Physical tests...

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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.

And I disagree with that position. I have never once asked an official right before a game or in the locker room what they got on their test that year. I would not give a damn one way or other as what usually gets a crew through a game is a lot of other things they do not test. They do not test officials conflict resolution techniques or communication with the crew and often do not test a single mechanic knowledge which I can find out in a pre-game to some extent with my partners if I have never worked with them.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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. And you did not say anything about the casebook which in my opinion is a much better book than the rulebook as it teaches you how to apply situations rather than identify what the definition of that situation is. In many cases you will not know how to actually apply a rule unless you read the casebook.

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Now you said what you said and I have a right to disagree with it too. And even what you are saying is still bogus when there are many that spend a lot of time without a test to study and learn rules. I get into the rulebook more into the off season because that is when the unusual situations take place as I am working younger kids or players that are not varsity or college level and they do very goofy things in those games. And that is the place I learn from mistakes and do not come close to having them happen during the season. And that is where I learn how to deal with coaches when you are not dealing with coaches that have the same accountability in their behavior. I have never had an actual fight in a game, but when players do not foul out of games during the summer and you see the tensions get out of hand, it takes that experience to recognize those things. Nothing I have ever seen teaches me that in a rules test. And if it did, then there are a few officials at some camps that I attended that are still wondering why they cannot get a shot at higher levels because they did not handle their games properly outside of some rules test or evaluation.

Peace

[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.

[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