Author Topic: 2011 CFO Test  (Read 46747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cmathews

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2011, 01:58:36 PM »
ok more horses to beat to death and beyond  #56 and #100????   answers A are not correct for either according to my results...I have looked and looked through the book and still come up with A for both...can someone please help???

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2011, 03:03:53 PM »
ok more horses to beat to death and beyond  #56 and #100????   answers A are not correct for either according to my results...I have looked and looked through the book and still come up with A for both...can someone please help???

These are tough ones to accept, but it has to do with the fact that the clock would not have stopped had the 'down' ruling been made on the field. Since the BC was short of the LTG, the clock would have not stopped, so there is no real way for anybody to gauge how much time would have expired before A could get another play off. So, in 56, no time is added to the game clock, and it starts on the RFP. In 100, similar story. Since the RO can't put time back on the clock, and A has no T/Os remaining - game over - so it isn't reviewable.

Wing4Life

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2011, 09:35:20 PM »
ok more horses to beat to death and beyond  #56 and #100????   answers A are not correct for either according to my results...I have looked and looked through the book and still come up with A for both...can someone please help???

To further support El Macman's response to #s 56 & 100, there's a 2009 bulletin posted on CFO Arbiter that is focused just on instant replay. It is VERY helpful.

Offline Hondo

  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #78 on: June 17, 2011, 10:09:09 AM »
As this was explained to me, other than an egregious error, the only time that the clock can be adjusted on a replay reversal is if time ran off the clock and the result of the replay decision created a stopped clock.

El Macman

  • Guest
2011 CFO Test #84
« Reply #79 on: June 19, 2011, 03:48:37 PM »
Finally getting a chance to finish my 'rough draft' of the test.
#84 - either they goofed in authoring the question, or they are hinting it is an egregious error. They reference a flag being thrown for a Team B player being voluntarily OB on a kickoff. Since there is no rule prohibiting a Team B player from going OB, then either they goofed, and mean a Team A player, or they didn't goof and they are asking us to determine if replay can get involved via the "egregious error" clause. In this case, I'd say yes, since it doesn't involve judgment - only an improper ruling based purely on fact and mis-application of rule.

How do y'all see it? Authoring error? Or 'egregious error?'

Offline FLbackjudge

  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #80 on: June 20, 2011, 02:04:26 PM »
The question says he's flagged for "having been voluntarily out of bounds."  In other words, he is not still OB when he touches the ball, so it's not a KOB.  My reading is that it's a bad call (flagging a Team B player for having been out of bounds), but it's not reviewable.  I don't believe it's an "egregious" error (though that term is not defined, I think it would have to result in a score or put a team in a position from which they are precluded from winning); it's just an error, and our errors are not always reviewable.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #81 on: June 20, 2011, 09:03:35 PM »
The question says he's flagged for "having been voluntarily out of bounds."  In other words, he is not still OB when he touches the ball, so it's not a KOB.  My reading is that it's a bad call (flagging a Team B player for having been out of bounds), but it's not reviewable.  I don't believe it's an "egregious" error (though that term is not defined, I think it would have to result in a score or put a team in a position from which they are precluded from winning); it's just an error, and our errors are not always reviewable.

In re-studying Rule 12, it is indeed, Not Reviewable, and not correctible by the RO. 12-3-6 gives the RO the ability to correct egregious errors, but, as it regards fouls, that discretion is limited to those fouls that are specifically reviewable, and a player OB voluntarily is NOT one of those. So, Not Reviewable.

That is why this site is so valuable.

El Macman

  • Guest
CFO Test #18
« Reply #82 on: June 20, 2011, 09:21:11 PM »
#18
Major ambiguity.

"The running back is split outside the tackle box to his left."

What does that mean? Is he to the right of the tackle box, such that the tackle box is "...to his left"? Or, is he split wide to the left side of the formation, thus, outside and left of the tackle box?

Any good guesses?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3849
  • FAN REACTION: +99/-283
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #83 on: June 20, 2011, 09:31:27 PM »
I'd go with the simple reading he's outside the tackle box to his left - so I've got him on the left side of the tackle box.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #84 on: June 20, 2011, 10:48:38 PM »
I'd go with the simple reading he's outside the tackle box to his left - so I've got him on the left side of the tackle box.

Yeah, considering the series of question (18, 19, 20), for him to be on the left side of the formation would seem to follow what they appear to be looking for.

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #85 on: June 22, 2011, 08:46:37 AM »
Can someone explain why question #87 is reviewable?  Isn't this a judgement call by the SJ that the receiver went out on his own?  Is there a rule reference for this?

Offline RedTD

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #86 on: June 22, 2011, 03:04:50 PM »
12.3.3h and From the Replay Casebook.

35. Pass receiver Possibly Out of Bounds
First and 10 on the A-20. Wide receiver A88 catches a pass at the 50 and carries the ball across Team B’s goal line. Officials flag A88 for illegal touching after he apparently stepped on the sideline at the A-38 prior to the catch. It is possible that A88 was blocked out of bounds by his defender. RULING: Reviewable, regarding whether A88 contacted the sideline. Replay official could reverse the ruling ONLY if the video showed absolutely that the receiver went out of bounds due to a block by the opponent.

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #87 on: June 22, 2011, 04:00:58 PM »
12.3.3h and From the Replay Casebook.

