Works really well for me. Im thrilled. :)

I sit down with a senior official and go over it. It helps me understand. He gives examples.. its great. I feel more prepared too IMO.

To Make A Long Story Long ...
 

Here, on my local Connecticut board, we've gone through a few different procedures regarding taking the annual IAABO Refresher Exam, which counts ten percent toward our individual rating, and ranking.

Many years ago, we were all expected to take the exam, individually, as an open book exam, at home, over a two week period. This was when the internet was nothing more than a twinkle in Al Gore's eye.

The way it always turned out was that some officials, usually some of our more veteran officials, would somehow gain access to the IAABO answer sheet, I'm not sure how, but those answer sheets always seemed to be available to a few officials. In some cases those officials with the answer sheets would simply fill in the IAABO answers and submit their exams. In other cases, those officials would give the answers to some of their close friends on the board, who would then simply fill in the IAABO answers and submit their exams. In yet other cases, officials would meet in small, informal groups, having already filled in their own answers on their open book, take home exam, and go over the answers together, comparing their answers with the IAABO answers, that, as I already stated above, seemed to be available to a few officials every year. When the meeting was over, all the officials in this small, informal group, would have the IAABO answers on their answer sheet.

Back then, I was on the rating committee that was in charge of correcting these submitted exams. For those of you not familiar with the annual IAABO Refresher Exam, it's contains many hard, tricky, often poorly worded, questions, with answers that, very often, hinge on a single word in the question. When we were using this procedure, and I remind you, "officially" we were all expected to take the exam, individually, as an open book exam, at home, the scores fell into two groups. Those who did not follow the "official" procedure, and had access to an answer sheet, either individually, from a friend, or after participating in one of these small, informal, groups, had almost all the questions correct. The reason I say "almost" is that every year the international IAABO organization, for reasons that I could never fathom, makes at least one mistake on the answer sheet, and I'm not talking about a mistake in interpretation, I mean an outright mistake, like two plus two equals five. The group of officials that followed the "official" procedure, that is, without any access to the answer sheet, usually got many questions incorrect, I told you the exam is very difficult, even as an open book exam, with many tricky, often poorly worded, questions, with answers that hinge on a single word in the question, in other words, it's a poorly constructed exam.

Our rating committee saw the disparity of the scores, and the unfairness, with these two groups of officials, so we came up with a new procedure, in which we "officially" encouraged officials to get together in informal, small, study groups, to go over their answers together, without acknowledging the existence of the availability of the answer sheets. We kind of covered our eyes to the existence of "the elephant in the room", i.e. the existence of these answer sheets. We did this for several years, and noticed a change in the scores. Now, a much larger group of officials would get "almost" all the questions correct, but there was still a sizable group that would get many questions incorrect. Looking into this, our committee discovered that some of our newer officials had trouble, not yet having made friends on our board, finding an informal study group to participate in.

Our newest procedure actually sets up about a dozen "official" study groups, held at different locations, on different dates, in a two week time frame, with at least one study leader, usually a member of our executive committee, who has the answer sheet. We must complete our exam, at home, on our own, which is our "ticket" into one of these groups. We go over each question, discussing the answer, before getting the correct answer, which often leads to further discussion. Those of us who participate in these "official" study groups must sign in at these meetings, and by doing so, get full credit for the exam. We don't even have to submit our exam.

Attendance at these study groups is voluntary. There are some officials who choose not to attend, and they can submit their individual exam to the rating committee for scoring. Again, these exams fall into two groups. Some have many incorrect answers, again a testament as to how difficult, and poorly constructed, the exam is. Another group has "almost" perfect scores, "almost" because these officials got the answers from some of their friends who had attended a study group, and the "mistakes" from IAABO answer sheet showed up in these scores.

Our latest change will try to stop the group of officials who do not actually take the exam, who do not attend a study group, and simply copy the answers from a friend. At our final business meeting last season, we tried to pass a constitutional by-law change that would make it mandatory to attend one of these study groups, again with a completed exam needed as a "ticket" into one of these meetings. Those that attend one of these study groups would get full credit, again counting toward their rating, and ranking, on the exam. Those who didn't attend a study group would get no credit, a major hit, ten percent, against their ratings, and ranking. The constitutional by-law change didn't pass after a vote, because someone brought up the fact that an official who is unable to attend a meeting due to a health issue, family emergency, or business emergency, will have no option, the way the by-law change was written, but to get no credit for the exam. Next year this change will be voted on again, but with a option that in such emergency circumstances, the executive committee can vote to give full credit to officials who are unable to attend a study group as a result of such an emergency circumstance.

What's our purpose in regard to the exam? First, to get everyone to actually take the exam, individually, as an open book exam. The second purpose is to get everyone to attend a study group to get involved with discussions about the exam questions, and answers.

To make a short story short......
 

Study groups, open-book exams, etc. etc. do <b>not</b> test an official's true rules knowledge imo. The only test that will really do that is a closed-book, time-limited proctored exam. Anything else...you're just kidding yourselves.

Just my probably very unpopular opinion....:)

Intent And Purpose ...
 

I agree. The purpose of our local procedure is not to test an official's true rules knowledge. We know that our procedures don't do that. The purpose is to get everyone to start the season by opening up their rulebook, which some haven't opened since March, or earlier, and to get involved with discussions about the rules, especially the new rules.

Why do you assume that your opinion would be very unpopular? I wouldn't mind taking a closed-book, time-limited, proctored exam every year to earn the right, and privilege, of officiating interscholastic basketball games. It would certainly make me more knowledgeable of the rules. After twenty-seven years, I think I have a pretty good handle on the rules, but I can always improve (see my recent thread regarding technical-type, technical fouls), and a closed-book, time-limited, proctored exam every year would certainly force me to become more knowledgeable than I am presently, and, perhaps, give me more confidence as an official.

