I believe that in this statement the head of the nail has been located and sufficiently hit.

Sorry guys but Steve is right. I know we are a team on the field and that we support each other and discuss the play after the game to improve ourself and our partners. I just believe we should have a thorough knowledge of the rule when we walk onto the field, and the current method (IMHO) does not provide new umpires the same benefits that were provided to me when I started umpiring ASA. I already had 9 years of umpiring experience before I took a nine year break. when I came back 9 years ago ASA was/is the rule set all local Rec leagues were/are using. The first two years the test was closed book. I missed 20 questions. Then I had to take my test find the right answers and quote the rule. This is what got me in the book. Fast forward to this year... 30 Umpires meet a Denny's. 15 were new and most of them wrote in the answers as they were given.

Time to go bake to closed book test.

I am very proud to say that in our high school group, the scores on our NYS test - which is closed book, and done as a group, are almost all 80% and above, with a vast majority getting 90 and up. Our group clinicians do a VERY good job of doing the pre test 'review'. I would put our little (about 65 members)high school group against ANY group of officials as far as rule knowledge and mechanics ae concerned.

Sorry Ron, but I will have take exception to this as well. I have held one of those meetings where everyone gets together to discuss the test for years, and one of my requirements when I send out the email is to bring a completed test with you when you attend. The point is for several of us to get together to discuss, argue and dissect the rules/questions that cause the most problems. Ergo, we all walk away from this meeting with a better understanding of the rules, and hopefully as better umpires. Just like any other tool, open book testing and meetings to discuss the tests can be abused, but when used properly help many of us learn and grow. Largely, this falls first to the individual, to have the integrity to want to grow as an umpire, and next to the administrator of the test or the chair of the meeting. There will always be cheats, and whether you allow open book testing or not is not going to get rid of them.

Sorry, vcblue, but you are wrong. There is no one right answer that fits all.

You may have an opinion which you think is better, but neither is right or wrong. That's why there's vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and swirl.

I disagree with you and he.

Now I wouldnt say I am MTR/AltUmpSteve level of rules knowledge, but I'd pit my rules knowledge up against anyone and at least hold my own.. and I've always taken a open book test.

The test can be used as a tool of learning. I have no problem with the associations that choose that approach as opposed to a "dmv driving" type test. It can be a fine learning tool as can group discussions about the exam, this message board, and other mechanisms other than a standardized closed book exam.

Learning rules is on the umpire... Test or no test.

WHAT!?!? No Butter Pecan, especially in your neck of the woods!

Obviously, ASA supports an open-book test or they wouldn't release the test to the general public.

The idea is to get the umpire to learn the rules, not to develop a method of exclusion to keep people off the field though there are people you do want to keep off certain fields and that is something which is administered locally based upon the results of the test.

Knowing the rules is not the be all to end all of umpiring. It is just as important to know how and when to apply the rules and to be in position to make the correct call.

What Wade said.

Open or closed ,it seems to me that those who want to know the rules will, those who could care less won't.

Well, if they "won't", how could they care less? :rolleyes::D

Sounds like a local problem to me.

And those answers came out of the menu? :D