Sub becomes a Player?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

NFHS wants officials to miss questions to which they (the officials) were sure that they knew the answer. That moment often sends officials back to the book, which is the ultimate objective.

Agree.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ambiguous, vague, and poorly worded questions are not accidental but tactical.

In my opinion, you're giving the NFHS, and in my case, IAABO, too much credit. I just think that they don't know how to construct a fair exam. Put an experienced high school teacher, maybe an English teacher, who's a veteran official, on the exam committee, and I'm sure that we'd get a much better test. The exam committee also needs a better editor, one who can fact check, and correct errors. Whatever happened to the concept of proofreading? If I was the chair of a committee that was responsible for distributing exams to thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of officials, I would certainly have the exam proofread several times before publication.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

I am just want to see if the following question is splitting hairs with the way it is worded??

No, it's not. You are.

I am probably reading too much into the question??

Yes, you are.

[palmettoref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good grief. I wasn't knocking you at all. My point was, in reality, this question itself does the exact opposite of splitting hairs; it inappropriately conflates two terms.

The natural response when reading the question, especially when the stakes of the test are high (ratings, money, or whatever), is to overthink the question and start splitting hairs. We've all done it, and to a degree, we all still do it from time to time.

If you wanted to know if we think the question should be worded differently, you should have asked that question instead of getting huffy when we don't answer a question you didn't ask.

My further point is that the NFHS has already demonstrated an inability to recognize the difference between those two terms.

And I agree with the fact that questions like this, causes us to overthink the question and could most likely cause us to miss such a simple question. And yes the stakes are high if the test given in your state or association can qualify or disqualify you from participating in post season or championship games.

Personally, I have a full understanding of when a sub becomes a player or a player becomes bench personnel. As well as when the ball is live or dead. Imo this, is somewhat of a tricky question that I have seen before and really dislike seeing simply because of one word ----- after vs. when!! We all read questions that will immediately refer us back to the rule book because something about that question either does not sound right or maybe the wording of the question is different than what we remember. And that is what prompted my initial post. The wording of that question was different than what is printed in the rule book!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

And I agree with the fact that questions like this, causes us to overthink the question and could most likely cause us to miss such a simple question. And yes the stakes are high if the test given in your state or association can qualify or disqualify you from participating in post season or championship games.

Personally, I have a full understanding of when a sub becomes a player or a player becomes bench personnel. As well as when the ball is live or dead. Imo this, is somewhat of a tricky question that I have seen before and really dislike seeing simply because of one word ----- after vs. when!! We all read questions that will immediately refer us back to the rule book because something about that question either does not sound right or maybe the wording of the question is different than what we remember. And that is what prompted my initial post. The wording of that question was different than what is printed in the rule book!!

Agreed. When I started officiating in Iowa, the open book test is all you needed in order to work as a "temporary" official. You only got that for two years; but passing that test made the difference between working or not.

That said, if you can't get a 70 even while missing all the trick/poorly worded questions, then i doubt fixing the questions will solve the problem.

[palmettoref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed. When I started officiating in Iowa, the open book test is all you needed in order to work as a "temporary" official. You only got that for two years; but passing that test made the difference between working or not.

That said, if you can't get a 70 even while missing all the trick/poorly worded questions, then i doubt fixing the questions will solve the problem.

Ditto that!!

I will continue to read and post!!

Thanks for the dialogue ---- have a good season!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think the elementary and childish responses should indicate to you that your question is elementary (although certainly not childish). Your questions were actually answered correctly and fairly quickly.

The test question is not, in fact, splitting hairs. It takes "when" and "after" to be the same for the purposes of becoming a legal player. Your question attempts to split that hair, and the responses you got seem to indicate that your concern is unnecessary.

After When you've been on the forum for a while, you'll realize that many questions are answered quickly and then the thread becomes a series of childish inside jokes. This is normal and is not a reflection on the person who has asked the original question.

Feel free to post your own childish joke when after you've read this post.

Shut up.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Feel free to post your own childish joke when after you've read this post.

Originally Posted by palmettoref

I will take that only as a reflection of the quality (or lack of) of the NFHS question ----- as my post was a direct copy of their question!!

I could care less about how fast I receive a response from my post. If the response is sarcastic as a lot of the response are, then how fast or slow I receive it is irrelevant.

Although I have not posted near as many threads as some members of the forum, I visit this site quite regularly, especially during the season and sometimes cringe when I read some of the inappropriate and catty response that some members post. Just simply answer the questions and quite trying to knock other members down. This isn't grade school guys !!!!!

This is your childish joke? I don't get it.

P.S. -- Nobody has knocked you AT ALL in this whole thread.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Shut up.

Come on. You smiled. Just a little. Admit it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Come on. You smiled. Just a little. Admit it.

Nope, I cringed.

There's a lot of that going around, I hear.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, I cringed.

There's a lot of that going around, I hear.

I think I've been insulted, but I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you when after I've thought about it a while.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think I've been insulted, but I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you when after I've thought about it a while.

Subtle.

Very subtle.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

I am just asking a simple question. However it only seems reasonable to me that if the NFHS is going to use this question, then why not use this question as it is written in their rule book. I agree that if a sub is a player when the ball becomes live, then he is a player after the ball becomes live. I am simply wanting other opinions regarding this basic question without the elementary and childish responses from the guys who post most frequently. Responses like this does not encourage other members to post questions.

Wouldn't you think they'd want officials who could understand the rules rather than just echo the precise wording?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Wouldn't you think they'd want officials who could understand the rules rather than just echo the precise wording?

I would, but there certainly have been questions on either (or both) the basektball or baseball tests where the "correct" answer hinged on one word (and where that word differnce had no practical difference in officiating)

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does this also pertain to me?

Just be careful you don't get "moderated" !