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

[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.

31. When a thrown live ball accidentally touches a base coach in foul territory, the ball is live and in play.

Does the coach's box include all of foul territory? Obviously not, but the "correct" answer to this question is "True."

87. The score of a forfeited game is 7-0 unless the offending team is behind; then the score remains as recorded.

What if the score is 3-2 (offending team behind) at the bottom of the 1st when the game is forfeited? Yet, the "correct" answer to this question is "True."

Less egregiously poor (but still poorly written) questions:

5. A runner is not out if hit with a fair batted ball that deflects off F1's glove.

The correct answer is "sometimes", yet the official answer is "True".

37. A delayed dead-ball situation occurs when the umpire interferes with the catcher who is attempting to throw a non-batted ball.

Again, the correct answer is "sometimes", yet the official answer is "True".

The annual lament: you would think an education-based sports body could do better.

Do I feel bad about revealing the official answers before some states' deadlines are reached? Not a bit. If they are going to write questinos this poorly, then I have no ethical twinges about revealing the "correct" answers.

[CecilOne]

Welcome back !

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Welcome back !

Thanks.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The annual lament: you would think an education-based sports body could do better.

I am of the opinion that the Federation is a governing body of sports whose high-school-age players merely happen to be affiliated through educational organizations through coincidence. No other explanation satisfies me with NFHS rulemaking and tests.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Do I feel bad about revealing the official answers before some states' deadlines are reached? Not a bit. If they are going to write questinos this poorly, then I have no ethical twinges about revealing the "correct" answers.

1) I think our ethics are in line.
2) I am officially stealing the word "questinos".

[prab]

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.

31. When a thrown live ball accidentally touches a base coach in foul territory, the ball is live and in play.

Does the coach's box include all of foul territory? Obviously not, but the "correct" answer to this question is "True."

87. The score of a forfeited game is 7-0 unless the offending team is behind; then the score remains as recorded.

What if the score is 3-2 (offending team behind) at the bottom of the 1st when the game is forfeited? Yet, the "correct" answer to this question is "True."

Less egregiously poor (but still poorly written) questions:

5. A runner is not out if hit with a fair batted ball that deflects off F1's glove.

The correct answer is "sometimes", yet the official answer is "True".

37. A delayed dead-ball situation occurs when the umpire interferes with the catcher who is attempting to throw a non-batted ball.

Again, the correct answer is "sometimes", yet the official answer is "True".

The annual lament: you would think an education-based sports body could do better.

Do I feel bad about revealing the official answers before some states' deadlines are reached? Not a bit. If they are going to write questinos this poorly, then I have no ethical twinges about revealing the "correct" answers.

I like this post!

1. As listed here is different from Question 1 on the Exam I took in Wisconsin. Our question listed only 2 possible answers: a matte surface; a mirror-like surface.

3. Agree completely.

31. Although I agree with your reasoning, this question was on the 2010 Part 1 exam and was TRUE back then. At least NFHS was consistent.

87. This was question 86 on our exam and it was on the 2007 exam. TRUE then. Again, at least they were consistent.

5 & 37. Again both were on previous exams and consistent with this year.

Now let me take you back to one of my all time favorite exam questions from the 2011 Part 1 exam::

30. Prior to the start of the game at the pregame conference, the head coach shall be responsible for verifying which of the following?

a. That the lineup card is correct.
b. That all players are legally equipped.
c. That players and equipment are in compliance with all NFHS rules.
d. B and C only.
e. All of the above

(Exam instructions stated that only one answer should be selected for multiple choice questions.)

Now 3-5-1 clearly stated (2011) that the head coach must verify the information listed as answers a, b and c. So picking ONE of these seemed to be incorrect.

d was therefore also clearly incorrect.

That left e as the only other choice. I maintain that d (since it is above e) makes e incorrect also.

Therefore, I concluded that it was impossible to answer Question 30 correctly. However, being a veteran of the NFHS exam wars, I answered "e" and got it correct.

I have found that saving old exams has saved me much wailing and gnashing of teeth!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Welcome back, old friend.

I'm not sure I agree with your issue with #31. Are you suggesting that if the coach is in foul territory, but beyond or behind the coaches' box when accidentally touched by a thrown live ball that you have something different?

On the road, don't have an NFHS book with me, but isn't the coaches' box defined as the place a coach should be when a pitch is thrown? I've never considered addressing a coach that moves out of the box while a play is developing, as long as that movement wasn't intended to create an issue for the defense.

NOTE: the NCAA coaches' box has no back or outfield end, specifically to allow coaches freedom in those directions. Even then, good third base coaches often move closer towards home in foul territory to allow a last minute signal on a runner taking a wide turn; I wouldn't rule on a thrown ball that accidentally touched that coach, either.

[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.

[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...

[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

[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.