I'm taking the test tomorrow night. I'm still coaching, but I thought I could make some supplemental income in the offseason. I have to score a 75 on the Part I test. They sent me the 2001-02 test to practice and I got an 86. (I don't get a score for court presence, however! :D)

Any advice? Most of my misses were in the first few sections, definitions and the like, so I'm going to reread rules 1 and 10 today.

Nicve going, PACoach.
Only advice I have is to move to Michigan where testing is unecessary.
Good luck.
mick

Now Mick...
 

I took a test in Michigan once. In 1982...

Re: Now Mick...
 

oatmealqueen,
21 years ago!
Why did you take it?
You vets have all the fun!
mick

Not much advice here, Coach. I would say to study up on the definitions, especially of BI and GT. Other than that, relax. You'd probably pass even without studying, just by reading the board for the last year. Good luck to you!

Chuck

If a small quiz is a quizzical.......
 

......then what's a small test?

I have one.
 

Always consider the actual wording of the rulebook. NF tests tend to ask questions with on word wrong and will consider it false, even if it makes sense to the test taker. So you almost have to really understand the actual wording, to do well.

Peace

Re: I have one.
 

Rut - when you said "I have one", were you answering my question? :D

Uh, Rut....
 

<font size = +6> Busted !!! </font>
<HR>
What d'ya have when you have one great big green ball in one hand and another great big green ball in the other hand?

Re: Uh, Rut....
 

Shall we assume you're not referring to croquet?

...
 

Either a very happy or a very mad Jolly Green Giant(depending on his,uh,sexual predilection)?

Re: ...
 

Happy, or mad, you got him where you want him.

I took my small tests :D to the test site, and it seemed pretty easy. I think I have the members of this board to thank for that. There were only four I wasn't sure about, so I'm guessing my score is between 96-100. I'm surprised, after taking it, that only 75 is needed to pass. Somebody who gets only 75 is going to be wrong several times in every game he or she officiates.

Not necessarily the case.
 

Attaboy, PACoach,
Perhaps, some of that weird stuff happens less than once every ten years. And some officials review their answers and make 'em right in their minds.
mick

I wish you'd have been coaching the game I did tonight instead of the ... well, let's just say, guy that was. Worst part was, I'm not sure who looked worse -- him or me! Still not perfect, doggone it...

That makes all of us.

It'll be interesting to see what you score. If it's an NFHS exam, I too have walked out thinking that I only missed 3 or 4, only to find out later that there's usually 2 or 3 others that I just answered toofast and missed.

You would be surprised.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

Quote:

I'm surprised, after taking it, that only 75 is needed to pass. Somebody who gets only 75 is going to be wrong several times in every game he or she officiates.

Many of the wrong answers I see officials get are usually very technical answers. Usually one word is out of place or they take literally which does not happen in real life. Like a question like this, " The Referee designates who is the official scorebook and official scorer for the game?" Now that is very true statement. The problem is in reality we usually are told who they are by the game management and the table people themselves. We play almost no role in that decision on a regular basis. So when someone answers that question, they use reality thinking instead of rulebook language to answer that question. This is why the Athletic Rules Study is so good. The NF uses many of the same questions, over and over and over again between the Part 1 and Part 2 exams. It helped me this past winter for promotion.

Peace

A test question from the latest issue of REFEREE Magazine--

How many basic components of the principle of verticality are there in the rule book ??

If you know this one without "peeking" looking in the rule book, you will ace your test.

To see if your answer is correct, see Rule 4 Section 44.

TEST
 

JRutledge is correct, be careful when reading the questions. The test is more like and english test rather then officating test.

Not true! I made 100 once! :p

But, I've been like the rest of you since then! :(

In addition to other problems with the test, I have a serious objection to the way the test is scored. Under the current system points are scored for getting questions right and there is no penalty for missing a question. This means that you should never leave a question blank, and that if you are just blindly guessing, you should theoretically get half of those guesses right (since it is a True/False test).
Now consider an association that requires an official to score a 75 to work games. So how many questions does the official actually have to know (then just guess on the rest with an expectation of getting credit for 50% of those) in order to expect to pass?
The answer is a lowly 50! He nails 50, then flips a coin on the remaining fifty and gets 25 giving him his required 75.
My point is that the coach is right, 75 is very low. But it is far worse than he realized. He was likely thinking, "Hey, I could get 75 of these in my sleep." But he forgot that he would also get an additional 12 or 13 points for the 25 that he didn't know, just by guessing, putting his score up around 88.
So coach, be very afraid of officials who only score in the 70s, they only know about half of the stuff on the rules test, and yet we are sending them out to work your games.

