Coaches taking rules test

gsf23 · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 11:36am

Just a quick question. I'm coaching in North Dakota, Class B Boy's Varsity.

One of the things I had to do this year was take the same rules test that the officials have to take. I don't know how the officials take their test, but the coaches were allowed to take the test at any time and use any resources available. I was giving a time that I had to have the test mailed back the the Activities Association or my school would receive a fine. I think that they do this for all of the head coaches in all the sports in ND.

I coached in Colorado for a couple of years and never had to take any rules tests so I was just wondering if this was a ND thing or if other states also require their head coaches to take rules tests and if you officials here like the idea?

BTW I scored a 93

Thanks

Greg F.

Hawks Coach · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 11:45am

I think that it's a great idea - and it should be open book, the coaches should have rulebooks and case books, and the test should be tough enough to make them use those books, but easy enough that if you look in the book, there will be a precise rule or case that clearly answers the question.

As you can probably guess, I am a big fan of coaches knowing the rules (players too - ask Chris Collinsworth!).

zebraman · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 11:46am

Great idea. In Washington State, it's not required of coaches but officials wish it was. 93 is a good score. Did taking the test improve your rule knowledge. Did you learn some things that surprised you?

Z

devdog69 · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 11:49am

Our coaches have to take the same test we do, here in KS, NFHS Part I. Most of the coaches I know, get the answers from someone and just fill it out without looking at a single question, and I am serious about that. I once took offense to a coach during a friendly conversation and she said "you guys know the rules and I trust you to do so". So I guess it's not so bad.

Hawks Coach · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 12:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by devdog69
I once took offense to a coach during a friendly conversation and she said "you guys know the rules and I trust you to do so". So I guess it's not so bad.

Coaches teach the players how to play the game properly. If they don't know the details of the rules, they cannot possibly be teaching correctly. A big part of why I frequent this site is to understand the philosophies that officials have so that I can teach not only the rules, but how they may be enforced in game situations. This knowledge even impacts how you set up a play at times. Absolutely essential.

When you take a FIFA licensing course for any level of soccer play, the course covers rules knowledge as does the test. It also covers your basics like practice organization, game strategy, drills and skills, etc. But FIFA and its trainers recognize that a fundamental part of teaching the game is teaching the rules that govern play.

DownTownTonyBrown · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 02:00pm

Having a coach know the rules should lead to less confrontation with the officials.... if the official is also knowledgeable.

If the official is not... it can be very confrontational and difficult - for the coach to maintain his composure and for the official to maintain control of the game.

Passing out the Part I test and not requiring individual effort to complete it doesn't gain anything. Somebody has the answers, everyone copies, and they all turn them in... so what?

A coach waving a rulebook at you during the game is going to be very upsetting. I don't have time to give interpretations during the game or to justify my actions given his understanding of the rules.

It is a two edged sword. Should they know the rules? Absolutely. But, as you all know, rule knowledge is not the only requirement for being a good official (or a good coach). I'm estimating that a good official is 20% rules knowledge and 80% judgement/social skills.

No coaches take the test here in Eastern Idaho. In fact, on Part II test night, the majority of the officials all work together with open books. This can be good if the discussions are retained, but judging from some of the stupid things I see called... I don't think they retained much.

JV official called a jump ball during a follow-up tap attempt after a fast break with about 10 seconds left in a 2-point game. No one even questioned him. I asked him about it after the game. Said he saw the ball spin off of the tapper's hand and knew he had to call a jump. Perhaps it was because he wasn't even to the division line yet as he transitioned from lead to trail. If anyone, especially a coach, had known what he was calling, they would have shot him right there, drug him off the court, and finished the game with one official.

Actually we quit shooting officials a few years back here in Idaho.

hawkk · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 02:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

JV official called a jump ball during a follow-up tap attempt after a fast break with about 10 seconds left in a 2-point game. No one even questioned him. I asked him about it after the game. Said he saw the ball spin off of the tapper's hand and knew he had to call a jump. Perhaps it was because he wasn't even to the division line yet as he transitioned from lead to trail. If anyone, especially a coach, had known what he was calling, they would have shot him right there, drug him off the court, and finished the game with one official.

Actually we quit shooting officials a few years back here in Idaho.

Help me out -- I can't even figure out what he thought he was calling . . .

