Physical tests...

[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".

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

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.

Calling it an English test is nothing more than an excuse for not knowing the rule.

If it seems vague, don't read anything into it...think the basic case, not what if something else unstated occurred. If you do, you're making it harder than it is supposed to be.

And missing a "few" questions is not going to cost anyone a game. Missing several questions might. Even if there are a few bad questions, that shouldn't be enough to make a meaningful diference...the rest of the officals should have trouble too..

Getting a 90+ or even 95 is not difficult. I know several people who are good officials who get that or better every year. The ones that get a 70 that appear to be a good official may be when everything goes smoothly but do you really want them out there when the less common stuff occurs. Will they know what to do? I know people like that...they just make stuff up....right or wrong. And that only causes problems.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Getting a 90+ or even 95 is not difficult. I know several people who are good officials who get that or better every year. The ones that get a 70 that appear to be a good official may be when everything goes smoothly but do you really want them out there when the less common stuff occurs. Will they know what to do? I know people like that...they just make stuff up....right or wrong. And that only causes problems.

I know more officials that can quote every rule and will insist they are right but have no common sense and no one wants to work for them. So I guess to each his own. I have screwed up rules in the past and did not realize it until later because the coaches, partners or fans had no idea the rule was screwed up, but the explanation was sound and the way it was handled was smooth. So not every misapplication causes a problem when even when we are right coaches think we are stupid or they think we do not know what we are doing in the heat of the moment. I have actually been banned from one place by a coach because he did not like the real rule application and wanted to split hairs with wording.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know more officials that can quote every rule and will insist they are right but have no common sense and no one wants to work for them. So I guess to each his own. I have screwed up rules in the past and did not realize it until later because the coaches, partners or fans had no idea the rule was screwed up, but the explanation was sound and the way it was handled was smooth. So not every misapplication causes a problem when even when we are right coaches think we are stupid or they think we do not know what we are doing in the heat of the moment. I have actually been banned from one place by a coach because he did not like the real rule application and wanted to split hairs with wording.

Peace

Let me say it again...demonstrating that you know the rules by doing well on the test is NOT the ONLY element needed to be a decent official. It is just one of several necessary pieces that suggest a person is likely a good official.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me say it again...demonstrating that you know the rules by doing well on the test is NOT the ONLY element needed to be a decent official. It is just one of several necessary pieces that suggest a person is likely a good official.

And the fact that you keep saying this, is the reason I keep saying what I say. Taking a test is not what makes you a good official or proves your rules knowledge, which is why I never ask anyone what they got on the exam or care if someone got a 95 or a 75. Either score means nothing to me and I think it is dump to give or take away assignments based on an arbitrary number. And playing with words does not prove you know a rule.

Peace

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me say it again...demonstrating that you know the rules by doing well on the test is NOT the ONLY element needed to be a decent official. It is just one of several necessary pieces that suggest a person is likely a good official.

So if some passes the test by 1 point are they decent? What about a perfect score? Words like 'suggest' and 'likely' also leave a lot of room to be interpreted. Something can be just as 'unlikely' as 'likely'. If you have to 'suggest' something then it obviously not something that is readily apparent. I am all for minimum standards and requirements to participate, but any sense of real measure should be as real world as possible, like say a camp setting. IMO you can get a better idea of how good an official is by watching them in 'their' environment which is on the floor, not in a chair taking a test.