My cynical belief is that the only purpose of the test is to allow an association to say that they do have a certification proceedure and that such and such an official did pass with a score of whatever, in the event of a lawsuit. In short, they are covering their own a$$es.

If we cared enough to fix the problem, the solution is simple. Score the test as follows: +1 for a right answer, 0 for a question left blank, and -1 for an incorrect answer. This would eliminate the guessing problem, since every incorrect guess would cancel out a correct one. The result will be a much more accurate evaluation of what that official knew on the test.
Those of us who score in the high 90s now, would continue to score there, but for those who don't put any time into studying the rules it would really show in their scores.

Gees!
 

I am confused as to why the test means so much that you would suggest this.
Regardless of the test scores and other requirements to officiate high school basketball, this remains a game. :rolleyes:

and to add my 2 cents
 

Congrats coach - I hope you pass.

The bad thing about PA is once you pass with a score of 75 or better, you never have to take the test again. Just keep sending in your money each year and you are a bonafide basketball referee. Over time, myths turn into rules in the minds of the "veteran" officials. In my chapter, I cannot tell you the number of times we get crazy notions voiced for discussion. Most of the time, these guys don't believe the correct answer and it shows in the games they call. And it is the Vets that keep getting the vasity and playoff games. Half of my chapter still doesn't believe the ball is dead after a made basket! even after reading aloud the rule from the book in the meeting ... "It really doesn't mean *that* because the clock is still running."

If I could change one thing, it would be to have retesting on a periodic basis.

The problem with your stance is that it's, as you stated, theoretical. My experience is that guessers get more wrong than right. In reality, a person being tested will guess based on their misinterpretation of the question. They use a flawed reasoning and make the wrong choice. It's not as if they go down the page answering without reading, in which case your "50 right, 50 wrong" percentages might be close. But they don't "blindly" guess. They read, misinterpret and guess wrong.

In thoery, no one who scores less than 100% should be allowed to officiate because there are obviously things they don't know. But this is reality, isn't it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

In thoery, no one who scores less than 100% should be allowed to officiate because there are obviously things they don't know. But this is reality, isn't it?

What do you can someone who finished last in his class in medical school?

Doctor.

Now that's reality. ;)

Re: Gees!
 

This has been my point all along. Whatever your score is on the test, you still have to run, handle conflict with coaches and players, call the game and use good judgment and to be believable, use the proper mechanics. 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.


Peace

They make the test harder than what is needs to be by the way they word the questions, and then you find yourself second guessing yourself.

The real problem with his stance is that as a theory it is incorrect. Theories of random probability do not apply to any single person, they only apply to very large groups of people. In theory it is very possible for a person to guess on every T/F question and get 100% correct. As the number of people taking the test increases the probability that the overall score is 50% approaches 100%. Gambling casinos show these theories to be true every day.

Dan,
First, I have a math degree. Second, I live in Nevada. So if you want to talk probability and gambling, I'm your man.
Unfortunately, you are not right in saying that my stance is incorrect. Here's why:
What you said above about the score of a single person taking the test has merit, but your claim is terribly misleading.

You are saying that if we give a bunch of officials only the answer sheet and let them just guess T or F, that their average score will approach 50% as the number of officials that we do this with gets bigger and bigger. That is absolutely true. However, you are also saying that if we select only one of these officials at random and look at his score that his score could be very far from 50%. You even used 100% as your example. This is the part of your claim that is misleading. While this is theoretically possible, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. This is due to the normal distribution of the "Bell" curve and the fact that the vast majority of scores are within a standard deviation or two of the mean.
Doing this is exactly the same as flipping a coin 100 times and recording the result. The official now uses Heads = true and Tails = false to fill in his test answers. The chance that someone could score 100% on the test doing this is one-half to the 100th power. That number microscopic! However, above you said, "In theory it is very possible for a person to guess on every T/F question and get 100% correct." Sorry, but no. It is certainly not "very possible." It is in fact, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. (This is why casinos make so much money. Ever play roulette?) Actually, there is the same probability that the official will miss all the questions and score a ZERO. These outlier values occur with such small frequency that we can basically ignore them. That is the whole basis of the theory of probability.
So all of this supports my claim that an official should expect to get roughly half of his guesses right on the test. Yes, some officials will get more than half right and others will get fewer, but it won't vary that much from the 50% figure.
For an example, with some hard numbers to back me up, if you give the test to 256 officials and each of them guesses on exactly 8 questions, you would only expect 1 official to get all 8 of his guesses correct. If each official guessed on 10 questions, you would have to give the test to 1024 people in order to expect a single person to get all 10 guesses correct. For 30 guesses, that number jumps to 1073741824. How many officials do you think we need to test before someone would correctly guess all 100 questions? The answer is 2 to the 100th power. A huge number.
Now remember, my problem is not with those officials who need to guess on only 10 questions (due to wording problems and some technical definitions most of us have a few guesses), but those who are so lacking in rules knowledge that they have to guess on about half of the test.

