Test Question

[TexDoc]

Sign me up.  I've already offered.  We just need more proof readers. 

[Hondo]

Don't forget the hardest part about writing these test is the wide range of test takers. I've been critical of the test, but I'm usually looking at it from the perspective of rookies. Being involved with their training I read the questions and think about how will the newbies understand these questions. A guy who has been calling more than 5 years should have NO problem passing this test and really should be a B if not an A.

[JasonTX]

Doc, do you want to proofread 400 test questions?

[TexDoc]

Jason, if the offer stands, sure, why not. 

[Etref]

Sign me up!

[Phantomref]

Maybe one of you rule gurus can explain this question to me. To me it's very poorly worded and the explanation is worse in that it doesn't appear to apply to this question;

Team A is winning 21-18 with 45 seconds remaining in the game when Team A's 4th down play ends in bounds short of the line to gain. When the umpire spots the ball, 19 seconds remain on the play clock and 25 seconds on the game clock. The referee should not stop the game, but simply give the 1-hand overhead pump signal. After the 25 second clock is reset, the referee should give the chop signal to start the play clock.

The answer is b. False and the explanation given is;

Explanation
3-2-4-b-3. Since time is critical, the game clock should be stopped and the play clock set to 25 seconds. Both clocks would start on the R winding ready-for-play signal. 

[rickref]

The play situation with "contact" is a good question for rules but just saying contact and asking some guys to not read much into it etc is not good. I am a guy who if you tell me "contact" on a short kick immediatley is thinking illegal block. Contact can mean block to some folks and incidental contact to others. It simply is not clear.

Questions in my opinion, should have all clear facts related to the play situation as if they are discussed on the field. The test is better this year but there are some questions that could be better.

[rickref]

Maybe one of you rule gurus can explain this question to me. To me it's very poorly worded and the explanation is worse in that it doesn't appear to apply to this question;

Team A is winning 21-18 with 45 seconds remaining in the game when Team A's 4th down play ends in bounds short of the line to gain. When the umpire spots the ball, 19 seconds remain on the play clock and 25 seconds on the game clock. The referee should not stop the game, but simply give the 1-hand overhead pump signal. After the 25 second clock is reset, the referee should give the chop signal to start the play clock.

The answer is b. False and the explanation given is;

Explanation
3-2-4-b-3. Since time is critical, the game clock should be stopped and the play clock set to 25 seconds. Both clocks would start on the R winding ready-for-play signal. 

This one is bad. How is both clocks going to run if A was short of the line to gain and B takes over?

[Phantomref]

This one is bad. How is both clocks going to run if A was short of the line to gain and B takes over?


That was exactly my thought. You can't have it both ways.

[Hondo]

Classic example of trying to too put too much into a question. I think his purpose on this question was that when time is critical we stop the game to get both clocks right. However neither clock would "be running" after a failed 4th down play. So the question should have been worded to say "3rd down".  That's how I read it and answered that way. But, we should NOT have to guess what the writer was "thinking" when he wrote the question. I absolutely think TASO should look at putting together a group of officials just to proof the questions, different from the writer. And yes, there are enough test nerds out here that would volunteer to split up 400 questions to proof.

[TexDoc]

Classic example of trying to too put too much into a question. I think his purpose on this question was that when time is critical we stop the game to get both clocks right. However neither clock would "be running" after a failed 4th down play. So the question should have been worded to say "3rd down".  That's how I read it and answered that way. But, we should NOT have to guess what the writer was "thinking" when he wrote the question. I absolutely think TASO should look at putting together a group of officials just to proof the questions, different from the writer. And yes, there are enough test nerds out here that would volunteer to split up 400 questions to proof.

[BlindZebra]

A19 on the opening kickoff surprises the receiving team by kicking the ball into the ground. B82 is positioned to recover the ball at the A-49 after it has bounced twice, when he is contacted by A32 as A32 subsequently recovers the kick.

a. No foul - ball continues in play with a bean bag thrown to mark the spot of recovery

b. No foul - ball is blown dead when recovered. Team B's ball 1 & 10 at A-49

c. Kick Catch Interference. B's ball 1 & 10 at A-34

d. None of the above

I have a problem with this because we kick from the A40.  Team A is blocking before they are eligible to touch a free kick.  Anyone else see what I am seeing?  They said the answer is B but I disagree.

[rickref]

A19 on the opening kickoff surprises the receiving team by kicking the ball into the ground. B82 is positioned to recover the ball at the A-49 after it has bounced twice, when he is contacted by A32 as A32 subsequently recovers the kick.

a. No foul - ball continues in play with a bean bag thrown to mark the spot of recovery

b. No foul - ball is blown dead when recovered. Team B's ball 1 & 10 at A-49

c. Kick Catch Interference. B's ball 1 & 10 at A-34

d. None of the above

I have a problem with this because we kick from the A40.  Team A is blocking before they are eligible to touch a free kick.  Anyone else see what I am seeing?  They said the answer is B but I disagree.

This question is page 1 of the thread. Sounds like we do not consider "contact" a block and thus incidental so no foul.

[BlindZebra]

This question is page 1 of the thread. Sounds like we do not consider "contact" a block and thus incidental so no foul.

