Physical tests...
 

Does your association do them?

No, but I sure wish we did. I am often embarrassed to be standing with 2 referees who are so rotund that they waddle to the pre-game meeting with Game Administration.

Then how do you tell them apart from the coaches - by their shirts? :rolleyes:

We are bringing them into our association this coming year, which is great!

No.

Peace

No, but it's part of our evaluations.

"Let's Get Physical" ...
 

Ours too: "Official is in physical condition and exhibits hustle and energy through the game".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Physical.jpg

OT, but :rolleyes:

Concur.While not THIS bad, I understand your point. But, I kinda like being the "thinner-one."

Back before the gap, there was official in our association that was told he would not do any games until he lost weight and improved his appearance. He looked to be expecting triplets. I moved away after graduation, so I do not know the end result. There is a guy in my new association like that. But nobody will tell him to get with the program. He needs to lose 150 lbs. At my clinic this summer, he got assigned to my crew of 3. The post-game talk was 90% about him being out of shape. Much of the other 10% was directed at us, of which a good share could rightly (and was silently) be attributed to him being out of position.

"Let Me Hear Your Body Talk, Your Body Talk" ...
 

Man, I hate the digital exam part.

Take the train...TSA is hardly involved there.

Yes, starting last season.
I believe that my local association is not unlike many others in that there are several officials who are overweight. Of course, each of them holds the opinion that they can keep up and that their physical appearance or size doesn't hurt his calling ability. Sadly, it does. They just don't see it because they aren't in a position to observe what they are missing. I wish we could have video from a different angle to show them.

We time two agility/speed drills.

1. A ladder drill. Start on the endline. Go near FT line and back, midcourt and back, full court and back. Takes about 14 seconds for the fit and quick people.

2. A box drill. Using the FT lane. Start where one lane line intersects the endline. Run forward to the elbow, sidestep across the FT line to the opposite lane line, run forward to the endline, sidestep across the endline to the opposite lane line (starting point), reverse the last two parts of the drill, sprint from the elbow to a point on the endline near the 3pt line, sprint to midcourt. Takes about 17 seconds.


You wouldn't believe how much whining we got from people after implementing this last season. Many people have no desire to run or to get themselves into physical shape. They just want to work games and get a paycheck. It's really sad. The worst part is that several of these people have been considered amongst our top officials for the last decade.

Nevada, is that the association up north or California? I would love to implement that here; it is hard enough trying to convince the board to NOT cut our meetings.

One thing to consider is that for associations who are struggling to have enough members to cover games adding one more hoop to jump through could thin the number of people available or who are willing to go through them. (yes all puns intended)
While there are some associations that have plenty of officials there are others who need as many warm bodies as they can get. I personally have no problem submitting to one but can understand why some associations don't have them.

NCHSAA, when you find out the criteria, could you let us know? I'm curious about that.

These look like two solid pre-season workouts. I may give these a try.

I just did a fitness test last night for our soccer board (hence my bringing it up). Part of the reason I took up soccer (which I've come to enjoy as much as basketball, by the way) is because they have a fitness test. These are the four parts and requirements:

*1.125 mile run: 12 minutes
*50-yard dash: 8.5 seconds
*shuttle run (5 yards up, then back, then 10 yards, 15, 20, 25): 42 seconds
*shuffle run (25 yards forward, 25 shuffling left, 25 backward, 25 shuffling right): 30 seconds

Passage is required for varsity games; taking the test is required for any games.

I whole heatedly agree that being in good physical shape is an absolute for being a good official. I also think having a mandatory physical test opens up a huge can of worms for any association. Who decides what test will be given? who decides the criteria for passing? Where does the criteria come from? Is there any medical or scientific evaluation associated with the criteria for passing, or is it just an arbitrary decision that members of an association make? Who must take the test? Everyone? Are there different standards for those who do grade school, freshmen, JV, varsity or college? What happens if and when you fail the "test"? How long do the sanctions last? A year, two, forever?
What if someone refuses to take the test? Are they automatically balckballed? While having a standard physical test is a great idea and I would support it, it must be well thought out and planned for. This is the type of situation that could cause a severe rift in any association. I think it is recipe for disaster unless it is thouroughly and completely evaluated before it is implemented. Even if it is scrutinized and well planned for, any association should be ready for unexpected fallout and ranging from disappointment to all out anger. Thoughts??

