RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: prab on July 12, 2017, 04:34:11 PM
-
The Part 1 exam is now available on our state association web site. This is an open book exam in Wisconsin and must be completed online by 08/17. We are allowed to print a copy of the exam to work on but must complete the online version in one sitting.
-
Time for our annual reminder: DO NOT post the exam, or the answers to the exam, on this forum. The NFHS does not take lightly to posting copyrighted material.
-
Time for our annual reminder: DO NOT post the exam, or the answers to the exam, on this forum. The NFHS does not take lightly to posting copyrighted material.
10-4
-
What if we believe the test has an incorrect answer?
-
What if we believe the test has an incorrect answer?
Contact your state office.
-
Contact your state office.
Unfortunately, nothing can be done. There is an incorrect answer on the test
-
In FL, our initial test result is preliminary. Every year it seems as if 1 or 2 questions are reevaluated and scores are updated accordingly.
-
I guess there are methods to insure that no one scores perfect on an exam.
Hypothetically,
If say, you were an old time white hat, who, hasn't opened up the rules book since 2012,
it would be likely that, as such, you would have missed the 2013 change that deleted loss of down for OPI.
If this were the case, the hypothetical old time white hat would be inclined to select answer number 3 on the jackhammer test!
Why? Because the down would not be replayed, since by (2012) rule;
Penalty Acceptance includes a loss of down! It would be 4th down.
-
Contact your state office.
I have contacted my state office and have been unable to convince them that in #65 the down will be replayed whether or not the penalty is accepted. I have used all of the rationale discussed above and in previous topic "Is the down be replayed?"
To be fair though, they are consistent. A few years ago I was also unable to convince them that the hash marks DID NOT bisect the yard lines.
-
Discussing scenarios is fine. Discussing specific questions (referencing question numbers is not). Don't lose sight of that.
-
Discussing scenarios is fine. Discussing specific questions (referencing question numbers is not). Don't lose sight of that.
10-4. Mea Culpa!!!
-
Discussing scenarios is fine. Discussing specific questions (referencing question numbers is not). Don't lose sight of that.
So is it inappropriate to report that the NFHS has officially agreed that a particular question was a bad question? In this case, I have personal knowledge that that is the case.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
Is their "official acknowledgement" in the form of a press release or is your information coming word of mouth?
-
Is their "official acknowledgement" in the form of a press release or is your information coming word of mouth?
I heard that a memo was already sent out to all of the states, but I haven't seen it in writing. Would a press release be necessary?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
To the best of my knowledge the NFHS has not issued a Press Release in regards to NFHS Football Test Part 1.
-
I heard that a memo was already sent out to all of the states, but I haven't seen it in writing. Would a press release be necessary?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
No, but we are not going to discuss specific question numbers at this time until we see something official from the Fed that is available in the public domain. "Hearing" a memo has been sent does not qualify.
-
The test has been due for some time, at least in RI and CT. It will be too late to make any difference if the notice hasnt come yet in those states. I understand not wanting to reveal answers to questions. But when one of them is demonstrably wrong, I would think the word should be spread immediately. But I respect the sanctity of the process.
I will only say this...
Here is a scenario.
A 2/10 at the A31. A8 throws a legal forward pass and A61 muffs it in the neutral zone. Following A61's muff, while the ball is in flight, an official blows an inadvertent whistle. What are Team B's options?
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
FWIW, there are several states where the test is not yet due.
-
Here is a scenario.
A 2/10 at the A31. A8 throws a legal forward pass and A61 muffs it in the neutral zone. Following A61's muff, while the ball is in flight, an official blows an inadvertent whistle. What are Team B's options?
There are multiple fouls on the play, (possibly 4) all against the offense.
1) Ineligible receiver downfield on A61 (7-5-12)
2) Illegal forward pass by A8 (7-5-2d)
3) Illegal Touching by A61 (7-5-13)
4) This could also be OPI if A61 Committed (7-5-10)
It would be most advantageous for B to accept IFP and decline all others! 5 yards from the spot of the foul and loss of down.
-
There are multiple fouls on the play, (possibly 4) all against the offense.
1) Ineligible receiver downfield on A61 (7-5-12)
2) Illegal forward pass by A8 (7-5-2d)
3) Illegal Touching by A61 (7-5-13)
4) This could also be OPI if A61 Committed (7-5-10)
It would be most advantageous for B to accept IFP and decline all others! 5 yards from the spot of the foul and loss of down.
I've read 7-5-12 many times, and I've yet to find where an ineligible still in the NZ is downfield illegally. The situation has A61 muffing the ball in the NZ and doesn't say anything about him being beyond it. This also nullifies option 4 for OPI.
-
I've read 7-5-12 many times, and I've yet to find where an ineligible still in the NZ is downfield illegally. The situation has A61 muffing the ball in the NZ and doesn't say anything about him being beyond it. This also nullifies option 4 for OPI.
Plus, the question specifies hat it's a LEGAL forward pass. That leaves Illegal Touching as the only foul, which B will undoubtedly accept.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Plus, the question specifies hat it's a LEGAL forward pass. That leaves Illegal Touching as the only foul, which B will undoubtedly accept.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Agreed!
