IAABO Test Results

[shavano]

I looked on our state's website tonight, and they had posted the percentages for this year's test. A score of 86 is needed to pass.

23% passed, 30% are provisional (scored 76-84), 39% are trainees ( scored 60-74).

It really makes one wonder if the test is deliberately set up for folks to not pass.....

How did your state fare?

[hoopguy]

You wonder wrong. It is set up so that an IAABO certified ref knows the rules. IAABO is weeding out the people who do not know the rules and should not be IAABO certified.

Your state is lenient. In my state you pay your money to enroll and go to classes and take the test and if you pass, you are in and if you do not pass you are sent home... You can try again next year, by starting all over.

After passing the rules test, there is a class on floor mechanics and a test on floor mechanics as well but that part is more of a teaching exercise while watching and helping the newbies ref real scrimmages.

Sounds like you are starting with a poor attitude but I hope I am misreading your post.

[Zoochy]

The IAABO test is handled a bit different in Missouri. I assume it is the same test in all states. If it is, then that test was real easy (for me). I got in a group with about 12 other fellow IAABO officials and they might have been hard pressed to get an 86. Some are 'senior' officials. They need to open the rule and case book.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

You wonder wrong. It is set up so that an IAABO certified ref knows the rules. IAABO is weeding out the people who do not know the rules and should not be IAABO certified.

Your state is lenient. In my state you pay your money to enroll and go to classes and take the test and if you pass, you are in and if you do not pass you are sent home... You can try again next year, by starting all over.

After passing the rules test, there is a class on floor mechanics and a test on floor mechanics as well but that part is more of a teaching exercise while watching and helping the newbies ref real scrimmages.

Sounds like you are starting with a poor attitude but I hope I am misreading your post.

I think you did misread. I'm not in my rookie year.

I passed the test my first time out, so it's not a "personal" thing. I know folks that have taken the test 2,3,4 times, and have not passed it, but on the court are very good officials.

Where my "wondering" comes from is in the wording of some of the questions. Is it deliberately designed to "trip one up"? ( i.e. "shall" instead of "could")..

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree..


On edit: Our state ( each area) has the rules study classes ( usually start in August), then the test is administered first Monday of Nov. in a closed book, proctored environment. The tests are sent from each area to the state where they are graded and sent back to the area directors. They ( the a.d's) then inform each tester of their scores.

hoops, sounds like your state is quite a bit tougher. So, if someone doesn't pass the IAABO test, they're sent home? I'd be curious about the ref retention rates where you are.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shavano

I think you did misread. I'm not in my rookie year.

I passed the test my first time out, so it's not a "personal" thing. I know folks that have taken the test 2,3,4 times, and have not passed it, but on the court are very good officials.

Where my "wondering" comes from is in the wording of some of the questions. Is it deliberately designed to "trip one up"? ( i.e. "shall" instead of "could")..

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree..

I took the test 4 years ago in CO, and don't remember it being a problem. Of course, I'd been working a few years in Iowa, and while I'm no Nevadaref, I have a pretty firm grasp of the rules. The wordings are similar, IIRC, to the NFHS tests; at least in format.

I think the problem is there some pretty good officials who don't have a firm grasp of the the rules. These are the guys who seem to want to apply "first to touch," move the players behind the division line for technical foul or intentional foul free throws, and require a player to "establish" position inbounds with two feet. It's little things that don't come up often, so their games aren't really affected too much.

[26 Year Gap]

From a different angle, I have been in an IAABO state, and now I am not. I agree that the IAABO exams are difficult. However, if an official is in a pressure cooker of a game, and an unusual situation arises, would you want a seat of the pants guy or a guy who has studied the rules & has shown that he knows the rules, especially for unusual situations, on that game?
When I took the IAABO exam as a college student way back in the mid-70s, only 9 of us passed out of more than 35 who took the exam. It was difficult then. For veteran officials, who have seen many of the unusual situations arise that appear on the tests, the exams often reflect real game experience that newbies do not have.
Some IAABO states have differing requirements after the first year. Some have floor tests. Some do not. I would much rather have a partner who has demonstrated proficiency in rules knowledge than one who has not. And some folks just should not be officials.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by shavano

Where my "wondering" comes from is in the wording of some of the questions. Is it deliberately designed to "trip one up"? ( i.e. "shall" instead of "could")..

My opinion on this is that the questions are worded that way to determine if the official really knows the definitions or not; really knows when the ball is live or dead; really knows when a 2-10 can be corrected or not.

Anybody can tell you if it's legal to run 4 steps while holding the ball. It's a little tougher to tell whether a player can catch the ball, land on one foot, jump and land on both feet and then lift one foot off the ground again. You have to really know the traveling rule to answer the second one.

I don't think the questions are meant to confuse the test-taker. The people who write the test realize that it's being designed for brand new recruits (as opposed to established officials who frequent this forum). But they need to know whether the test-taker really knows important distinctions. JMHO.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

My opinion on this is that the questions are worded that way to determine if the official really knows the definitions or not; really knows when the ball is live or dead; really knows when a 2-10 can be corrected or not.

Anybody can tell you if it's legal to run 4 steps while holding the ball. It's a little tougher to tell whether a player can catch the ball, land on one foot, jump and land on both feet and then lift one foot off the ground again. You have to really know the traveling rule to answer the second one.

I don't think the questions are meant to confuse the test-taker. The people who write the test realize that it's being designed for brand new recruits (as opposed to established officials who frequent this forum). But they need to know whether the test-taker really knows important distinctions. JMHO.

Agree. It a good test of an official's rule knowledge. I write it every year- refresher and regular both- even though I'm non-IAABO and don't have to. A friend sends them to me. It's part of trying to keep current imo.

Your exam result usually tells you where you are, like it or not.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Your exam result usually tells you where you are, like it or not.

That's a good point, JR, and I agree.

I'm sure that IAABO has their reasons for writing the tests as they do, it just seems a shame that only 20-30% of folks that take it pass it. Then, especially in states like where hoopsref is, someone pays out the money for the books and test, then fails, and gets sent home, sans their investment.

Oh well, onward and upward. 2 MS games tonight....