Physical tests...

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Doing my online NFHS and NCAA tests is definitely the time I do most of my rule book research. Unfortunately there are a lot of official (in shape and overweight) who only care what the answers are and not about the rule/case/manual citations behind the questions.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I read what you said and made an evaluation based on your words. You do not have to prove anything to me. You said what you said and I adamantly disagree with that position. I have been very consistent about the overrated nature of these tests.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I did not ask you to agree, just asked you to be explain why you only value that preparation and not other preparation or time. You have appeared to have broadened your position as your first comments were rather narrow IMO. Again, you do not have to prove anything to me. I do not have to hire you for any games or work with you. So what you choose to spend your time is up to you.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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!

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I do not have to be careful with anything. I quote your comments.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I do not think there is one but to see someone work games. You cannot truly evaluate a person until you see them work, which is why camps are the best way we have to choose or hire people. And the camps I go to tend to have officials in full uniform to determine what they can do as a whole.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Scores poorly is subjective. We have to get 80% (with 25 questions now) to pass the test. And if you do not like your score you can retake the test for a fee ($15). Let me make this clear, I am not against taking a test. I am just against how it is used. It is a good way to get an official familiar with the rulebook if they do not do so otherwise, but a terrible way to evaluate someone's ability to know the rules IMO.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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".

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

It may not be able to tell who knows them, but it is a good way to weed out those who don't.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

So it IS an English test. There are 'always' exceptions. Whether they may be used or shall be used depends upon what exception you use. More often then not my first response to the questions are: It depends. Why I say there are some 'gotcha' questions is simply because there are some gotcha questions. Not all of them are but the ones that are vaguely worded and incomplete and open ended scream of 'gotcha'. I'm not saying testing is a bad thing, just how they are asked. A person may know the rules and call great game but because they misread a few questions they are going to be eliminated from 'better' games is where I have issues.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

No I do not care, because I was not making the point for your benefit.

Peace