test tomorrow

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
The laws of probability (which is really the relevant area) do apply equally to individuals and groups.

I don't have a math degree, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I don't know if that's true or not. But it seems to me that's not really the issue, is it? Seems to me that the issue is whether the probability of a particular outcome is the same for an individual or for a group.

. . . You know, I was gonna try to say something intelligent on the subject, but as I was typing, I realized it just wasn't gonna happen. So, I agree with (hold on while I flip this quarter) Dan!

[PAULK1]

Really could care less about the math part of the thread
(it gives me headaches). Rut makes some good points about testing at the higher levels but why should it be an either or
situation? I would expect a D1 or H.S. finals official to be able score high on the test and have great court presence,
settling for less should be unacceptable and at the very least
have the state or conference reevaluate their training programs. Plain and simple the test is a tool that can be used on different levels. It is not the whole kit but one tool.
More experienced officials use the test to keep up with the rules and trends of the game. For newer officials it is a foundation to build on. For trainers and evaluators it is used
shore up weak spots in the training. For states and conferences
it is used as a minimum qualification(usually accompanied by a time in service for upward movement to gain the game management
skills). while there are always exceptions using the right tool
for its intended purpose leads to superior work and using the wrong tool or using it incorrectly can lead to a sloppy product.

[Nevadaref]

Rut,
I agree with you that just because one has rules knowledge this doesn't make him a good official. There are many other factors and you have cited a few. However, my original post does not in any way concern this topic. I am simply saying that the purpose of the test as an evaluation tool is undermined if one cannot guage an official's RULES KNOWLEDGE by looking at his test score. The reason that this is so is because an official can significantly increase his score by simply guessing. This is my most important point and I hope that Dan will agree with me on this.

The crux of my argument is that under the current grading system a score of 70 does not mean that the official knows 70% of the material on the test, but rather means that he only knows about 50%. This is a problem because most people don't realize this.

If we adopted my +1, 0, -1 scoring, the scores would then much more accurately reflect how much of the material the officials know. I thought that was the purpose of the test--to see how much we know about the rules! For those of you out there that do not like this proposed scoring system, the are other alternatives. One is to simply go to the a,b,c,d,e multiple choice type of test. This would mean that a guesser would on average only get 1 out of every 5 blind guesses right. This would be an improvement over the current system in my opinion, but would require the NFHS to change the way they write the test. The beauty of my +1,0,-1 scoring system is that it does not require the NFHS to change anything. The state or local association that is grading the test simply changes how they score it.

Once again, I am not claiming that one's test score in any way equates to doing a quality job on the court. Clearly someone who scores an 84 may be a much better official than someone who scored a 99. However, I do believe that it is extremely difficult to do a quality job with poor knowledge of the rules. One can get away with it most of the time, but when the crazy situations do occur these officials are at a loss as to what to do. They will simply do what they think is right, try to sell that, and move on. If it works--great, but I would prefer to know how to handle the situation properly and never put myself in a potential mess.

PS Chuck, you crack me up!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Rut,
I agree with you that just because one has rules knowledge this doesn't make him a good official. There are many other factors and you have cited a few. However, my original post does not in any way concern this topic.

Nevada, trust me on this one: don't even bother trying. Rut simply is incapable of having a reasonable discussion about this topic. For proof, go to the "People Skills" thread. Don't try to explain; don't try to understand. Just walk away from it.

PS Chuck, you crack me up!

I'm so glad my total ignorance amuses you!! (I tried to find a smiley with a dunce cap for myself, but it's not where I thought it would be. Hey JR!! Can you do the honors?)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

I'm so glad my total ignorance amuses you!! (I tried to find a smiley with a dunce cap for myself, but it's not where I thought it would be. Hey JR!! Can you do the honors?) [/B][/QUOTE]Mais oui,mon petit ami!

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Mais oui,mon petit ami!

Jurassic Ref ... the French Connection.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Mais oui,mon petit ami!

Mercy, mon sewer!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Rut,
I agree with you that just because one has rules knowledge this doesn't make him a good official.

