Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 783194)

Whether that is you or not is really not the point. You said that that was the thing that got you into the rulebook as if there were not other times to provoke you to pick up a rulebook.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 783215)

For the fourth time, I never said the aforementioned in bold. That's a stretch on your part. Certainly, there are other instances -- and solid ones, too -- that would prompt you to pick up the book. One method never excludes the other.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 783215)

Test preperation is one method of rule review. For me, it works. For you, it doesn't. That's fine. It appears to me that your disdain for the testing process is so great, that you're willing to debunk anyone who opts to appreciate it. While your point of the tests not readying an official for conflict resolution or many aspects of game management are indeed well taken, I still find merit with their preparation that carries into the games themselves. However, I never said that it's the only way to do things.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 783220)

I read what you said and made an evaluation based on your words.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 783206)

I have worked with officials that can run like a deer. But when you put them under pressure to make calls, be consistent, deal with adversity, they cannot do it.

Peace

Originally Posted by Judtech (Post 783238)

So what you are saying is that they run like a deer and when the lights come on they act like one too?:)
I agree 100% about the verbiage of some of the test questions. It's like they spend days coming up with trick questions instead of coming up with real world questions!

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 783205)

I will say this and be done with it. I had a friend in another sport go to another state and had to take that state's test to work games. Well he passed with flying colors and was based only on this test to be able to work a position he was not normally qualified to work, but had little experience at that other position. He even laughed about how he was eligible to work deep in the playoffs because he tested with a certain score. Not that he had much experience at that level even working varsity games from his previous state, but now he was one of the top guys in the state at an unfamiliar position. That is the position that drives me crazy. The test does mean something, but it does not mean that much to vault someone from not being known to the best person over a test score. Silly, and more silly if you ask me. And I am glad I live in an area that you will not get a single game based on a silly test.
Peace

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 783240)

The questions you and Rut have referred to are not trick questions at all. They are probing how much you really understand the rule.

Almost anyone can be trained to know what to do in a finite list of situations (where do you put the the ball in play after XYZ happens)....but it takes more understanding to know the why and how the underlying rule applies in the general case so that you can apply it when something occurs that hasn't been explicitly covered.

Knowing the difference between "shall" and "may" or "always"/"never" and something other than always/never etc. is the essence of actually understanding the fundamental of rule. If you can get that, you don't need to remember 1000's of case plays covering every combination and permutation of the possible rules situations.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 783227)

Be careful with such things, sir. The evaluation was so inaccurate, that it bordered on a false accusation. Disagreements are fine. Putting words in someone's mouth is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 783227)

That said, I truly appreciate your thoughts on the matter. It makes me wonder how one could develop proper metrics on the other things we discussed (conflict resolution, et al), and how we could move them from more subjective to objective methods.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 783241)

I agree with your conclusion here...that is a silly application of a test result.

I only maintain that someone that scores poorly should be excluded from top assignments, not that someone who scores well should be given top assignments. The top assignments should be given to those that score sufficiently well, are sufficiently fit, AND have demonstrated that they have all of the other elements necessary to be a quality officials. The test (rules or fitness) is just ONE piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 783172)

He said that the test is the reason he even gets in the rulebook basically. If that is the only reason than I have a right to be worried to want to work with people that only pick up the rulebook at that time of year and no other time. I especially feel that way when there are so many situations and plays that happen during the year that officials can and do learn from.

My point is all these "tests" are silly at their core. A one time physical test does not prove your ability any more than a one time rules test, which is why almost every level outside of HS uses camps and extensive evaluations to hire their officials not a test. They might test you, but they are not going to give games based on that test.

Peace

Originally Posted by Judtech (Post 783251)

Is this supposed to be an English test or a rules test? There are much better ways to word the questions to avoid the 'gotcha'. It would be interesting to see if someone could come up with a video clip test. Have say 50 plays on a site and then "You make the call".

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 783276)

but a terrible way to evaluate someone's ability to know the rules IMO.

Peace

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 783293)

They're NOT "gotcha" questions. If it says "always", think of a counter example. If you can't, it is "always". Not hard. Do you know it or not?

Rather than covering the topic with dozens of scenarios covering each common or uncommon possibility, it covers it in 1 question. Do you know it or not?

It really is a lot easier to remember a simple principle such as "always"/"never","shall"/"may" rather than remembering a limitless number the situations that it may apply.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 783291)

And my point is you made an invalid inference to advance your other point. I agree with your main point, but your poor inference from Bainsey's post hurts your point. Whether you care or not is another question altogether.