NFHS Rules Test

[laxfan25]

Our state Athletic Association has used the NFHS lax rules test the last couple of years, since they thought the multiple choice one that the ref association gave them was too tough. The Fed test is 100 T/F questions.
I received my answer sheet back, and got three wrong, which surprised me. One I can agree with, the others have me scratching my head.

True/False
49. It is a technical foul for failure to use a scoreboard clock, if one is available.

86. An illegal offensive screen occurs whether or not contact occurs.

92. The penalty for unnecessary roughness is normally a one-minute, releasable personal foul.

Answers?

[CardinalPuff]

49. true ....well, it should be
86. false .....always will be if i'm on the field
92. false.....UR are always releasable....

[tjklax01]

49. False (Rule 2-8-2c)
86. False (Rule 6-4)
92. True (Rule 5-1 and 5-8)

[MElaxRef]

49. Actually an interesting question.
[a] Rule1-12 requires the home team to provide a working horn; failure to provide such a horn is illegal procedure. (Also, see Rule 6-5-t.) However the rule book does not require anyone to provide a working clock.
[b] Rules 2-8-a & 2-8-b seem to encourage use of an accurate visible game clock, but are primarily about how to signal the end of a period.
[c] Rule 2-8-c requires that the timekeeper use an electronic clock if one is available and working, but nothing about the electronic clock being on a scoreboard.
[d] So my conclusions is that failure to use visible game clock is not a foul, so answer should be False.

86. False. Rule 6-4 - to be a foul [a] the offensive player initiate the contact, [b] the contact impedes the defensive player's normal movement, and [c] the offensive player be moving when contact occurs. Mere contact is not illegal screening.

92. Sounds True to me; same references as tjklax01. CardinalPuff offers a good insight to the twisted minds of people who write true / false questions.

What are the odds that LaxRef scored your test? Only LR may score 100!

[3rdPersonPlural]

92. The penalty for unnecessary roughness is normally a one-minute, releasable personal foul.


Puff says 'false' because UR is ALWAYS releasable. However, the term 'normally' references the common penalty. You can call up to 3 minutes, and I bet that if you declared an especially egregious UR to be nonreleaseable, no coach would scream.

However, anything but a 1 minute releaseable penalty is outside of the norm.

Not 'wrong', but abnormal.

So it's true.

TPP, who's good at standardized tests.

[Woodenstick]

A "flagrent" personal foul is 3 minutes NR and ejection. So UR could be NR. On our test they decided that one answer on the marking sheet was wrong and corrected it, I thought it was question 92.

[laxfan25]

The test scorer (who very well may have screwed up - I haven't checked with NFHS yet) says that the answers are
False on the scoreboard
True on a foul for illegal screen with no contact
False on what U.R. is

I strongly believe the last two are wrong, and the first is debatable. I want a re-score!

[tjklax01]

I took my answers from the answer sheet our assoication handed us after we handed in our tests. Woodenstick, You are right about #92. It was wrong on the answer sheet as well as #86. The sheet says #92 is False and #86 is True. Those were incorrect on the answer sheet. It should be #86 False and #92 True.

[PBlax]

i know 49 is false because i played a game yesterday they didnt use the scoreboard

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

Though I took the optional federation test by myself, I decided not to send this test in this year because I seem to remember that last year's federation test was also scored questionably by the same unamed people. I also did not send it in for other reasons as well that LF25 may understand.

[Woodenstick]

I looked back at my test, I had 86 false and 92 true, and both were graded as correct. I assume that our local graders determined that the answer sheet was wrong and disregarded the answers given on it.

Every year there are questions I get wrong because they are badly worded. For example, this year question 22 asked "A crosse without a guard stop is a broken stick." I answered false, the answer they wanted was true.

I know that a crosse must have a ball stop. But in my opinion, missing a ballstop doesn't make a stick "Broken." For example, playing with a broken stick is illegal procedure, because a broken stick is considered no stick, while playing without a ballstop is not a penalty under NFHS ruling 1.7.4.

So, I knew all of the rules for ballstops and broken sticks and I still got the question wrong because it was badly worded (IMHO).

[LaxRef]

This was an awful, awful test. There were a number of questions that I could tell that were, say, true as written but that the test author probably intended to be false (or vice versa). I knew which questions I was going to get "wrong," but I answered the questions based on whether they were actually true or false. I got a 91.

[Woodenstick]

I get the feeling that one person writes the test and it is never vetted on other referees. I have written exams for years and know how hard it is, questions that you think are clear are not. After a few years I took to having 1-2 old students that I trusted proofread the draft exams and give comments, even that did not guarentee clarity, but it helped. But every year (OK this makes 3 years for me) it seems like the lax exam has several disasterously worded questions. Maybe they need to let 10-12 people take the test before it is released, to "test the test". If LR only got a 91, that says to me that the test has 9 mistakes, which is way too many for a national exam.

Of all the questions, number 86 really puzzles me, I don't see any possible way that could be true. "An illegal offensive screen occurs whether or not contact occurs." Am I missing something, or is this something that every experienced referee should know is false?

[LaxRef]

Of all the questions, number 86 really puzzles me, I don't see any possible way that could be true. "An illegal offensive screen occurs whether or not contact occurs." Am I missing something, or is this something that every experienced referee should know is false?

IIRC, the way it is worded you can call a foul for illegal screening position (i.e., holding the crosse rigid) even if there is no contact, but you specifically cannot call a moving screen if there is no contact. The question is not worded clearly enough to make it true.

And I agree: I've written a lot of tests, and I have lots off peephole Czech 4 tie pose.

[MElaxRef]

Originally posted by LaxRef
IIRC, the way it is worded you can call a foul for illegal screening position (i.e., holding the crosse rigid) even if there is no contact
I hope you won't call a foul for illegal screening position unless there is contact. That is just asking for trouble, IMHO.

[LaxRef]

I hope you won't call a foul for illegal screening position unless there is contact. That is just asking for trouble, IMHO.

I've never done it. The only way I can see doing it is if the stick is way out and the defender runds all the way around it; in that case, advantage has been gained even though there's no contact, espcially if it was a LSM.