The Test....
 

Ok.. so I sent in my test... I thought I did really well... ya.. no!! I got a 70.. WTF...

I went over 2/3 of it with a very senior official who is on the rules commity.. and did the rest out of the book.. the only thing I could think of is that maybe I misaligned the numbers or somthing. I could not have done that poorly... :confused:

I'm going to my clinic this weekend, and I'll retake it after that. Just venting a little.

thanks. :mad:

Prior to my test in 06', I bought an Athletic Rules Study program for basketball. In this program it had 5 years worth of old test questions. It was tremendous, helped me get a 96 and should do you a lot of good as well.

I tool a small quiz once. It was called a "quizzical". Maybe you should take a small test? :rolleyes:

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

Except for Padgett, who is encouraged to stay in a dark room by himself as much as possible; even when taking open book tests. Otherwise, children tend to get frightened.

If a small pig is a piglet and a small ring is a ringlet, what's a small toy?

Oh, and how did you tool it?

That is the most frustrating part. Like I said.. I went over most of the test with a senior official who was on the rules commitee. The rest I did out of the book.

I dont know what happened. Very frustrating cause I understand the rules. I read the posts here and understand eveything you are talking about.

Oh well.. Like I said.. I'm going to the hands on clinic this sat and they have the rules interpretation meeting at the end. I'll take the test again after that.

Replace "encouraged" with "required" and you just about have it. :o

if electricity comes from electrons, does that mean that morality comes from morons?...just curious.

Did you take the test online or mail the test into the IHSA? Also PM me because there were some other questions I wanted to ask you outside of this forum.

Peace

Is this the first year you took the test? As most of us would agree, the test questions are not always the most clearly written statements you will ever read. The first couple of times you do it can be tough. After a while you get used to their format and get to know what they expect. Don't beat yourself up for it too much.

Yes.. this is my first time.

These questions are worded in a way that makes them purposefully more difficult. I think they do this so you need more than just a cursory knowledge of the rules to pass it. You need to actually understand the individual rules.

The trade-off is that the questions are sometimes too confusing.

Sooo glad to hear you guys say that... I thought it was just me... :(

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/thumbsup.gif

I found my practice test and this is how that question was worded:
A-1, while dribbling, intentionally pushes B-1. Official rules this a player control foul. Is the official correct?

The wording "intentionally pushes", did not register with me as an "intentional foul" when I first read it. To me it was a common foul; thus PC. However, I was inlightened by seasoned refs that when these terms are used (ie: intentional) that is the intent of the question.
Hope that helps clear up why I initially had trouble with this type question. :)

Ha, cute. I didnt say I was enlightened with spelling attributes.

And I've noticed this going through the tests. A lot of my rule references contain two citations, the second one most often being from rule 4.

Another thing to remember...team A is the offensive team and team B is the defensive team. If there is a change of posession, the A's and B's refer to the status of the teams at the start.

OK, perhaps I was a bit harsh. In your first sentence I infered that you believed the questions were worded it in a specific way merely for the sake of being more difficult....but not simply to be technically precise.