I just finished taking the NF rules test part 1. It is harder than last year. There are only a few questions that were similar to last year, so it want be so easy to just look at last years test. By the way the case book does not have an index. Mary Struckhoff, rules editor, explained in a email that it was a logistic nightmare to put an index in this year. Apparently none of the other case books have an index either. The test this year is more realistic in that it reads like the case book, but be carefule not to assume to much or read into the question more than what's there. I missed 4 questions my first time through it. Then I re-read the ones I had questioned and got them right. No mistakes this year, that I could find from question to correct answer. There are 47 answers true and 53 false, pretty good balance. There is a question on almost all of the new rule changes, especially trow-ins section U on the test (Rule 7-5). Good luck to those who have to take Part 1.:)

Thanks, but the question we all have is are there
any "typos" or "we'll accept both true or false" questions?

I didn't see any typos or clearly wrong answers. There are a couple that could be interpreted in different ways.

The FED puts out a single answer for each question. A state may decide to accept either answer on some questions -- so I don't think you'll get an answer to that here, unless someone has specific information from your state.

Still waiting for the Part 1 Test
 

Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) has yet to distribute the test. I just attended the annual pre-season meeting was informed that it will be released on Oct. 29 and is due postmarked no later than Nov 15.

Point of Observation:
Just an observation about the meeting... The WIAA used a video distributed by NFHS (2000 Rules) that has an illustration of a block/charge that is grossly wrong. Additionally, there are numerous "no call" hand-checking fouls during the mock games. This tape would be extremely confusing if I where a 1st year official trying to define what is acceptable. This is disappointing when you consider the POE on hand-checking.
Are any other state organizations using this tape as well?

NF Rules Test Part 1 #50
 

Bob is correct, as I did not find any typos this year and I did not find any questions that could be answered both true or false. For instance #50 "It is a violation if jumper A1 catches a tapped ball before or after it has touched the floor." How would you answer it? Read the question twice before you answer.

answers to part 1
 

Where can I get the answers to part 1 of the test? We took the test a couple of weeks ago and it was sent to our state office for grading, and I am curious as to what the NF says are the correct answers.

I have the test, but they have yet to give us the answer key.

BTW....Jerry, I answered #50 false since it is not a violation once the ball touches the floor.

NF Rules #50
 

You are right, the answer is false. The first half is true but the seond half is false making the whole question false. A little tricky if don't read the whole thing. I would have answered #16 false but it is true "Only one visible manufacturer's logo/trademark is permitted on the pants, compression shorts, and sweatbands/headbands". What is left out of the question is 2 1/2" x 2 1/2". Last year that question would have been false. Since no dimension is mentioned in the question you have to assume the correct dimension is implied. Therefore 'T'. Later.

Here are the 'True' answers to the Part 1 test:

[deleted by moderator]

[Edited by Brad on Oct 15th, 2001 at 10:51 PM]

Can you give us the false answers as well? ;) ;)

Ren

[Edited by Brad on Oct 15th, 2001 at 10:51 PM]

Yeah, what about matching?

Jus a suggestion...
 

You may want to consider deleting the posts with the answers posted. Some states use the Part 1 test for their state exam.

If someone decides to cheat they are only cheating themselves...

Besides, how do you know if KDM has the right answer or if he is just a crazed official that doesn't know the rules :)

Not a good judge at all.
 

Well if knowing the diameter of the ring and the length of net makes you a good official, then I guess I am always going to be a bad one. You have to know the rules, but those test sure do not prove a thing. All they want you to remember is the wording, not the actual application.

Peace

I agree with you to a certain extent... I think that the main objective of these tests is to get officials in the rule books. (Although I realize that they are used as part of many officials' rankings, etc.)

There are several technical questions that do not really test your knowledge; however, there are also legitimate questions that many officials do not know the answers to. Too many officials don't understand the correctable error rule, etc.

It does seem tedious to try to figure out the administration of a two-shot foul, followed by an unsportsmanlike technical foul, followed by a fight with two players from one bench and three from the other entering the court during the fight.

But it will probably feel worse when it happens to you near the end of a tie ball game if you haven't prepared yourself for the situation.

Re: Not a good judge at all.
 

I don't think I ever remember seeing the diameter of the ring being on the test.

However, there is no way an official can know how ot apply a rule they don't know. I've seen many otherwise great officials screw up on less common situations and even some routine ones simply because they go by the "common" understanding of the rule rather than the actual rule.