My thoughts are this wouldn't be an issue for me. If I couldn't pass and there aren't games for me then the game (basketball) is in capable hands. However, physical conditioning is one of my 5 things an official can and should do prior to stepping on the court. The game suffers when we can't get into position (I don't use "hustle" because that leads to fake hustle...right out of position) and when someone is physically struggling I think it takes away from their ability to focus on the task at hand.

I Want A Hippopotamus For Christmas ...
 

Any association considering this better brush up on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.

That is the NV association. We hold a clinic at a local HS on a Saturday in October each year. We have access to the gym. We have four stations which each last about an hour. We simply made one of the stations the fitness drills.

Attendence is mandatory and people are informed well ahead of time about what is involved and asked to come dressed appropriately to participate.

Depending upon the situation of the individual association, the fitness requirement can be mandatory for postseason eligibility, regular season Varsity games, regular season sub-varsity games, or any combination thereof.

Being an independent contractor, I believe it’s at your discretion on how you what to proceed with this concept. It’s a bunch of bullsh#t. I hope the leadership of these associations has weighed the pros and con’s and have a pool of capable officials IF there is attrition from their association.

OK, so let's say you are a real estate agent, but you don't have a car. You have a bus pass and you can get to every house visit, you just may get there late. Is that a good look for the company?

Also, being independent contractors, the assigning organization have the right to give the contract to someone else for just about any reason that is not one of a few protected classes....and being unfit is not one of them.

Some organizations might find that younger promising refs might stay a little longer if they saw the older less fit officials not getting assignments that have passed them by 10-15 years before.

We did ours today.
First time that we have had actual requirements and timed it.

1.5 mile run. Each person is timed. We will use these times to decide what we desire for the different levels of HS games NEXT year. This year one simply has to complete it.

Box drill stolen from NISOA: Run around a 10-yard square--forward, side-step, backward, side-step, repeat in opposite direction. Timed for data this year. Takes about 25-30 seconds.

We will add a sprint of some kind next Fall. Perhaps a 40-yard dash.

There have been some serious changes where I am in both basketball and soccer. With the economy down, we have more officials than ever. We can afford to be more stringent in our requirements for assignments. There was also a generation of veteran officials who hung on for a few years longer than they probably should have and they have been exiting over the past few years leaving lots of room for younger replacements to step in. Spurring some competition for those openings on higher level assignments has yielded mostly positive results.

I can tell you that WEIGHING the issue was certainly foremost on our minds when we put this in. For the people who took your attitude and didn't cooperate, we simply informed them that they are independent contractors and they didn't have to do anything. However, we also let them know that as such they don't have a right to any assignments. If they chose not to qualify themselves for certain levels of games, then they wouldn't receive those assignments. It was really that simple.

Nevada, why have them run backwards?

and why have them run 1.5 miles? That seems to have almost nothing to do with basketball officiating.

Why is it a bunch of bullsh#t? There are a lot of jobs that have physical requirements to perform.

I believe Nevada is talking about a soccer fitness test, not basketball. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Silver.)

In soccer, we do run backwards sometimes. I know the basketball mentality is that running backwards doesn't look good (especially when I caught my heel and crashed near the bleachers last winter), but it's a necessity in soccer, particularly when you're working a two-man crew, and you find yourself 10-20 yards from your touchline (sideline).

While we don't have a fitness test for our basketball board, we are required every year to submit our time of a 1.5 mile run.

I agree. We are talking about proving you can run for a job that requires you to...wait for it...run! We also aren't talking about Olympic-level requirements.

Kind of reminds me of people in the Air Force complaining about the PT test.

Sure. I'll see if I can find the actual list.

If there's going to be physical tests for officials, then there should be mental tests for coaches. ;)

@Tomegun, fortunately I am not a real estate agent… Don’t want to be one either. So this would not apply to me. This company wants to maintain its 503( c ) status, yet want to put requirement on individuals for their service.