To get a hard number that we can work with let's say 50. If an official is guessing on fifty questions, his chance of nailing all of them is 1 in 2^50 (which I believe is a 16 digit number). However, he has about a 50% chance of getting either 23,24,25,26,or 27 of those guesses right and an 88% chance of scoring between 20 and 30 correct. So he can basically add a safe +20 to his score by guessing. Therefore, someone who knows only 50% of the stuff will look like he knows over 70%. That is not helpful for evaluating an official.

Therefore, the scoring of the test is misleading because the scores not only don't reflect your officiating ability, they don't even accurately approximate your rules knowledge!

Mick, that is what I object to. I believe that if we are going to go through the process of taking the test that we should at least make it meaningful in some manner.

I agree that a T/F test is no way to test an individuals knowledge of the rules. The higher you score then the more you know, theoretically. The lower your score is, then there is a higher likelihood that you were guessing on more of the questions. The best way to test someone's knowledge is by making them explain their answers. That way you will know if they actually know what they're talking about. This is somewhat unlikely given the logistics nightmare it would be to grade so many different tests and rely on a graders' interpretation of what an official was trying to convey in his answer.

NevadaRef
 

Your explanation re: 'very likely' is right on target - although the <B> assumption </B> that the distribution of any population is bell-like is . . . an assumption. In most of the populations we look at in life, experience shows that to be the case. But it is not the only way things can be distributed.

As to the 'guess-effect' in standardized testing, what choice do we have other than to be aware that it's there and, perhaps, supplement this kind of testing with a floor test, a game conditions review?

I have no clue if your analogy is correct, nor do I really care. But you have to understand that people here are just going to disagree with you because it does not fit what they have experienced or will try to justify it because they take this test and get high marks.


I and many people have been saying that for years. And one of the reasons I have yet to be asked by an assignor or clinician, "what was your test score this past year?" They do not ask that. And the funny thing, I just attended a classroom session for a camp this weekend, and the guy running the camp was more concerned about who was sitting up in the front of the room. Because the preception is that the best "students" sit in the front of the class to hear, respond or to be called on to answer questions. And those that sit in the back of the room are the "slackers." What is funny about that, there have been studies that back up that claim.


The funny thing about this discussion has always been, when we are out on the court, no one ever talks about these tests to us or even mentions them, but we sit around here and debate their importance or lack there of. But they are here to stay, I just think we need to keep them in perspective.

Peace

The true value of the NFHS tests are skewed by how the state associations use them.

NFHS does not have an enforceable procedure nation wide to verify the usage of these tests. Instead they leave it up to the state associations to administer the tests, score them and place whatever importance on these tests.

Some states require officials to take them closed book, some open book, some once every X years.

I agree you have to put the use of these tests into the perspective of where you live and how the tests are used.

Just like high school proficiency tests, the NFHS tests are for the benefit of a larger organization to say "Here is our standard, pass this and you can go officiate."

Wow! Are we taking an English test, Math test, or officiating test?

AK ref SE

Test Tomorrow
 

Be aware of all new rules, theese more than likely will be on the exam. And "never" add anything to the questions. Also this is a fact, once a question reads that a defender has established "legal guarding position" he/she can do no wrong!

Good Luck!

Not quite. (Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone with a degree in mathematics would use probability in this manner.) In a random sample of 2^100 officials all guessing, you would expect one to get a perfect score. However, reality is not the same as probability! The first official guessing may get 100%. They may all get 100%, it may so happen that no one scores 100%.

Even more shocking, however, is the "guessing penalty." Under that rule, there would be 10 qualified officials in the entire country.

Sigh...if you wanna play dueling degrees I'm afraid you're not gonna come out too well. So let's just stick to the point, OK?

Probability does not apply to a *single* random test taker. This is a fundemental concept. A single random test taker could get all, some, or none right in a 100 question T/F test and his results can not be predicted by the laws of statistics. Also, as Mark said, for N large we should expect SOME guessers to get 100% correct. But for N large the guessers tend to converge on a score of 50% correct with a probability approaching 1.

