitting right next to you at your computer, I do not care." So let us relax on what is "unethical" when the standards are not always the same across the board.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Submitting answers to a test obtained in a manner not in line with the intentions of the testing body is unethical...its cheating. For example, If the organization administering the tests expects to hand out the test and have it's members take it on the spot, it would be unethical for any of those members to obtain the test or its answers prior to that time. It would also be unethical for someone to knowingly provide such a person with the test or its answers.

The testing body for most of us is the state or local association that you belong to. It is not the NF. The NF produces a test and each state choice to use it how they see fit. There are states that make their own test for qualification purposes. How can someone be unethical in getting a copy or giving out a copy of a test their state does not even use?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

These principles are not variable or subjective. They are the basic to the definitions or honor and integrity.

They are very subjective and variable in many ways. We are just going to have to disagree on this one (what else is new). Until you can show me in the code of ethics there is something specific to the test, then it is very subjective what rules apply to a test.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Never know. They might some day.

Are you talking about Joe Anderson and Frank Adamson, 2 members of our local volleyball association? I can't imagine you've ever talked to them though.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The testing body for most of us is the state or local association that you belong to. It is not the NF. The NF produces a test and each state choice to use it how they see fit. There are states that make their own test for qualification purposes. How can someone be unethical in getting a copy or giving out a copy of a test their state does not even use?

They are very subjective and variable in many ways. We are just going to have to disagree on this one (what else is new). Until you can show me in the code of ethics there is something specific to the test, then it is very subjective what rules apply to a test.

How about getting the test early that the state actually does use? Let's take Alaska,for example...the home of Whistles&Stripes.

Alaska uses the exact same NFHS exam that ol' W&S has been looking for since mid-September. The ASAA sends the exam and the blank answer sheet to each official, and then that completed answer sheet has to be mailed in. The ASAA then marks the exam and sends the mark and sheet back to each official. A passing grade for certification is 75%, but you can't work state tournaments without being certified.

As for the "Code of Ethics", the following is posted on the appropriate ASAA web page--- "Tests are NOT released prior to the NFHS release date". Of course, that doesn't apply to ol' W&S getting the test e-mailed to him. Naw.....

http://www.asaa.org/officials/index.html

I'll let you know shortly when Alaska actually mails the test out(mid-September, Bush? ) and when they expect it back. I've asked for that info.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say anything about how you dress as being unethical. I only talked about dress in the context of how things will vary based on where you live and the level you are working. When I work college games it is expected that we wear suits and much more than we do at the HS level.

I'm not the one that brought how a person dresses when arriving at the game into the discussion. You did. Don't bring it up if it is not relevant.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And at the college level Hank Nichols made it clear it was OK for those to take the NCAA test with people "sitting right next to you at your computer, I do not care." So let us relax on what is "unethical" when the standards are not always the same across the board.

That is orthoganal to the discussion. We were talking about knowingly providing the test to those whose organizations DO require that they take it without prior access.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The testing body for most of us is the state or local association that you belong to. It is not the NF. The NF produces a test and each state choice to use it how they see fit. There are states that make their own test for qualification purposes. How can someone be unethical in getting a copy or giving out a copy of a test their state does not even use?

Again, you're completely missing the point. We're talking about people that DO use the test.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They are very subjective and variable in many ways. We are just going to have to disagree on this one (what else is new). Until you can show me in the code of ethics there is something specific to the test, then it is very subjective what rules apply to a test.
Peace

I can't believe you even think you have a viable stance on such a simple point.



From http://www.naso.org/benefits/ethics.htm

Sports Officials Code of Ethics

The National Association of Sports Officials believes the duty of sports officials is to act as impartial judges of sport competitions. We believe this duty carries with it an obligation to perform with accuracy, fairness and objectivity through an overriding sense of integrity.
...
Because of their authority and autonomy, officials must have a high degree of commitment and expertise. NASO believes these facts impose on sports officials the higher ethical standard by which true professionals are judged.
Officials who are "professionals" voluntarily observe a high level of conduct, not because of fear of penalty, but rather out of personal character. ...
This conduct has as its foundation a deep sense of moral values and use of reason which substantiate the belief a given conduct is proper simply because it is.
...

ARTICLE IV
Sports officials have a responsibility to continuously seek self-improvement through study of the game, rules, mechanics and the techniques of game management. They have a responsibility to accurately represent their qualifications and abilities when requesting or accepting officiating assignments.

There you have it...in writing. Submitting a test that has answers obtained through methods other than intended by the testing organization is a manner that does not accurately represent an officials qualifications or ability. Many states have a minimun score needed to work games and cheating on the test to work games is in direct conflict with this code of ethics.

ARTICLE V

Sports officials shall protect the public (fans, administrators, coaches, players, et al.) from inappropriate conduct and shall attempt to eliminate from the officiating avocation/profession all practices which bring discredit to it.