True, but you'll never be a great official without it.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I have made a habit of looking up every question and finding the section it is in before the season. The test at best is a good study tool before the season. Especially with the new rules and changes that come up.

I just want to emphasize this quote from Jeff. HE STUDIES THE RULES!! We have gotten into the habit of thinking he doesn't care about the rules, but only presence. But I think he believes that both rules and presence are important. Incidentally, this agrees with Tony, and others who have taken up the arguement. In fact, it isn't an argument at all. We all know that both rules and presence are important.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Rut simply is incapable of having a reasonable discussion about this topic. For proof, go to the "People Skills" thread. Don't try to explain; don't try to understand. Just walk away from it.

Here is the interesting plot to this entire discussion. I did not say anything about RULES KNOWLEDGE at all. I just said you could not pass a simple test and then you were proven a good referee. I only used the words "presence" in relationship with several articles that I read that used the word in their articles. Most people have written this off completely, like yourself but cannot quote me any article or quote directly any "high level official," that talks about passing a test the way you do.

I was just passing one words of an official that has accomplished way more than you have (most people here for that matter) and has not officiated as long as many here. He must understand something about officiating that we here are still trying to strive for. If not, then why would the classroom portion of this camp deal more with "how you act on the court and the preception it brings you," than, "what is a false double foul?" Because this official's point was, if you were to call a false double foul, are you going to explain it in a way that a coach is going to understand it? And if you do explain it, is that going to get you "out of the soup," so to speak if $h!t hits the fan? And in this camp where I have done several games on Saturday, not one call was so complicated that I or any official had to figure out the rules interpretation to continue the game. All I have called this weekend are fouls and violations. I did not have any situations that we talked about here that rack the brain to where the language supports my call in the rulebook. And in the end, that is really the only point I am making here. If you want to make it into a "rules knowledge vs. presence" debate, be my guest. But I am just repeating a concept that did not come from me (like the other debate) and sharing it with the board. Considering that I got hired by another assignor on Saturday, I must be doing something right. BTW, he never asked me anything about what scores I received on a test.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rainmaker
But I think he believes that both rules and presence are important. Incidentally, this agrees with Tony, and others who have taken up the arguement. In fact, it isn't an argument at all. We all know that both rules and presence are important.

Absolutely correct, Juulie!! Unfortunately, whenever this topic comes up, Jeff likes to say that there are people on the board who think that ONLY rule knowledge is important. The thread I mentioned is a prime example of that. We all know that that's not true. But he likes to say it anyway I am now officially done with this thread.

[Malcolm Tucker]

We take a test here every year and I think that is good.

Why

As 1 poster said as you get older you tend to keep some older concepts and this can apply to rules.


Now I agree that being a rule wizard is not the only attribute that a good referee should have.

You also need
a.that court presence.
b.a sense of humour.
c.good people skills
d.fitness
e.excellent mechanics

and probably a few more

However if your rule knowledge is limited and that unusual event occurs right at a crucial part of your best game ever and you do not know the correct answer then it becomes your worst game because that is all anyone will remember about your performance

[devobarr]

I'm taking the PA test in October. How was the test on 6/2? Do you have any suggestions?

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by devobarr
I'm taking the PA test in October. How was the test on 6/2? Do you have any suggestions?

They sent me the 2001-2002 test to study. I took it, found the answers online, and re-read most of the sections of the rule book that applied to the 14 I missed on the practice test. I went through it once just putting a single mark in the T or F for each answer, then went through again re-reading each question then filling in the circle on the answer sheet when I was sure. Whole thing took me about 30 minutes, but I'm a fast reader.

[Rick Vietti]

If anyone is interested in brushing up on the NFHS test, I have last years available for your computer.

2 versions - One that can be used on the PC that is in MS Access and requires MS Access (part of the MS Office Suite) and the other is for the Palm

These tests are FREE!

If you are interested go to my website http://www.officialssoftware.com and click on the link for 'Other Products' and scroll to the bottom. There is an e-mail link and send me an e-mail

In the e-mail state:
Sport
and type- either Palm or Access

This might help if you want to brush up on your test taking skills and how these funky tests are worded.