And since you live in Nevada howzabout you put $100 on 00 for me, OK? Keep doing it until I win! :)

[Edited by Dan_ref on Jun 5th, 2003 at 10:23 PM]

Dan,
You keep saying that probability theory does not apply to a single test taker. This is wrong. The laws of mathematics and probability certainly do apply to him. Just because there is a slim chance that his score may not be within our expected range does not mean that these concepts do not apply to this situation. Probability theory accounts for these unexpected results and adequately explains them. This means that he is fully covered by the theory.

You need to revise what you are writing to something more along the lines of "Although, we would expect someone who is guessing to get about half of their answers correct, there is an outside chance that any single test taker's results could be far from what is expected."
I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

To take a gambling example, could you come to Nevada and hit a jackpot on your very first pull of the slot machine handle? Yes, you could. Does this mean that the mathematics that casinos base their business upon does not apply to you when you first walk in the door? No. No one would come in the door thinking, "I can beat the odds because I am a single random gambler and probability theory doesn't apply to me." See how silly that sounds?
PS If they didn't have table limits, I would be down there playing roulette right now!
As for Mark, he is shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that there is gambling going on here. ;)

I'll take those bets!

I don't think so. Anyone who puts some time into studying the rules would have no trouble finding 75 or 80 that they knew. Heck, we have a coach telling us how easy the test is! As for those who aren't willing to make the effort, let them work the JV and FR games if they don't get the required score. What's wrong with that?

Not just there, but at the Univ of Washington, too! :eek:

Just at a camp yesterday.
 

Even if you put the effort in, take all that time to study for a test that is really only going to exam your word for word knowledge of the rules. The test still is not going to prove you can officiate.

Just yesterday I was at a camp and the official running the camp, who happens to be a D1 Official and does many professional leagues told us this yesterday. For the record I am paraphrasing a bit, "rulebook officials can be the worst officials." In his words he calls these kind of people, "rulebook officials," for trying to learn every aspect of the rules, but cannot officiate a lick. He further went on to say, "they can know all these rules, but cannot call a simple foul or violation." So if you get and 80 (required by my state) as compared to 100, the official with the 100 score is not necessarily a better official than the official that only scored an 80. So when I hear an official that does more levels than anyone here talks about doing personally, tell me how silly it is to quote rule after rule after rule, that speaks volumes to me personally. Because in his words he says, "you need to have people skills, common sense and a basic understanding of the rules to officiate any game." He further went on to say, "if you do not have people skills to deal with coaches and players, you are in big trouble." Call it what you want, but I have seen more articles in Referee Magazine about "Presence, Dealing with conflict, Are you Argumentative, First Impressions," and a few other topics taht had little or nothing to do with passing a test, I am convinced.

Peace

JRUT-
I have seen people not just in officiating but in other areas of life. They can recite a manual for work, they can pass the written drivers test (and be the worst drivers in the world.) To succeed you need people skills, knowledge of whatever rules or regulations you are dealing with, common sense, and I am sure I am leaving out many other skill sets that are needed. So agree, if the only thing you can do is take a test you may not be a great official.

AK ref SE

Gotta side with Nevada on this. The laws of probability (which is really the relevant area) do apply equally to individuals and groups. If each "guess" is an independent event with two equally probable outcomes, it makes no difference whether the event is triggered by one or many different individuals. Thus, to continue with the coin toss analogy, the probability of 100 people each tossing a head with a single toss is the same as one individual tossing 100 out of 100 heads. The only issues that matter for the topic at hand are whether each "guess" is truly a random event (i.e., not influenced by prior events) and whether the two possible outcomes (T or F) are equally probable. Theoretically one could quantify those factors as well and develop a complete probability model to take them into account. My take is that they are not germain to Nevad's point that guessing should be penalized. The bottom line is that while I can never predict the outcome of a random event, I can assign a probility to it. I can also assign a probabilty to combinations and permutations of independent random events. I can give a probability for 7 out of 7 heads in a row, 7 out of ten, seven in a row in a series of ten tosses, etc. In fact, I can determine the exact probability of ANY possible outcome in the situation being described. Once actual results have been recorded, those results will fit into some place in the computed probability distribution. If the individual repeast the same series of questions randomly guessing again, his results will again fit into one of the slots. In fact, the distribution of these predicted outcomes fit a polynomial distribution which, at the size we are dealing with, is "normal" for all practical puposes. Over time, the frequency of his results will converge on the probabilities predicted. This is where statistics (as opposed to straightforward probability theory) comes into play.