@Cameron, this same organization found these unfit officials useable when the cupboard was bare of officials to covers games for this organization. Now the cupboard is full we need to weed them out so younger officials can stay around… I will be the first to say once the economy picks back up these younger officials will find better ways to spend their time when the money start consistently.

@Navada. SEE comment address to Cameron.

@BNF, I cannot disagree with that. Yet, those jobs provide health insurance or contribute to health insurance for their employees. (Key word is employees). They also don’t have 503 ( c) status either. So that dog doesn’t fight…

Keep in mind, 1% of the population speaking here. It burns me up that people wants to implement system when things are good for them. Bunch of BullSh#t. Where was this process back in 2008?

I don't get the issue truerookie...organizations in all walks of life place requirements all the time to be eligible...heck, most state associations and well as local associations already have requirements one must meet to be able to call games...like scoring a certain score on a floor or paper test.

My thoughts are in theory, this is a great idea but only really practical if covering games isn't any issue. Otherwise, in areas hurting for officials, I don't think this could be realistically put in place...maybe if they restricted it to only varsity officials.

Guys, I was responding to bainsey's post about his SOCCER fitness test.
I already posted what our basketball association does in an earlier post. This one pertained to my soccer group.

Correct. And my time was 11:07. ;)

Come on man, you get my point! APG brought up a good point; what do you think about test score determining who gets games? Knowing the rules is something we have to (should) know too right?

My bad. I misunderstood.

Isn't that the very nature of a contract...that each side sets requirements that the other agrees to or doesn't agree to???

That's the nature of basic supply and demand. When the supply is high, the consumer can be more picky. And who is to say the organization didn't want to implement such a system in the past but just couldn't get it organized.

It is not necessarily the younger officials that are showing up due to the economy. Sure, they are there, but I see a lot of 40-60 year-old rookies looking to make a few bucks.

So if I beat a fellow officials fitness score will have have grounds for action if my schedule does not improve? Theoretically my written test scores are confidential so I would have no way to compare scores and any proceeding jump in schedule. But if I have 10 years in and someone else has 10 years in and I have better 'fitness' scores then they do wouldn't it be assumed I would have the better schedule? I have never been the swiftest or most agile person in the world, yet I was able to play the sport at a relatively high level. IMO, the criteria should be "Can this official keep up with the pace of the game for the entire time OF the game". If the official is incapable of doing that they should be assigned levels of games where they can meet this standard. If there is some empirical preseason fitness test that can do that, then I think it would be a more valid delineator.
Now leave me alone, I'm having some fried butter sticks I got from the Iowa state fair for a midnite snack!

Depends on how the test and assignments are set up.

If it's set up so those who score higher / run faster get better games, and you do and you don't, then you have a complaint.

But, mostly, they're set up as a minimum requirement and all who meet that requirment are eligible and the ranking of those who exceed the requirement doesn't matter.

Several difficulties arise in the use of physical fitness tests for officials.
In our area, only mens' varsity is using 3-man mechanics. Thus, the fitness of the officials at that level of games is not so much a factor. (We probably can agree that a 3-man game doesn't require the same physical exertion as a 2-man game.)
Very often, the lower levels of play are more strenuous, physically, because of the lack of structure, lack of organized play-running offenses, and poorer spacing of players on the court. Many of the younger - sub-varsity - games are played by participants who are trying to impress someone with their abilities, and so they run more.
There never can be an absolute standard or performance for such tests of the officials, just as there is no absolute standard for the performance of the players. Simply stated, we try to take the best for the highest levels of competition. If the over-all pool of applicants happens to perform better than the pool of some former group, then the selected few will be better. But, the games will go on. No one is going to say that the season will have to be cancelled because none of the applicants, whether players or officials, didn't meet a particular standard of performance.
And since the performance of either group is considered to rise with experience, there will always be some of the selected participants that are chosen for higher levels of competition based on factors that are quite foreign to some standard of physical performance. Just as the best point guard may not be able to dunk, but he/she can really manage the game, and distribute the ball, a particular official's game management, judgement, repoire (sp?) with the coaches and players, etc, may far out-weigh a somewhat lower level of pure athleticism.
Yes, I understand that the physical fitness of an official is only one of many factors considered in their ranking, and assignment to levels of play. As one in my area who has been held as an example of good physical performance for many years, I appreciate and welcome the advent of such criteria in the ranking/selection of officials. When all is considered, it must be a smaller factor in the cosideration of assignment to the higher leves of play.

