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

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Most people already take at least a rules test to determine if they are eligible to officiate, and/or to decide what levels they are eligible to work. With the line of thinking in your post above, I'm assuming you have a problem with that also? Literally everything you have against a physical test could be applied to any test(s) you already have to take.

This leap of faith with respect to my thoughts on the subject makes assumptions not in evidence in my comments.

Rules tests are based on the application of rules to particular circumstances. I am told that most of the questions are based on situations that actually happened.

Having someone design some sort of shuttle test and "pick a number" is to require a test that, unlike the rules test, is not based on empirical research into actual situations, but, rather, which is based on a purely speculative concept of proper conditioning.

Evaluate the officials on what they do on the court, and leave off-the-field speculative testing to the NFL combine.

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

This leap of faith with respect to my thoughts on the subject makes assumptions not in evidence in my comments.

Rules tests are based on the application of rules to particular circumstances. I am told that most of the questions are based on situations that actually happened.

Having someone design some sort of shuttle test and "pick a number" is to require a test that, unlike the rules test, is not based on empirical research into actual situations, but, rather, which is based on a purely speculative concept of proper conditioning.

Evaluate the officials on what they do on the court, and leave off-the-field speculative testing to the NFL combine.

Except even with the rules test, you're still "picking a number" to determine who's eligible to work what level. Who's to say that someone that scores a 70 has sufficient rules knowledge to work a game? Why not bump it up to 80 or 90+ since as officials, we should know the rules inside and out?

You're point about some of the rules questions actually having happen or do happen in games is true, but a physical test could test many of the same movements that are required in a game...short sprints, quick stop and go movements, etc...and yes you'd have to pick a cut off...usually this cut off is going to be based on some research I feel.

[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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Except even with the rules test, you're still "picking a number" to determine who's eligible to work what level. Who's to say that someone that scores a 70 has sufficient rules knowledge to work a game? Why not bump it up to 80 or 90+ since as officials, we should know the rules inside and out?

A 70 really isn't very good when you consider that you can score approximately 50 on the NFHS exam without even reading the questions....but it is a minimum to be considered with other factors. In Oregon, you have to get 90+ to qualify for post-season games. The allowance for missing a few accounts for those odd questions that are just poorly worded....there really aren't that many and you should only miss 2-3 for that reason.

There are a lot of people who like to argue that tests (even properly administered0 are not really useful....but they would often be the same people to screw something up when something less common occurs. They're used to depending on other attributes (also good to have) but they will not be enough to get them out of a sticky rules situation.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

...I've worked with gazelles who can memorize the rule book but who still know nothing about basketball

I've worked with overweight officials who've memorized the rule book but can't get up and down the court to be in position to apply their rules knowledge.

So your statement doesn't really speak to the subject.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Well that depends on the type of test we are discussing. If we are talking about the NF model where they ask questions to see if you know what "must" and "shall" means, then I totally disagree with what that would show at all.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

And those tests at other levels also are open book, not timed and they ask things like, "Where do we put the ball in next" as a part of many of the questions. The NF test never asks that or in many cases does not ask anything about case play situations with real time results

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.

And as someone that has been tested multiple times outside of school or officiating, I always find it funny that if someone posts a question on the test, that is OK, but if we even discuss the answers that is somehow over the top. Both in all my other activities would be considered cheating, but we turn the other cheek if we want to discuss the exact question on the test, but let us not discuss the answers. More silliness!!!

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I've worked with overweight officials who've memorized the rule book but can't get up and down the court to be in position to apply their rules knowledge.

So your statement doesn't really speak to the subject.

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