Just like gambling, cheating on a test brings into serious question the integrity of the official. If they're going to lie about one thing related to officiating the game, what's to stop them with other topics. Will they favor a team who's coach is a family friend? Will they hang a partner out in order to make the look bad for their own benefit? Will they lie about their partners to obtain a better assignment?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How about getting the test early that the state actually does use? Let's take Alaska,for example...the home of Whistles&Stripes.

Alaska uses the exact same NFHS exam that ol' W&S has been looking for since mid-September. The ASAA sends the exam and the blank answer sheet to each official, and then that completed answer sheet has to be mailed in. The ASAA then marks the exam and sends the mark and sheet back to each official. A passing grade for certification is 75%, but you can't work state tournaments without being certified.

As for the "Code of Ethics", the following is posted on the appropriate ASAA web page--- "Tests are NOT released prior to the NFHS release date". Of course, that doesn't apply to ol' W&S getting the test e-mailed to him. Naw.....

http://www.asaa.org/officials/index.html

I'll let you know shortly when Alaska actually mails the test out(mid-September, Bush? ) and when they expect it back. I've asked for that info.

I do not live in Alaska, I do not care what Alaska says. That is something Alaska is going to have to deal with. For the record I have not given out the test and I live in Illinois and there is no such mandate. The test is made public to us online and this year it came out before my birthday in late September.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not the one that brought how a person dresses when arriving at the game into the discussion. You did. Don't bring it up if it is not relevant.

Camron, I brought up the way someone dresses as an example to address the differences in what is seen as professional. Just because you think it does not matter does not mean I have to agree with you.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is orthoganal to the discussion. We were talking about knowingly providing the test to those whose organizations DO require that they take it without prior access.

Camron, I am sure there are people that are reading this that have no idea what the requirements of other states are. Until I started reading this board, I never knew of how different states and associations handled these kinds of situations.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Again, you're completely missing the point. We're talking about people that DO use the test.

Camron, I do not care what other people do with the test. If any organization is afraid of their officials getting a copy of the test, then they need to change how they distribute the test or how they administer the test. Or make the test an open book test like my state and do not sweat the details.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I can't believe you even think you have a viable stance on such a simple point.

Camron, most officials that I come in direct contact with, think the rules tests are mainly a formality and not a judge of officiating ability. If you feel they are vital to officiating ability and rules knowledge, I see why you feel the way you do. I do not feel the same way you do and I do not look at this issue anywhere near the way you do. This is why there are Republicans and Democrats, people do not see all issues the same way no matter how many ways you want to frame the issue.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

From http://www.naso.org/benefits/ethics.htm

Sports Officials Code of Ethics

The National Association of Sports Officials believes the duty of sports officials is to act as impartial judges of sport competitions. We believe this duty carries with it an obligation to perform with accuracy, fairness and objectivity through an overriding sense of integrity.
...
Because of their authority and autonomy, officials must have a high degree of commitment and expertise. NASO believes these facts impose on sports officials the higher ethical standard by which true professionals are judged.
Officials who are "professionals" voluntarily observe a high level of conduct, not because of fear of penalty, but rather out of personal character. ...
This conduct has as its foundation a deep sense of moral values and use of reason which substantiate the belief a given conduct is proper simply because it is.

BTW, everyone is not a NASO Member, so I really do not know why this is even relevant to this discussion, but I will play along I guess.
...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

ARTICLE IV
Sports officials have a responsibility to continuously seek self-improvement through study of the game, rules, mechanics and the techniques of game management. They have a responsibility to accurately represent their qualifications and abilities when requesting or accepting officiating assignments.

There you have it...in writing. Submitting a test that has answers obtained through methods other than intended by the testing organization is a manner that does not accurately represent an officials qualifications or ability. Many states have a minimun score needed to work games and cheating on the test to work games is in direct conflict with this code of ethics.

ARTICLE V

I have never had a single assignor at any level ask me or any of my partners about what score they got on a test. As a matter of fact I have never been asked about any of the issues related to ratings, test scores or any thing of that kind. What is asked is how long you have worked, who do you currently work for and what levels you have worked? Then based on what you tell them and what the assignor feels about your ability, you get hired. I do not even see how this is even relevant. I guess you live in a place where the test scores affect your assignments. I live in no such system. So I do not know what you are talking about. If people are living in a system where their test score is a factor, then I feel sorry for those officials. You should be judged on your court ability, the way you look as an official (can you get up and down the floor) and your experience.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sports officials shall protect the public (fans, administrators, coaches, players, et al.) from inappropriate conduct and shall attempt to eliminate from the officiating avocation/profession all practices which bring discredit to it.

Once again I do not understand how giving out a test (not the answers) in any way is a bad thing? If you do not want people to see the test, make a test that is not public all over the country. You cannot keep anything like that a secret. Or you could do what a lot of states do for professional licenses exams. Require that everyone take the exam at a local site, computerize the test with random questions and you will not have to worry about who passes the test. Wait a minute, even in professional licensing tests for a state license has classes that teach testers how to beat the test and not learn the material. I guess that is cheating to when the state in many jurisdictions licenses the testing courses that teach you how to get the right answers. Never mind.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just like gambling, cheating on a test brings into serious question the integrity of the official. If they're going to lie about one thing related to officiating the game, what's to stop them with other topics. Will they favor a team who's coach is a family friend? Will they hang a partner out in order to make the look bad for their own benefit? Will they lie about their partners to obtain a better assignment?