Show-off. It's on now! :D

from the old fat guy
 

How true this is. After refing my lower level games I would hang around and see what I could pick up from the varsity refs, all the time wishing I was doing 3 whistle because the physical demand is significantly less. For the last few years I have really struggled with the weight issue and in spite of working out and running, it just doesn't go away after you passed 60 a few years ago. Going in, I knew I would not be doing any varsity games. I didn't care. I just wanted to ref. Had they told me I could only do middle school, that was OK. I just wanted to ref. As rotund as I was, I found that I could keep up with HS girls games, even varsity. I would struggle with a HS boys JV (big school) if I had already done a couple of games before it. That said, one of my mentors said, "you're behind the play sometimes, but you are getting the calls right." I studied the rules hard - got a 97% on my test - and I was coming along with application of the rules. The physical part was tough. Being fat brings its own problems in the form of injuries. I fought them all season. Too easy to injure, too long to heal. I gave it up this season. I guess this is longer than it needs to be to say I don't think a physical fitness test is a bad idea. I met one for years in the Army. But I have to agree with Rob, it is just part of the picture. It certainly shouldn't be the only issue to determine if someone should be a ref or not.

None of the associations I belong to use them.

Thirty Years And Counting ...
 

Not for me. I relish the physical, and mental, challenge of a two person varsity game, pretty much the only kind of games we work here in our little corner of the Land of Steady Habits. I know that the three person game is better for the kids, and better for the game, but I still love the challenge of a two person assignment, at any level.

This is a great point. One of my varsity partners and I were discussing this last year and we both felt that it was much, much easier to officiate a three man varsity boys game than a two man soph boys game, particularly in the big school conferences. The play is more ragged, up and down, and unpredictable. We have to call a lot more fouls as well, and in general it is more of a challenge to our officiating skills both physically and mentally. You really don't have to be in great physical condition to officiate a three man varsity game; you can go very long periods of time without ever having to actually run. That's not the case in a two man game, particularly at the high school level.

I don't think physical testing is a bad idea necessarily; I've seen guys working varsity games in all the sports who literally cannot run anymore and really need to hang it up. But relegating the guys who don't measure up to the games that actually require more physical exertion seems like a poor solution to me. You also can't just drop those guys because lets face it, someone has to fill the games and you can't fill all of them with guys who look and move like Kobe Bryant.

This is a point often overlooked by guys doing the second game who complain about the length of the first game.

Agreed. I find it much more tiring (physically and mentally) and off-ball contact is something I really try to watch for - but it's difficult.

Whoa.
 

Excellent points. I also note another comment that some of the guys who didn't do well on the physical test were long considered among the association's best officials. Now an arbitrary test has determined that reputations made on the court are no longer relevant? Because somebody invented a test? Where is the empirical evidence that 14 seconds in a shuttle run is significant enough to determine who does and who does not ref a basketball game?

Looks to me like an attempt to thin the ranks (no pun intended) and eliminate the competition by substituting arbitrary physical tests for valid game evaluation. If your partner is waddling to a meeting, he or she is waddling up and down the court, and it should be noted and acted on in evaluations. It is absurd to base officiating ability on a test imposed by a group of people who would naturally invent a test they could pass and declare it the minimum standard.

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

Or, like often happens, those reputations are no longer valid. It can take years for a reputation to change...either when the official is no longer able to keep up but keeps getting the top assignments or when the official has improved substantially but doesn't get better assignments. My guess is those officials, while considered by many to be top officials, haven't been recently seen on the court by many who think they're top.

Now, perhaps the threshold of passing was unreasonable but there is some level of fitness that should be a minimum....at some point, an official IS just too unfit to properly cover the game no matter how good of a play caller they are.