Statistics are generally used when one is trying to extrapolate (predict) population characteristics or parameters from sample statistics. Under those situations, increases in the sample population will tend to produce data points from the sample that are normally distributed about the true value of the parameter of the underlying population. This is independent as to whether the characteristic iself follows a normal distribution in the actual population. (If I determine the average age of many different classes of 9th graders in New York, those averages will tend to be normally distributed around the actual mean of all 9th graders in New York. This is true even though the actual ages of the 9th graders are not likely to be normally distributed.) This principle can be used to predict the probability that the results from any given sample accurately reflect the underlying population. For example, it could be used modify the assumption that guessers on a test are equally likely to guess True and False. It also has the same basis as the statement that the more often an individual repeats the guessing process, the more likely his results will match the predicted outcomes. However, it has nothing to do with calculating the probability of the different possible outcomes from multiple coin tosses, or multiple random guesses between two possible answers.

Well, maybe you should go back & reread my posts, pay attention to this:

I would suggest you go back to YOUR original post & reword that to make it fit the mathematics that we both seem to know so well - I suggest a few sprinkles of "on average", "likely expected outcome", and like that.

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! :D

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.

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!

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.

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?)

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!
http://213.239.157.21/smilies/dunce.gif

Jurassic Ref ... the French Connection.

Mercy, mon sewer!

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

Re: Re: Gees!
 

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.

He never asked about that.
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Gees!
 

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.

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

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.

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.

Here is the main equation. Of course rules are important. Rules are very important to your preparation and ability when you actually get on the court. But when you get on that court, no one is going to know what the rules actually are, but the officials and maybe an evaluator that is watching the game. In basketball, we do not have many games where there is a real debate in what the rules say. When a coach complains about a travel, is he/she doing that on the basis of the rules or what they think is in the rulebook? How many times has a coach told you as an official that you missed a rule and they did not have a clue what and why you made your call (using rulebook knowledge here)? This is why we have to have good mechanics, believability in signals, good posture and good physical condition are extremely important to being a good official. For those that are always looking for the obscure and unusual to call, you are not going to be believed very often. One of the reasons phrase, "call the obvious" keeps coming up all the time in my journeys. And another reason you do not see multiple fouls, false double fouls and resume play-procedures called all the time. Even in my state they made a big deal about the new coaching box, well I can count on my hand the times a T was called against a coach for it.

In the camp I attended this weekend, some of the best players in the country were in attendance. This was an Adidas backed tournament that had teams from all over the country. I did the championship game of the 17 and up level, and the play was constantly above the rim all tournament long. Some of thhe best talent in the country was there, many already going to top D1 school and some possible NBA prospects for next year. Many of the players could shoot the lights out, dribble to the basket with ease and dunk the ball and a moments notice. And to add, coaches (one was an NBA player) that would be in your grill over many calls. To put the icing on the cake, one of the best officials in Chicago critiquing us and telling us what to do and not do. Not once can I think of a time any of us were told "that is the rule, that has to be call." But I did here, "is that call believable and can you sell that." So the entire weekend I was concentrating on making consistent calls rather than telling coach, "that is not a travel because rule blah-blah-blah say............." That was not the case at all. And when I would try to explain something in rulebook language, I would have a coach say, "I played the game all my life, I know what the rules of the game are. And I know them better than you." I guess quoting or try to explain the rule worked out well there?

Peace

I must not be a very good guesser. I got my score back today--97. Either I only got 1 out of 4 that I guessed on, or I missed something I was sure I had correct!

My score came printed on my official's ID card, which it says I have to carry whenever I officiate. Armed with this piece of knowledge, the next time I coach and I disagree with some calls, I'll ask him to produce his card and match mine up! :D

I never paid attention to the threads about which shirt, pants, whistle, etc., but I will have to now. They sent along a packet of info from Purchase Officials Supplies of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. Ref in PA or anybody else, have you ever purchased from them? I see that I can get a "starter package" (shirt, pants, shoes, socks, comp shorts, whistle, lanyard, t-shirt) for $141! So much for making a little extra money on the side!

A similar package is available from Honig's for about the same $$$. It doesn't have the comp shorts, but it does have a flex belt and a jacket. Honig's has always given me superb service---they know their stuff and have always been awesome on returns and exchanges.

Congradulations
 

You really cannot go wrong ordering from any place really. Honig's, Gerry Davis, +POS all can work. You can get shoes from just about any of these places or anywhere local that has all black leather. I think the best pants to get are the Sansabelt pants. Anything else is not worth the money. Shirt are strictly a matter of perference. I personally like the Poly/Cotton type. They do not wrinkle as easily. The breathe enough for me and are confrontable. But many I know like the Micro-Mesh type. To each his own on shirts. It really does not matter unless you have a preference. The Gerry Davis socks to me are the best. You do not have to wear two socks to keep your feet confrontable or dry with those (black and white socks I am talking about). Everything else is about comfort and personal preference.

Good Luck coach. ;)