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

[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.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

I must have used too few smilies to denote the sarcasm. I've never had any issues, either, except when coaching.

(Sometimes I forget no one on this board knows I played MFP (poorly) and coached 14U for a few years after getting burnt out. Now I just help with my DD's 8U team when I am not working games.)

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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