35. Pass receiver Possibly Out of Bounds
First and 10 on the A-20. Wide receiver A88 catches a pass at the 50 and carries the ball across Team B’s goal line. Officials flag A88 for illegal touching after he apparently stepped on the sideline at the A-38 prior to the catch. It is possible that A88 was blocked out of bounds by his defender. RULING: Reviewable, regarding whether A88 contacted the sideline. Replay official could reverse the ruling ONLY if the video showed absolutely that the receiver went out of bounds due to a block by the opponent.

Thanks- I did end up finding that AR after I posted.

I'm not sure 12.3.3h applies since you're not reviewing whether he stepped out or not (they flagged the illegal touch) but rather if he was blocked out or went out on his own.  Seems like this is a judgement call like other fouls that wouldn't be reviewable.

TexRef2280

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #88 on: June 23, 2011, 12:19:03 PM »
When do the answers become available for this test anyway? I am doing this for practice as a high school official, just at some point would like to know how i did.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test
« Reply #89 on: June 23, 2011, 08:47:42 PM »
When do the answers become available for this test anyway? I am doing this for practice as a high school official, just at some point would like to know how i did.

On August 29, the "test review" becomes available, whatever that means.

El Macman

  • Guest
2011 CFO Test #54
« Reply #90 on: June 23, 2011, 08:58:49 PM »
Hep me, hep me...I've been hipmotized...

With the aid of the invaluable discussion on this site, I took the CFO exam - got a 99. I missed #54. After looking at it for an hour, unless I check the wrong choice, I can't figure how I missed it.

54. A, 4/10 @ A35. The Team B receiver waves for a fair catch at the B-10. He lets the ball go over his head and now blocks an opponent at the B-16. The punt goes untouched into the end zone.
A. Touchback; B, 1/10 @ B-20
A. B, 1/10 @ B-8; half the distance penalty
A. B, 1/10 @ B-11; 5-yard penalty

The three "A" choices in the PDF document notwithstanding, I answered B. Anybody see how that could be wrong?
Assuming the second answer is actually “B,” a fair catch signaler that doesn’t touch the kick may not block or foul an opponent for the remainder of the down. That is a PSK foul, and the end of the kick is in the EZ, so the Basic Spot is the B-20. The spot of the foul is behind the BS, so this is a spot foul. The penalty is 15 yards, so we'll go 1/2 the distance, 1st & 10. So, B,1/10, B-8.

Can anybody hep me? Perhaps I inadvertently selected something other than B.

Grant - AR

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test #54
« Reply #91 on: June 23, 2011, 09:40:20 PM »
Hep me, hep me...I've been hipmotized...

With the aid of the invaluable discussion on this site, I took the CFO exam - got a 99. I missed #54. After looking at it for an hour, unless I check the wrong choice, I can't figure how I missed it.

54. A, 4/10 @ A35. The Team B receiver waves for a fair catch at the B-10. He lets the ball go over his head and now blocks an opponent at the B-16. The punt goes untouched into the end zone.
A. Touchback; B, 1/10 @ B-20
A. B, 1/10 @ B-8; half the distance penalty
A. B, 1/10 @ B-11; 5-yard penalty

The three "A" choices in the PDF document notwithstanding, I answered B. Anybody see how that could be wrong?
Assuming the second answer is actually “B,” a fair catch signaler that doesn’t touch the kick may not block or foul an opponent for the remainder of the down. That is a PSK foul, and the end of the kick is in the EZ, so the Basic Spot is the B-20. The spot of the foul is behind the BS, so this is a spot foul. The penalty is 15 yards, so we'll go 1/2 the distance, 1st & 10. So, B,1/10, B-8.

Can anybody hep me? Perhaps I inadvertently selected something other than B.

We talked about this one in our rules meeting tonight and came up with the same answer.  I'm not sure how it could be anything else.

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2905
  • FAN REACTION: +112/-58
Re: 2011 CFO Test #54
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2011, 01:10:13 AM »
Hep me, hep me...I've been hipmotized...

With the aid of the invaluable discussion on this site, I took the CFO exam - got a 99. I missed #54. After looking at it for an hour, unless I check the wrong choice, I can't figure how I missed it.

54. A, 4/10 @ A35. The Team B receiver waves for a fair catch at the B-10. He lets the ball go over his head and now blocks an opponent at the B-16. The punt goes untouched into the end zone.
A. Touchback; B, 1/10 @ B-20
A. B, 1/10 @ B-8; half the distance penalty
A. B, 1/10 @ B-11; 5-yard penalty

The three "A" choices in the PDF document notwithstanding, I answered B. Anybody see how that could be wrong?
Assuming the second answer is actually “B,” a fair catch signaler that doesn’t touch the kick may not block or foul an opponent for the remainder of the down. That is a PSK foul, and the end of the kick is in the EZ, so the Basic Spot is the B-20. The spot of the foul is behind the BS, so this is a spot foul. The penalty is 15 yards, so we'll go 1/2 the distance, 1st & 10. So, B,1/10, B-8.

Can anybody hep me? Perhaps I inadvertently selected something other than B.

I answered B and got it right. 

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: 2011 CFO Test #54
« Reply #93 on: June 24, 2011, 05:57:51 AM »
I answered B and got it right.

Ah, then I must have checked the wrong box. Whew. Thanks.