The Test....

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is an open book test!!! Why did you not just go over the test with your association before you submitted the results? You do not need to buy a program to do that. I have a group that goes over the test before our association discusses the test to make sure we all go over the test so that our scores are not in the tank. Before anyone starts going off, this is a widely acceptable practice and has been in many cases encouraged. This is not a test that is expected to be taken in a dark room all by yourself.

Peace

This is the pot calling the kettle black. This is no different than anything that has been done on this site before.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The questions are worded in a technical way to see if you really know the topic, not just to make it more difficult for no good reason.

The real issue is that they're written in technical terms instead of the general laymens terms which all too many people (including officials) think. They're trying to expose the real rule and get the officials to know the rule itself instead of the most common application.

We're in agreement here. I didn't say they're made pointlessly more difficult. I said they're more difficult, and gave the same reason you did.
Why is what I wrote BS?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

This is the pot calling the kettle black. This is no different than anything that has been done on this site before.

I am not completely sure what you are referring to. But I am mainly talking about from an IHSA perspective. I really do not care what other states do because to be licensed in Illinois can be different as to how this test is taken. I will leave it at that because I am tried of debating what should or should not be done with an open book test.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

This is the pot calling the kettle black. This is no different than anything that has been done on this site before.

Are you referring to the occasional new posters who ask for the test answers?

If so, it's completely different than going to a meeting to review them with your local assigning/governing organization.

Accountability is the main difference.

[Idaho]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

BS.


The questions are worded in a technical way to see if you really know the topic, not just to make it more difficult for no good reason.

The real issue is that they're written in technical terms instead of the general laymens terms which all too many people (including officials) think. They're trying to expose the real rule and get the officials to know the rule itself instead of the most common application.

Agreed.

This year as a study guide I went through and for each question, wrote down T/F as well as the rules reference to read through during the season. You will notice that for 9 out of the 10 questions, they are worded almost word-for-word as in the rules book. They are not worded any differently than the rules book. You just have to read carefully.

[Splute]

The one I remember most went something like this (not verbatim):
B1 is intentionally fouled by A1 while dribbling. The official calls a player control foul. Is the official correct? Had I not studied questions like this before hand, I probably would have missed it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Splute

The one I remember most went something like this (not verbatim):
B1 is intentionally fouled by A1 while dribbling. The official calls a player control foul. Is the official correct? Had I not studied questions like this before hand, I probably would have missed it.

That question is simply testing whether you know the definitions of a player control foul and a common foul.
What is the problem with that?

It also has a serious impact on the court. If there is an intentional foul and the official incorrectly rules that it is a player control foul and doesn't award any FTs, then we have a correctable error situation. We certainly don't want that.

[Idaho]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That question is simply testing whether you know the definitions of a player control foul and a common foul.
What is the problem with that?

It also has a serious impact on the court. If there is an intentional foul and the official incorrectly rules that it is a player control foul and doesn't award any FTs, then we have a correctable error situation. We certainly don't want that.

It's worded poorly, though. That's the problem with the question. These kind of questions I do have a problem with.

If the question is meant to imply that B1 was dribbling, it's a misplaced modifier. If it's meant to imply that A1 was dribbling, it's still grammatically incorrect.

If B1 was dribbling, you shoot FTs. If A1 was dribbling, you have a PC and no free throws. Or do you? Thinking about it, I think you do, don't you? You can't have an intentional foul that is a PC foul, can you?

Either way, the way it's written, you could interpret either player to be the dribbler.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That question is simply testing whether you know the definitions of a player control foul and a common foul.
What is the problem with that?

It also has a serious impact on the court. If there is an intentional foul and the official incorrectly rules that it is a player control foul and doesn't award any FTs, then we have a correctable error situation. We certainly don't want that.

If you know the definition of a PC foul and you do not know how to enforce it, then that can be a big problem. You also need to know where to put the ball at, who is shooting FTs if necessary and who is ejected if ejected at all. There are a lot of things these test do very little on. If you really want to test rules knowledge, you have to ask not only what the rule is, but how do you enforce the situation after the call.

Then again, that is my opinion.

Peace

[Splute]

My initial problem had to do with the wording of "intentional". When I first read the question I wasnt thinking in terms of fouls when I read over the word intentional, rather the dribbler didnt attempt to avoid contact and thus a player control. However, if you read it to mean the dribbler caused an intentional foul then that must be your call and not the PC. Once I understood that, I knew what to look for in the questions.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Idaho

You can't have an intentional foul that is a PC foul, can you?

Now you're getting it. By definition team control and player control fouls must be common fouls. An intentional foul is not a common foul, so it can never be a player control foul.

Originally Posted by Idaho

Either way, the way it's written, you could interpret either player to be the dribbler.

It doesn't matter which player is dribbling. Either way it isn't a player control foul because the foul is intentional.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It doesn't matter which player is dribbling. Either way it isn't a player control foul because the foul is intentional.

And similarly it doesn't matter if there's team control but no player control either.

[Nevadaref]

Right. The test question could simply say, "During the third quarter one of the ten players on the court committed an intentional foul. The official should rule this a player control foul," and the reader would have enough information to know the answer.

Once it is known that the foul is intentional, one does not need to know whether or not there was player or team control. It doesn't matter.

[Idaho]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It doesn't matter which player is dribbling. Either way it isn't a player control foul because the foul is intentional.

Aha!

The light just went on.

Thanks once again.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Idaho

Aha!

The light just went on.

Thanks once again.

Glad to hear that you are now understanding how the definitions make this stuff work.
We tell our new officials that Rule 4 is the most important one. It contains everything that they need to know to figure out a complicated play. Study those definitions and you will have all that you need to work these things out for yourself.