Worst questions on this year's NFHS Part 1 exam.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Poorest of the lot:

1. A batting helmet is considered legal if it has:
A. A surface with no dents or cracks.
B. A matte surface.
C. A mirror-like surface.
D. Both a and b.

This question is bad because the "correct" answer (D) includes something that is not mentioned at all in the rules: matte surface. In point of fact, the commentary on the new rule making mirror-like surfaces illegal specifically allows a glossy finish, just not mirror-like. Given the new rule, a reasonable person trying to figure out what they must have meant could reasonably come to the conclusion they might be wanting to make the point that "not mirror-like" does not mean "matte". Instead, they perhaps build a perception that the rule says the helmet must be matte. Really bad question writing

3. A catcher's helmet is considered legal if it has:
A. A smooth surface.
B. A dent.
C. A glare surface.
D. A rough surface.

This question lists not a single attribute from the rule book regarding a legal helmet. In fact, it lists two attributes that are not mentioned as being either legal or illegal. So, you have to guess which is more legal? The "correct" answer is A.

IMO you may be overthinking it. The question asks for a condition of a helmet which would cause the helmet to not be legal. It did not ask for the umpire to define an illegal catcher's helmet. Obviously, a matte surface meets the requirement of the rule. But I wouldn't doubt for a minute that some coach out there has or will try to convince an umpire that anything other than a helmet with a matte finish is illegal because of a potential glare. Personally, I think the rule is a joke.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IMO you may be overthinking it. The question asks for a condition of a helmet which would cause the helmet to not be legal. It did not ask for the umpire to define an illegal catcher's helmet. Obviously, a matte surface meets the requirement of the rule. But I wouldn't doubt for a minute that some coach out there has or will try to convince an umpire that anything other than a helmet with a matte finish is illegal because of a potential glare. Personally, I think the rule is a joke.

That's like saying "A bat is considered legal if..." "It has a barrel." That doesn't make it legal. It is a criteria for its legality. It's a poor question, plain and simple.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

That's like saying "A bat is considered legal if..." "It has a barrel." That doesn't make it legal. It is a criteria for its legality. It's a poor question, plain and simple.

Well, hell, if you say so it must be true. D'oh!

There is nothing wrong with the question. IMO, it is pretty straight forward question that actually makes an umpire think instead of just looking for key words in a book.

Seems to me that would be something you would support as much as you rail against umpires you believe to be clones.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, hell, if you say so it must be true. D'oh!

There is nothing wrong with the question. IMO, it is pretty straight forward question that actually makes an umpire think instead of just looking for key words in a book.

Seems to me that would be something you would support as much as you rail against umpires you believe to be clones.

What I support are clear rule questions that are supported by rule and conform to proper use of the English language.

Obviously, one answer is better than the others because the others can't be true. My analogy is accurate and to the point. It's a bad question. They could have just said, "In order for a helmet to be considered legal, it must have..."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

What I support are clear rule questions that ... .... conform to proper use of the English language.

Please don't ask anyone to hold their breath until then.

[outathm]

I had the question that asked "The Taper is the part of the bat between the bar rel and the handle".

This is a true statement, but the answer for the test is false, because they removed the adjective "Transition" from the definition.

The Taper of the bat is the area, AND the Transition Area, of the bat as described in the question.

The test was getting better for a couple of years, but is quickly reverting back to it's former state and this is not a good thing. IMHO

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Please don't ask anyone to hold their breath until then.

Wish you could see the NYS test.....of which EsqUmp happens to be one of the co-authors!

Seriously, as you may or may not know, NY is a non-NFHS school in softball, and although we go by ASA JO rules. our mechanics are totally different to the point that we have a separate NYSSO mechanics manual - written by EsqUmp. When you compare our test to say, the ASA test - or just about any other test of this kind, it really is written well.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

What I support are clear rule questions that are supported by rule and conform to proper use of the English language.

Yes, however, how many coaches put a question to you that uses rule-book words and conforms to proper use of the English language? Never mind the rants.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Yes, however, how many coaches put a question to you that uses rule-book words and conforms to proper use of the English language? Never mind the rants.

Coaches that are former or current umpires, who in my experience are simultaneously the most pleasant and most treacherous bunch of folks to deal with on the field.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Coaches that are former or current umpires, who in my experience are simultaneously the most pleasant and most treacherous bunch of folks to deal with on the field.

I find that only bad umpires have this opinion. I've never had an issue with a coach who also umpires.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IMO you may be overthinking it. The question asks for a condition of a helmet which would cause the helmet to not be legal. It did not ask for the umpire to define an illegal catcher's helmet. Obviously, a matte surface meets the requirement of the rule. But I wouldn't doubt for a minute that some coach out there has or will try to convince an umpire that anything other than a helmet with a matte finish is illegal because of a potential glare. Personally, I think the rule is a joke.

To be fair, most of the time the rule is verbatim from the book. The few occasions it isn't are those that are confusing.

There was a question this year that added "and spouses" to the end of it which made it wrong. I checked the NFHS site for the softball rules and searched for the word "matte". It's not in the rule book. I still got the question right, but it was a departure from the norm. This was one we DID have to overthink.

I got the one about the "adult" coach saying his/her team was properly equipped wrong. The passage in the book says this is the "head" coach's responsibility. But "adult" coach was deemed to be a correct response.

And a taper no longer has to be "smooth".

On it goes...