All these things you referenced did not talk about test taking directly or the process to take a test. They talked about integrity, but that is very subjective. Some people think you might lack integrity if you live in the same town of a school that you work a game. Or you should not work a game if you knew a coach for a long time. Once again, you have shown nothing that is concrete or absolute other than what you personally think. Also they talk about morals but morals are very personal and what someone might think is wrong, another feels is just and moral. Cameron, you and I over the years have disagreed on many things and the way I do things or feel is commonly accepted where I live and across the state. So if you feel this is unethical, you have that right. You are just not going to change my mind. This is a public forum and the test in question is taken across the country. If people want that kind of consideration, change the process and you will not have to worry about people taken advantage of this loop hole.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1) That is something Alaska is going to have to deal with.

2) For the record I have not given out the test and I live in Illinois and there is no such mandate. The test is made public to us online and this year it came out before my birthday in late September.

1) Agree.

2) A better choice of words might be "private to you online". The test is passwod-protected, isn't it? That means that the exam is not meant or intended for the general public, and it is also not available to the general public (including officials from other states) through the IHSA web site. As for the "mandate", I'm also quite sure that the IHSA never intended for Illinois officials to send that exam out to officials in 49 other states that might not have written the exact same NFHS exam in their home state/association yet.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Camron, I do not care what other people do with the test. If any organization is afraid of their officials getting a copy of the test, then they need to change how they distribute the test or how they administer the test. Or make the test an open book test like my state and do not sweat the details.

Question?

According to the IHSA website, to advance in classification in Illinois from a "recognized" official to a "certified" official, you must go to a designated site and write a proctored, closed-book two-hour max exam. You must pass that exam with at least an 85% score. Correct?

Now, that particular exam is the NFHS Part II exam. It is to be written on November 20th. in Illinois this year. Do you feel that it would be OK for an Illinois official to post on this site before November 20th., asking for someone to send him the NFHS Part II exam and answers? Do you also feel that it's OK, if you had that exam and answers, to then send that exam and answers to other Illinois officials before November 20th.? If Michigan officials were writing the same FED exam closed-book for certification or advancement on November 30th., would it be OK for you to pass your exam and answers along to them also before November 30th.?

[tjones1]

Anyone know where I can get more?!?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Question?

According to the IHSA website, to advance in classification in Illinois from a "recognized" official to a "certified" official, you must go to a designated site and write a proctored, closed-book two-hour max exam. You must pass that exam with at least an 85% score. Correct?

Now, that particular exam is the NFHS Part II exam. It is to be written on November 20th. in Illinois this year. Do you feel that it would be OK for an Illinois official to post on this site before November 20th., asking for someone to send him the NFHS Part II exam and answers? Do you also feel that it's OK, if you had that exam and answers, to then send that exam and answers to other Illinois officials before November 20th.? If Michigan officials were writing the same FED exam closed-book for certification or advancement on November 30th., would it be OK for you to pass your exam and answers along to them also before November 30th.?

JR,

Sort of, to go to recognized you have to go to the site, however, the Part II exam is still open book. From recognized to certified is a closed book exam. And yes, must get an 85% either way.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tjones1

JR,

Sort of, to go to recognized you have to go to the site, however, the Part II exam is still open book. From recognized to certified is a closed book exam. And yes, must get an 85% either way.

To attain a "certified" rating, on top of getting at least 85% on Part II, don't you also have to get at least 90% on the NFHS Part I exam?

You know, the Part I exam that's meaningless?

And, for the "Power Points" used to determine post-season assignments, aren't more points given out for a higher certification level, and for how well that you did on the Part I exam? Don't you get 5 power-points for getting 97+% on the Part I exam, as opposed to only 1 power-point for getting 80%? If so, then it seems to me that having the Part I exam and answers early sureasheck could make a difference in Illinois.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And, for the "Power Points" used to determine post-season assignments, aren't more points given out for a higher certification level, and for how well that you did on the Part I exam? Don't you get 5 power-points for getting 97+% on the Part I exam, as opposed to only 1 power-point for getting 80%? If so, then it seems to me that having the Part I exam and answers early sureasheck could make a difference in Illinois.

Then that is something that Illinois will have to deal with woody.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

To attain a "certified" rating, on top of getting at least 85% on Part II, don't you also have to get at least 90% on the NFHS Part I exam?

You know, the Part I exam that's meaningless?

And, for the "Power Points" used to determine post-season assignments, aren't more points given out for a higher certification level, and for how well that you did on the Part I exam? Don't you get 5 power-points for getting 97+% on the Part I exam, as opposed to only 1 power-point for getting 80%? If so, then it seems to me that having the Part I exam and answers early sureasheck could make a difference in Illinois.

You are correct.