DownTownTonyBrown · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 02:19pm

Excellent question. Basically the offense was tapping the ball and the defender blocked it. He felt both players had a hand on the ball because it "spun off" the tapper's hand and therefore should be called a JUMP... as he runs in from 40 feet away.

JRutledge · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 02:26pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

It is a two edged sword. Should they know the rules? Absolutely. But, as you all know, rule knowledge is not the only requirement for being a good official (or a good coach). I'm estimating that a good official is 20% rules knowledge and 80% judgement/social skills.

Actually we quit shooting officials a few years back here in Idaho.

Not everyone would agree with your percentages. Do not forget which board you are on.

Peace

DownTownTonyBrown · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 02:50pm

Really! (to borrow a trick from you)

You would say that rules knowledge is LESS than 20%?

JRutledge · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 02:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Really! (to borrow a trick from you)

You would say that rules knowledge is LESS than 20%?

Now that is about accurate, I just feel that the 80% for judgment/social skills are too high. You also left our appearence, hustle/fitness or even people skills. I am sure there is more, but these are also very important to being a good officials. The social skill evaluation is something all together. That does not have to do with being a good official in my opinion, but might affect how you are precieved or the opportunities that you might get. I personally do not have a percentage for any of this, I think all play bigger parts for some and less for others. I just feel that rules knowledge is very hard to prove until you step out on that court. And in the game of basketball, there are not many rules that we do not apply across the board. It is those unusual situations or things that do not happen every game that can get us. The rest comes down to judgement (eg, BI or not, handcheck or not).

Peace

gsf23 · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 03:45pm

Well, I have been an official in many other sports. I don't officaite basketball because I don't feel I exercise good judgement. I was very physical when I played and I noticed that when I started out trying to officaite, I let a lot of stuff go that to me, wasn't so bad, but all the guys I worked with would get on me about letting too much stuff go.

Personally, I don't question judgement calls, you can't argue them and it isn't going to change. I will challenge officals on rule interpretations or if they are not hustling to get into a good position to make the judgement call.

Personally, I enjoyed taking the test. I took about two days to do it, looked up every question and answer that I could find. The one problem I had with the tests was that when I got mine back, it had the answers marked wrong but didn't tell me anywhere why it was wrong or what rule should be referenced.

I did question an official earlier this year on a rule, but did it before a game when they were introducing themselves. I told them what the situation was, an alignment on a out of bounds play, and what I felt the ruling was. At first they thought that I was wrong, I told them the rule I was referencing, the referee then told me he would check to make sure, he went and checked, told me that the alignment was alright and the game went without a hitch.

I hear you guys talk about preventative officiating all the time here, there is also preventative coaching and I think the rules test helps that.

DownTownTonyBrown · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 04:14pm

Yes Rut. You are right. And when I said social skills, I unwittingly lumped all of that stuff in there... I guess what I should have said was rulebook knowledge and everything else. 20 and 80 are just popular numbers to apply to those kind of nebulous sets.

Appearance, hustle, communication, presence, uniform, cleanliness, attitude, approachability, common sense, professionalism, punctuality, athletisism.... and many, many others are all pertinent. And they probably shouldn't be called social skills - although they have obvious social implications.

What I tried to imply was a small portion of a good official's make-up is rulebook knowledge and the large portion is other stuff...

MN 3 Sport Ref · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 07, 2003, 04:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by gsf23
I did question an official earlier this year on a rule, but did it before a game when they were introducing themselves. I told them what the situation was, an alignment on a out of bounds play, and what I felt the ruling was. At first they thought that I was wrong, I told them the rule I was referencing, the referee then told me he would check to make sure, he went and checked, told me that the alignment was alright and the game went without a hitch.

I hear you guys talk about preventative officiating all the time here, there is also preventative coaching and I think the rules test helps that.

Bravo to this diplomatic way of asking on a ruling more coaches should do this. Here in MN coaches are not required to coach the test. It would be interresting to see however if they needed the same 80% pass rate we do how many would be unable to coach. I have no problem with a coach diplomatically arguing a call if he knows what he is talking about. One that thought he heard something about this rule on TV from Bill Walton on Sunday however has no business sharing the same air as me. Coaches expect me to know the rules and to apply and uphold them. Is it to much for me to ask for them to know them and help their players play within them as well???