Sub becomes a Player?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Shut up.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The question isn't splitting hairs; you are.

It's obvious in other areas that the NFHS doesn't know the difference between "when" and "after."

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Hair splitter.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Hair splitter.

Yep, myself is a big hair splitter.

[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.

[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)

[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.