So then explain to me the definition of blocking if blocking is contacting an opponent with any part of the blockers body.  Are we separating it between intent an not?  He didn't have the intent of contacting him therefore it is disregarded?

[rickref]

I did not write and I do not like it either.

texmike"It IS part of the question.  Guys need to know the difference between blocking and incidental contact in this situation"

The question needs to say incidental contact or simply block. If I am another official on the field and reporting this foul I am likely not saying "contact".
It is not a well written question and thus why the thread before this point went into guys saying we should have proof readers etc.
Blocking
ARTICLE 1. a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any
part of the blocker’s body.
b. Pushing is blocking an opponent with open hands.

[BlindZebra]

Not saying you did.  I get the intent of the question...they are stressing that you cannot have KCI after it bounces twice.  But when reading that question, I have a foul.  A knows they can't block until they are eligible to touch the ball and they become eligible when either B touches the ball or it touches anything beyond and remains beyond B's restraining line.  Get away from him until then!

[TXMike]

I did not write and I do not like it either.

texmike"It IS part of the question.  Guys need to know the difference between blocking and incidental contact in this situation"

The question needs to say incidental contact or simply block. If I am another official on the field and reporting this foul I am likely not saying "contact".
It is not a well written question and thus why the thread before this point went into guys saying we should have proof readers etc.
Blocking
ARTICLE 1. a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any
part of the blocker’s body.
b. Pushing is blocking an opponent with open hands.

I looked at a copy of a test from last year and the question said incidentally contacted.  Not sure if the word was deliberately taken out this year or it dropped out in the process of converting their test bank date (which I believe is in Excel) into whatever arbitersports uses to publish the test

[TXMike]

Maybe one of you rule gurus can explain this question to me. To me it's very poorly worded and the explanation is worse in that it doesn't appear to apply to this question;

Team A is winning 21-18 with 45 seconds remaining in the game when Team A's 4th down play ends in bounds short of the line to gain. When the umpire spots the ball, 19 seconds remain on the play clock and 25 seconds on the game clock. The referee should not stop the game, but simply give the 1-hand overhead pump signal. After the 25 second clock is reset, the referee should give the chop signal to start the play clock.

The answer is b. False and the explanation given is;

Explanation
3-2-4-b-3. Since time is critical, the game clock should be stopped and the play clock set to 25 seconds. Both clocks would start on the R winding ready-for-play signal. 

If it said 3d down play would you agree with the answer?

[Hondo]

Yes. 

[Andrew McCarthy]

Maybe one of you rule gurus can explain this question to me. To me it's very poorly worded and the explanation is worse in that it doesn't appear to apply to this question;

Team A is winning 21-18 with 45 seconds remaining in the game when Team A's 4th down play ends in bounds short of the line to gain. When the umpire spots the ball, 19 seconds remain on the play clock and 25 seconds on the game clock. The referee should not stop the game, but simply give the 1-hand overhead pump signal. After the 25 second clock is reset, the referee should give the chop signal to start the play clock.

The answer is b. False and the explanation given is;

Explanation
3-2-4-b-3. Since time is critical, the game clock should be stopped and the play clock set to 25 seconds. Both clocks would start on the R winding ready-for-play signal. 

Let's assume they meant 3rd down.  Maybe my math is bad but it sounds like the play ended with 45 seconds left in the game but the play clock was started with 46 seconds left??

[Hondo]

This is just gonna be called the "snickers question."

1.  Gonna be there a while trying to figure it out.

2. Since the numbers don't add up, must have been written by an umpire.

[fencewire]

here is one that hasn't been updated to go with the new AR changes.


B17 is the first player to touch a free kick from the 25 yard line when he leaps from inbounds, catches the kick and subsequently lands out of bounds with the ball in his possession at the B-27.

a. Free kick out of bounds - Team A re-kick from Team A's 20 yard line
b. Free kick out of bounds - Team B 1 & 10 at the Team B 30 yard line
c. No free kick out of bounds - Team B 1 & 10 at the Team B 27 yard line
d. None of the above

A is marked as the correct answer with the following Explanation  AR 6-2-2-IV

Here is that AR from the 2014 revised book.

Free kick at the A-35. B17 leaps from inbounds and is the first player to touch Team A’s free kick when he grasps the ball while airborne. He then lands out of bounds with the ball in his control. RULING: Not a foul for free kick out of bounds. B17 is inbounds when he touches the kick. Team B will have the ball at the yard line where B17 crossed the sideline. (Rule 2-27-15)

[mishatx]

So I finally took the test today. Missed three. Semantics about whether "4 o'clock" is "side" or "back", still confused about what was meant by "contacted with a blow to the helmet" (legal play, so must not be what I was picturing), but I think this one must be wrong:

After the ready-for-play signal, substitute B1 enters the defensive formation and the departing player does not delay more than three seconds before leaving the huddle or formation and departing the field of play. RULING: Legal play
a. True
b. False


"Correct" answer is false?

[clearwall]

The ones I typically have a problem with are when they say "X SHOULD happen" or whenever there are those grey area things where while it might be TECHNICALLY correct to do an action, in practice we all know you might give a little leeway.

[Welpe]

Are we going to be able to review our test results and see which ones we actually missed?