-
So, the IW would be ignored, and the down would NOT be replayed, since the enforcement carries a loss of the right to replay the down.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
Yes sir, I AGREE - My post above is incorrect.
I totally glossed over the fact that A61 was in the NZ at the time he committed Illegal Touching.
Illegal Touching will likely be accepted as it includes a Loss of Down, and, if it is, the IW goes away.
(Additionally, their clearly must have been eligible offensive receiver occupying the same area as A61 since this was reported to be a Legal Forward Pass)
-
No, but we are not going to discuss specific question numbers at this time until we see something official from the Fed that is available in the public domain. "Hearing" a memo has been sent does not qualify.
I received an email today from my state association (Wisconsin) the pertinent part of which says "From the NFHS: #65 is bad a bad question ...."
-
I received an email today from my state association (Wisconsin) the pertinent part of which says "From the NFHS: #65 is bad a bad question ...."
Too late around here. Exams were due more than a week ago. I still never saw an official release, even though I heard the same thing 2 weeks ago.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
Too late around here. Exams were due more than a week ago. I still never saw an official release, even though I heard the same thing 2 weeks ago.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
It's a fine question....it's the reported correct/incorrect answer that's the problem.
-
It's a fine question....it's the reported correct/incorrect answer that's the problem.
+1
-
+1
I actually don't think it is a very good question. The aim of the question was to test the knowledge of penalty enforcement as well as the IW rule. Since it is out of date, the question is asking officials to answer true for two reasons. It will never identify if officials know that IWs are ignored if a penalty is accepted. If they don't know that, they would answer true for the wrong reason. If the test taker knows that it IS ignored, the down would still be repeated since OPI carries no loss of down. Unless someone overthinks it or hasn't cracked a rulebook since 2011, they can never answer false on this one. Test items are not meant to be trick questions, and this one certainly was not written to be a trick question. It is simply a question from the test bank that should have been purged but unfortunately was missed the volunteers, who otherwise do a great job year after year.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
I actually don't think it is a very good question. The aim of the question was to test the knowledge of penalty enforcement as well as the IW rule. Since it is out of date, the question is asking officials to answer true for two reasons. It will never identify if officials know that IWs are ignored if a penalty is accepted. If they don't know that, they would answer true for the wrong reason. If the test taker knows that it IS ignored, the down would still be repeated since OPI carries no loss of down. Unless someone overthinks it or hasn't cracked a rulebook since 2011, they can never answer false on this one. Test items are not meant to be trick questions, and this one certainly was not written to be a trick question. It is simply a question from the test bank that should have been purged but unfortunately was missed the volunteers, who otherwise do a great job year after year.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I think that this pretty much says it all! +1
-
This debate brings back memories of my first year on the Editorial Committee (1999). My fellow committee members and I were asked to submit 25 true/false questions for the exam.
I did. the then editor, Jerry Diehl, called me and asked : "You are not an educator ,are you?"
I replied : "Nope, why do you ask ??? ?"
"Our test is intended to test the knowledge of officials, not to trick them. Of your 25 submitted questions, 21 are false. ::)", Jerry replied.
I realized then ,that I wasn't trying to test my fellow officials - :( but to trick them :puke:.
Only 4 of my questions were used :-[ :'(.
I learned my lesson.
The following year 19 were used. 8]
tR:oLl tR:oLl :puke: :puke: tR:oLl hEaDbAnG pi1eOn
-
I actually found the question to be stimulating.
It caused me to think about those conditions in which the down was repeated. My first thought was, oh, this question was to remind all those folks who "hadn't cracked a book since 2011" to remember that the LOD provision was removed from OPI. That's why I say it's a fine question.
The purported correct/incorrect answer was also stimulating, but in different ways that aren't productive.
But, hey it's all okay, I still haven't worked a perfect game....
-
I actually found the question to be stimulating.
It caused me to think about those conditions in which the down was repeated. My first thought was, oh, this question was to remind all those folks who "hadn't cracked a book since 2011" to remember that the LOD provision was removed from OPI. That's why I say it's a fine question.
The purported correct/incorrect answer was also stimulating, but in different ways that aren't productive.
But, hey it's all okay, I still haven't worked a perfect game....
I agree that, for the sake of 2017, that the discussion of this question is for strictly academic purposes. The trouble is that, despite the best efforts of the wonderful volunteers that work so diligently to vet these questions, some still slip through. I would suggest that a select group of officials who are not on the rules committee should serve on an exam committee. Unencumbered by expectations from having sat in on the debate over new rules, an exam committee would be better able to catch simple errors like this one. Just like state study guides, such as in Georgia, which release groups of potential questions to officials in advance of the test, problem questions can be removed through a comment period before the test items make it into the Part I test. Making quality exam questions is VERY difficult to do well. But there are good techniques out there in other fields, and I see room for improvement in the NFHS exam process.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
Do to the secrecy of Refstripes Y'all will just have to guess which one I missed.
-
I stinking hate the English questions, rather than the football questions. >:(
-
Do to the secrecy of Refstripes the NFHS, along with their position on copywrited material, Y'all will just have to guess which one I missed.
FIFY ;)
-
With the possible exception of the use of "all of the answers are correct" and "none of the answers are correct", the Part 2 exam is straight forward with no controversial or misleading questions.
Good luck to all who are required to complete Part 2.