Test only test what you know on the test. Tests do not test your ability to be an official which is much more than knowing how long the net is or how wide the lines on the floor are. And if you think a test is going to prove that you can referee, then you are kidding yourself. As I have said, you can know those insignificant rules, but you cannot make a foul call. Or you cannot recognize an obvious carry. I am in the process of watching tapes of games for a class I am going to be running and I do not think it is rules tests that makes an official not see a player be fouled or identify when a foul occurred.

Peace

The Cord Of The Net Has Less Than A 120 Thread Count. Penalty? Citation Please ...
 

Which is why the Refresher Exam only counts 10% here in my little part of Connecticut. Colleague ratings count 80%. Attendance at meetings counts 5%. Availability to the assigner counts 5%. This overall rating, averaged over a three year period, determines your ranking, which determines the level, and number of games, that you will be assigned.

But I still think that knowledge of the rules is one important part of being an official. You always hope that you don't have to use 2-10 in a game, but if, and when, you do, you better know how to correct an error, because if you don't do it right, you can bet that the coach, fans, local sportswriters, local cable televison announcers, and your buddies, over a cold adult beverage, after the game, will give you a hard time.

This May Describe A Good Official ...
 

Here's what we use to rate our colleagues. Note that only one guideline deals with rule knowledge. With four officials at a site, two varsity, and two junior varsity, each of the four officials should get three ratings based on that particular game.

RATINGS GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION

REACTION TIME
Reacts quickly enough to make a decision at the moment of its occurrence.
Makes quick and positive decisions, especially with respect to the “close ones”.
Takes the time to prevent an error from being made.

INTESTINAL FORTITUDE
Remains consistent when calling violations or fouls - without regard to the score, whom it may
hurt, or how it may effect future relations with the coach.

CONFIDENCE
Exhibits a confident manner i.e. attention to detail, alertness, firmness, and timeliness of his/her
reaction to a situation.
Has a resonant, strong voice that is supported by proper mechanics for purpose of clarification.

POISE
Has a quiet influence on the game that relieves tensions and creates a steady effect upon
contestants (both players and coaches alike).
Has control of his/her emotions.
Is courteous and polite.

CONSISTENCY
Is consistent in all calls regardless of situation or point of time in the game. For example
consistency in the determination of a block vs. a charge.

JUDGMENT
Uses fair and unbiased judgment and common sense in applying the rules of the game.

COOPERATION
Has the ability to work effectively as a “team” with his/her fellow official
Is not overly sensitive to constructive criticism.
Has a sense of loyalty to fellow officials, a willingness to share the responsibility and avoids
attempts to shift the blame.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE RULES
Presents a thorough knowledge of the rules of basketball
Appears to make his/her decision with consideration to the effect the calling, or equally as
important, the not calling of a rule violation will have. (i.e. advantage / disadvantage)

MECHANICS OF OFFICIATING
Utilizes proper mechanics, up-to-date techniques and procedures as detailed in the Officials
Manual.

APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONING
Is in excellent physical condition and exhibits hustle and energy
Official’s uniform and overall appearance is neat, clean and well kept

I never said that rules knowledge was not important. I just said that a test is not going to prove that someone knows or does not know the rules.

And I can tell you until you face a correctable error situation, most people are not going to know they handled this correctly until after the situation. Or they would have to see it take place. And I have never seen a NF Test ask on how it is applied, but point out what is a correctable error situation. You need to know how to apply the rule than just know what situations are correctable error situations. The problem I see in rules mistakes are often not just what the rule says, but what you do after you make an application.

Also Billy, you can list a bunch of things or this canned information, it does not mean that all of that stuff is correct or accurate in everyone’s eyes. We do not even agree on the importance of a rules tests and different states and associations have different approaches on how to train or what they require their officials to do to maintain a license. I am about to start teaching a basketball class and I attend camps in different areas and this list has never been used to illustrate how to officiate. That suggests like anything in life people have different opinions on how to be successful and not to be successful.

Peace

Just One Fifth Of The Third Smallest State ...
 

"I have never seen a NF Test ask on how it is applied, but point out what is a correctable error situation." There has always been at least one correctable error application question on the IAABO Entrance Exam, at at least a couple of correctable error application questions on the IAABO Refresher Exam.

"The problem I see in rules mistakes are often not just what the rule says, but what you do after you make an application." You hit the nail right on the head. Especially with the IAABO Refresher Exam, the correct answer to the question very often hinges on, not the violation, or the foul, but what happens after the violation, or foul. That often tricks up a lot of people.

"We do not even agree on the importance of a rules tests and different states and associations have different approaches on how to train or what they require their officials to do to maintain a license. That suggests like anything in life people have different opinions on how to be successful and not to be successful." I don't believe that I ever suggested that what I post is appropriate for everywhere in the world where basketball is played under NFHS rules. Case in point:

My first post in this thread: "Here, on my local Connecticut board..."
Second post: "The purpose of our local procedure is not to test an official's true rules knowledge..."
Third post: "Which is why the Refresher Exam only counts 10% here in my little part of Connecticut..."
Fourth post: "Here's what we use to rate our colleagues..."

These are the procedures and guidelines that we use. Not only don't I think that they would be appropriate for all officials groups, there are officials on my local board, who don't even think that they work for us, and would like to change them.

I'm sure that you'll probably be passing out handouts at your training sessions. I would love to see those, and use what I can, with proper source notations, at out training sessions that begin Thursday night, and continue through the month of October. Why reinvent the wheel? If you've got something, especially something that might be unique, that works for you, and your local, or state, organization, why not share it with other officials organizations? Why keep something that works a secret?