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.

Whether we like it or not, there should be a minimum level of physical fitness required to work games...it's part of the job...just like we test officials for a minimum amount of rules/mechanics/floor/etc. knowledge.

I do agree with that, but rules tests also do not prove the ability for someone to show knowledge either. Those are silly too. And if it determines what level a person can only work that year, those are even dumber tests. In my opinion which is why what you work should be decided by people that observe you work, not by some test that ultimately means nothing when you have to memorize a word or specific phrase out of the rulebook. I do agree that we should be able to show some level of fitness, but that can be determined by more than a physical test. I can see you run once down the court and determine if you can keep up. A time on a clock is not going to determine that IMO.

Peace

Great points. Sometimes, it is helpful to have an impartial observer (i.e. someone who is not a member of that association) make that determination. If a guy is constantly getting beat (meaning on a break, that the official cannot get into a good position to see the play, but not meaning he has to beat the players down court and be standing at the end line waiting for them to arrive) or hangs back at T, or just looks like he is going to keel over mid-way through the 2nd qtr., it can be difficult for those who have been close to that official for a number of years to broach the subject. Especially, if that individual does a lot FOR the association.

Oh?

Last year, I ended my season with a JV boys game. My veteran partner called a team control foul on A10 during transition. He then started to line up the kids for B11's free throws.

I didn't see the foul, but an alarm went off in my head. We were in transition, so how else could A10's foul be anything but team control? I went to my partner to check on that, and we corrected it. Team B ball at the division line.

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.

It depends on how the test is written and administered. Too many officials just show up at some meeting, copy down 100 Ts and Fs in order, and transcribe that information onto the answer sheet.

At least with a fitness test, you'd have to take it yourself.

Best, I think, would be to combine them. Something like: Sprint from one endline to the other (max time 7 secs or so). Answer a rules question within 10 secs. Repeat 5 times, then a 1 min break. Repeat the entire cycle 10 times.

Tests your physical fitness and your ability to be mentally sharp when physically tired.

If that is the only way you learned, then you either are not taking a NF test and your state/association/chapter gives their own or you are not having discussions or debates with officials during the season. The NF test almost never asked where a ball would be put or if someone would be ejected for certain behavior.

As we speak, our state who administers their own test will not be available until November 1 and will end taking the test on December 5. By November 1 the association that I am President will have already have had 4 meetings. As a state clinician I have been giving presentations in clinics or observed officials several hours since early June. I have also a basketball class in which I teach in the fall that will also have that starts in October and there will be 5 classes with that until November 1. And that does not include all the preparation that I have to personally make in order prepare for my class, the clinics or ask for interpretations to teach the class or run those meetings. And I will have worked 9 games before December 5 when the last date I could theoretically take the exam. And our test is an open book test with only 25 questions (50 total to review if they do the same as football did this year) with questions that not only ask what the rule applies but what we do with the ball or other circumstances of the application. And you are telling me that the only time you review rules is when the test is out? I am sure your system is different than ours on some level, but even if you have to take the exam on one day, I hope and pray you are reviewing the rules a lot more than when the test is going to be taken. I do not by any means consider myself to be a rules expert, but I am often asked many questions about rules in my role as an organizational president and a clinician with my state about how to apply rules. Most questions are not "What is an intentional foul?" Most questions are like we read on this forum where people want to know if they applied the rule correctly and did they give the ball to the right team or were they supposed to eject the coach or the player, not what the wording of an intentional foul is. Why, because they are almost never asked those kinds of questions on rules tests, but questioned if they understand the word for word definition of a rule rather than test all the other aspects of the application. And you will be amazed what people do not know how to apply when they make a call, especially those unusual rules or applications they hardly ever call.

Either you are not being honest with yourself when you actually review rules and situation (I do it mostly with other officials well off the court) or you are one of those that picks up the rulebook one time a year and it never sees the light of day after the test is over. And those are the officials that give 1 shot for an intentional foul when the ball goes in and puts the ball in at half court (more common than you may think).

