Physical tests...

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are telling me that the rules test is the only reason you pick up a rulebook?

For the second time, no.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

For the second time, no.

What readied me for that moment? Rules tests, or more specifically, the preparation for such tests. I can't think of a better way to drill these things into our heads.

These were your comments, not mine.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

These were your comments, not mine.

Peace

I can't see how his two comments that you're trying to connect have anything to do with each other.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I can't see how his two comments that you're trying to connect have anything to do with each other.

When you say there is not a better reason to learn rules but when you are taking a rules test, then you claim that you can review rules by other means (which is likely a longer period of time). Which one is it?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When you say there is not a better reason to learn rules but when you are taking a rules test, then you claim that you can review rules by other means (which is likely a longer period of time). Which one is it?

Peace

No, one does not mean the other. All he's saying is the rules test helps to focus his study time in a way that helps him prepare for game situations. You're reading too much into it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, one does not mean the other. All he's saying is the rules test helps to focus his study time in a way that helps him prepare for game situations. You're reading too much into it.

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He said that the test is the reason he even gets in the rulebook basically.

Again, as others have pointed out here, incorrect inference.

If that is the only reason than I have a right to be worried....

It isn't, so you need not.

My point is this. The tests serve as a catalyst and a measuring stick of your rules knowledge. They prepare you for what you need to know on the floor, and alert you (via any wrong answers) of what you don't know (or weren't paying attention to in the question). The tests serve a purpose, and I believe in them. I particularly enjoy RefSchool before and during the season.

That certainly does NOT mean you stop studying the book when the test is done. That's a foolish move that benefits no-one. I'm sure there are those that prepare for the test, and that's it. That ain't me, chief.

My point is all these "tests" are silly at their core.

I disagree. While measurement on the floor contains the best evaluations, the prepartion for the tests can result in far fewer mistakes, and ultimately, a better floor evaluation.

Now, leave me alone. I have some studying to do.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

The test don't prove how good an official is....but they can prove how little a person knows. They're meant to exclude those that just don't even know the rules. Passing one with high scores dosn't mean a person is a great official but failing one miserably says a lot in the opposite direction.

Outside of HS, they may not give you games based on a test, but they may give them to someone else based on your test.

[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.