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.

Your attitude sort of surprises me.
 

I'm afraid that's not true. In many states, exams are used to determine whether an official achieves certification to work varsity games or playoffs games. Cheaters cheat themsleves, but they also cheat the players, coaches, fans, and their fellow officials. To each his own I guess. That's just my opinion.

Because we receive Part 1 as a practice exam, so I have the answers as well.

Anybody else have the answers to any other exams they would like to share? :(

Who cares.
 

Well in my state the Part 1 is an open book exam. We all take the test together for the most part in your particular officials association. Now we do have to take the Part 2 Exam for for promotion. And depending on your level that you are trying to get promoted to, it can be a closed or open book test. But it is only required for those going for promotion in that particular year. And your ranking has much more significance to playoff opportunities than taking a test.

Just because you get the answers does not mean you are a better an official or not. I think it means much more if your understand why the answers are true or false than whether or not you got the answer right. If you do not understand why a answer is false is much more significant than guessing one or the other.

Just an opinion.

Re: Who cares.
 

I think a lot of people care, Jeff. We're not really discussing whether taking or passing a test makes you a better official or not. Studying the rules, reading the case book and learning how to interpret them makes you a better official. That's the real purpose of test. Therefore, it makes no sense to just post the answers on the Internet. As I said before, such cheaters hurt the players, coaches, fans, and their fellow officials.

OK -- some good points have been made about NOT having the answers sitting our here on the discussion board. If someone really wants to cheat, I'm sure that not having the answers here is not going to stop them, but it doesn't send the best message to have the answers posted, so they are gone...

Someone emailed me about this the other day (forgive me that I don't remember who) and asked if it was a big deal to post them. I replied that it wasn't (and I still don't think that it's a major deal), but it seems that enough people use the test as a significant part of an official's ranking, etc., that we probably should not post the answers until later in the season, after all tests have been taken.

Thanks,
Brad

You should and can.
 

TH, please do not miss my point. I am not saying you should not care. I am saying that whether someone gets an 80% or a 100% is not going to prove anything as an official. If you cannot apply the rules, passing a test is not what it takes to officiate.

If test were the best determiner of officating ability, why do the higher levels not take them. I will be doing college games for the first time this year, I do not have to take a test of any kind. Now there is some tests that you can take and are developed, but you do not have to pass one to become a college official. And the should be the case for HS. When we go to HS camps, rules are almost never a focus. So what do you call those officials that do higher than HS levels? Are they cheaters because they did not have to take a test. The rules are very important, but whether you know if the logo on the compression shorts is 2 inches or 2 1/4 inches has nothing to do with officiating. Because knowing the intent and why these things are there is much more important. And the fact that many of the questions are poorly worded and vague and my state always throws out one or two questions because of this fact, why put so much focus on them.

I have no problem with taking them. I have no problem dealing with them at all. But calling people that have the answers as cheaters is a bit much. And it does not hurt anyone because they get a 60% or a 81%, you still have to officiate a game and understand why those answers are true or false. Knowing why is always more important than knowing the answers.

Peace

Re: So, let me get this straight.
 

If your state requires you to take and pass either the NF Part 1, Part 2, or IAABO Refresher exam, and you get the answers off an Internet site, that's not cheating? C'mon Jeff, you're smarter than that.

Yes, you do still have to officiate the game. And people will be put into situations, becaused they've cheated, that they're not prepared for.

Let's say a certain state requires an official to make at least an 80 on the exam. An official who has made below 80 for the past three years makes 100 because he finds the answers are posted on a discussion board. Now, this official can work varsity ball. Although he appears to be ready, he's not because he doesn't spend time studying the rule book and case book. Yes, indeed, he does hurt those whose games he officiates and those who officiate with him.

As long as exams are used for certification, people who cheat to improve their score are definitely hurting the game. Surely you can see that. :(

Sorry I Started This Mess
 

I apologize for starting this mess. It was my intention to help officials as they took Part 1, not to post answers wholesale to fill in an answer sheet. I had hoped that as officials took the test and came across a question that they were unsure of the answer. They would post the question, a discussion would follow, a consensus, then I would post the correct answer and rule reference. In Arkansas we are required to take Part 1, open book. I have scheduled a local rules meeting for 10/22 and invited a number of officials to come fellowship and take the test. Each person reads a question, gives their answer, discussion, ageement and I give the correct answer if they have it wrong. I checked with Brad about giving out answers to the test, but not in a wholesale fasion that earlier was posted, but has been removed and we thought it would be a good idea. I never thought the discussion would go to arguing about the value of the test or the value of studying the rule book. I assumed all good officals did that. Foolish me. Again, I apologize for starting this thread, my intentions were good but perhaps bad timing. Sooo Sorry.

Re: You should and can.
 

Quote:

I have no problem with taking them. I have no problem dealing with them at all. But calling people that have the answers as cheaters is a bit much. And it does not hurt anyone because they get a 60% or a 81%, you still have to officiate a game and understand why those answers are true or false. Knowing why is always more important than knowing the answers. Peace

So what you are saying is that someone can memorize what is on the test, but not ever get into the rulebook and understand the rules? Taking a test only shows how well you understand the exact wording of the test, not your true knowledge of the rules.

Remember half the questions are repeat questions year in, year out. And it only tests a very small aspect of the rulebook. I did not understand half the test had new rules until I got my new rulebooks (we can take the exam online in Illinois).

We are just going to half to disagree on this one, posting answers means nothing. It only shows that you can remember wording and verbage rather than understanding rules and exceptions to those rules that make real rules understanding clear. Just knowing one thing in an article does not help you understand all the applications. And that is all the test do, focus on very small aspects of the rules.

Peace

No need to apologize, Jerry. You didn't do anything wrong. Rut and I have been disagreeing for years. ;)

TH and I
 

BktBallRef, and I have been at it for years about different stuff. But for the most part we share the same ideals and goals in officiating, we just do not always agree on how to achieve or maintain those things. We are just having another one of our disagreements philosophies that we do not share. But just like anything or anyone, a lot of what you believe is where you live. Tests are used in both of our states differently, so that is where this disagreements has it's origins.

Peace