Peace

Well even know here we do not have a fitness test officially, if you are not at a camp and can prove you can get up and down the court it will be obvious. And one of the typical topics of conversation that camp clinicians have are the physical ability of the officials that are being observed. And I can tell you that many that you and I work for in our area eliminate people based on the physical ability of those they observe. That is really the case when those that claim they can work "varsity" after a few years and in camp cannot keep up with better athletes than they are used to seeing in a running clock game. I will take that any day over a time trial.

Peace

I'm not sure where you inferred that.

I crack a rule book quite frequently. I enjoy rules analysis and application, which is partially why I enjoy forums like these. As for our test, it's closed book, 50 questions for rules, and 25-30 questions on mechanics. We hold three rules clinics prior to the test. I also use RefSchool software, which isn't perfect, but is still a solid tool, just the same.

The example that Bob provided regarding copying down answers is hardly preparation, in my opinion. If that's the norm in some places, no wonder there are some so disillusioned.

You are telling me that the rules test is the only reason you pick up a rulebook? You do not have conversations with other officials during the season, off-season or at association meetings? Then what do you do after the test is over? Do you stop picking up the rulebooks the rest of the season or stop having discussions? I get into more discussions at the bar when the game is over than just about any time during the test taking process.

What Bob described is what takes place in our area because our test is open book and that ideal is endorsed by our higher ups. But if you think there is not other rules discussion, debates or preparation, then you would be sadly mistaken. Football rules are much harder than any basketball rule and application and in that sport I have been involved in similar issues since early June dealing with rules that have more aspects to them and more detail. I was telling someone this weekend I have been talking football at least 2 or 3 times a week since June and want to get to a real game already. Because I am a clinician in basketball and attend camps in the spring, that process has been already for the basketball season since May (season ended in March). It is a 12 month cycle in basketball for sure and these are not even that hard to grasp as I have to deal with working HS and college football.

And as I said before the NF was the test of choice for years and we had to know the difference between what "must" or "shall" more than anything. Or know the inches of the circumference of a basketball or how long the net could be. Great questions of things we will either not measure or probably would not enforce to the point the game is stopped or the item is replace just based on if something is an inch off.

Better yet, the wording in the test was so "cute" that it made no sense and had to be thrown out and did not count towards anyone's score. And it appears there is a lot of delusional behavior when you read this site and people do not know basic things by the nature of their questions and many of those folks are taking closed book tests. I am not seeing the big time benefit to a closed book test.

Peace

For the second time, no.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Peace

Again that is what camp is for and evaluations during the season. There are other ways to better eliminate people from working, which is why I am glad I live in an era where camps are used to hire people or move them up. None of this testing nonsense to see if someone gets a single varsity game or not and certainly not a post season game based solely on some test question that makes no sense.

Peace

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.

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.

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

With all due respect, are you overweight, Stats?

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.

You think camps are a real measure....I can't think of anything more subjective than a camp.

What you can't get in a camp is the players to create a variety of scenarios. Most games go smoothly and you don't really get to see that side of the equation. Even if 1 or 2 things happen, it doesn't really expose whether an official knows what is going on or not overall. They may wing it and get lucky....or the evaluator doesn't know the rule (I've seen that occur). You'd need to watch dozens of games before you'd see an official faced with enough situations to know if they knew the rules.

Passing by 1 point "might" be decent, I don't know from that alone. Nor do I know from a perfect score alone. It takes a balance across all attributes....stronger performances in one area can make of for the others but it can't completely replace it. I'd even agree that on-court observations is the most important element but I think fitness and rules knowledge (that can only be covered in a test-like environment....without considering the exact format of the test) are also relevant.

I think this is where we will disagree. LOTS of crazy scenarios come up at camps. It is subjective but IMO gives you a better idea of how good an official is.

The only real measure of an official's abilities are actual games during the season, because the games count and you have to deal with people that are likely more accountable. During the summer the camp games might have people that are not accountable to anyone so their behavior might be over the top or not what you would normally see. But camps are much better than taking a sit down test or having someone run up and down the court in a time trial. Also most officials are not going to be observed in a real game by someone to make that determination as their real abilities.

Peace