Recert test question

1. If you are trying to quibble over whether the player in question one was in the PA or not you are over thinking things.

2. I said replace with one name. As in Jane switched places... Jane punched the ball... Clear enough.

3. The next two questions wouldn't give you subsequent info for after you stopped play without specifying. You stopped play after the described incidents transpired, if you stopped play early the rest of the info wouldn't really be relevant would it?

Any more questions? See how useful it is to have someone to answer questions rather than yell frustrated at a computer screen.

Sorry if I'm being short, I had to answer all these same questions earlier today.

 

Not necessarily. I've seen test questions that intend to test your knowledge of what the restart is following events that happen after play is stopped. For example, what about a question like:

A blue player kicks the ball entirely over a touch line. Before the ball is retrieved, a red player deliberately punches a blue player. What is the restart?

In that case, the rest of the info is relevant, because even though the correct answer is a red throw-in, the question is testing whether you understand that restarts for misconduct only apply when the misconduct is committed during play.

The other problem is that Law 9 specifies that the ball is out of play when it crosses a line OR when play is stopped by the referee. So really, it's incorrect to say you have stopped play following the events described, because play is stopped automatically as soon as the ball enters the net. Saying you've stopped play implies that play was stopped at some point prior to the ball entering the net.

 

Not really. Location is of vital importance for the answer and you leave that to assumption you can't really fault someone for assuming one of the possible options just because you assumed the other and didn't say.

As shown by the question that started this whole thread some questions assume that the referee has screwed up so having questions where the info isn't clear if that is the case or not isn't such a good idea.

And that just illustrates the point. If you need someone to answer questions about the questions then the question isn't worded well to begin with.

 

I'll give that the first one is confusing.

The next two aren't. Things happen in the order they are in the question. Thinking anything else is reading more in than is there.

The test is reviewed before it goes out. The issue is people trying to second guess or add to the question. Try writing a 100 question test and getting all100 questions so clear that nobody will missunderstand

 

But that's just the point. No one should be writing a 100-question test and not, as Bart wrote, go through the simple process of having 10 or so other referees read through it and give feedback. If the test really is reviewed before it goes out, they surely need a new review committee.

 

It's doable. AYSO manages to write some very clear test questions, IMO. I've never had an ambiguous question on an AYSO test. That's not to say there aren't any, but I would be very surprised to find questions phrased like this on even the National exam.

Anyway, as I pointed out above, things can't possibly happen in the order presented. You can't stop play unless the ball is in play. Once the ball crosses the goal line, play stops. Even if you argue that I'm just being a stickler on this point, any question that on its face requires you to bend the meaning of Law bloody 9—probably the most concise, clearly written Law in the book—is a question that was written with undue carelessness; recklessness, even. Yellow card to the test author, ITOO this R.

 

The problem is in the "You have stopped play for the described situation." sentence. Very few referees out there would use those words to describe a situation where play is stopped due to the ball going out of play because, as Yale pointed out, that isn't why play is usually considered to be stopped. And thus the question "when did I stop play" and "why did I stop play" arises and that's where the confusion comes in.
I'm not sure it's perfect but changing the last two sentences of those questions into something like "After play is stopped, what is the correct restart?" would probably mean less confusion.

 

I stand by it that the second two aren't confusing. In every other "you have stopped play" question play is stopped after everything that is written takes place or is assumed to have stopped if the law and procedures say it should have stopped earlier. Then you sort out the correct restart.

I will use the question that someone brought up about the ball having left the field than while the ball is being retrieved another player is punched. Everything described there had occurred prior to your decision. So let's break it down; the ball left the field, play stopped or should have stopped by law. Everything after that is irrelevant for the purposes of the restart.

In the questions presented about the PK we are expected to know as referees that we do not stop play until the events have unfolded completely with PKs. Then we determine the restart. So the events finished when the ball crossed the goal line, then we stopped. Very simple if you know proper procedure, which is part of what the test is there to figure In the questions presented about the PK we are expected to know as referees that we do not stop play until the events have unfolded completely with PKs. Then we determine the restart. So the events finished when the ball crossed the goal line, then we stopped. Very simple if you know proper procedure, which is part of what the test is there to figure In the questions presen

 

Perhaps a bit overstated as I think there are a few out there -- but AYSO also gives itself the advantage of not using auto-correct tests that force a limited range of answers.

 

So for whatever reason when i was posting from my phone this paragraph repeated itself and didn't post the rest of my thought. The red portion should be omitted.

It was supposed to have another paragraph that read:

I know the new test is much harder but apparently USSF thinks the old test was not really proving that referees had a sufficient knowledge of ALL the laws and procedures. My job as an instructor is to help explain where I can and answer the questions of the students so that they can answer to the best of their ability. That does not spoon feeding them the answers by giving them information they are supposed to know coming in to take the test. If you have online testing then that is not an option. Frankly that is on the referees that began requesting that online tests be put into practice. You live by the sword and die by the sword.

 

No one is requesting to be spoon-fed. What we are requesting is that some simple changes in wording, and fixes to test infrastructure like the missing "you have stopped play" directive, be fixed! In my state, one of the offside questions had the wrong diagram. I missed that one, too.

I got my worst score on the recert test ever--90--this time around, and I missed at least 4 questions because what they were asking was ambiguous or confusing or missing info--including the question that started this whole thread. NB: I know the Laws they were trying to tease out of the question, and am pretty unlikely to screw it up in a real game. But the unclear question threw me. Is it too much to ask that the Federation clean things up a bit?

 

Yes but referees aren't expected to stop play for no reason at all either but as the question that started this thread shows the test allows for referees to having made a mistake. Thus I don't see it being a big leap to read the PK questions as being a mistaken early whistle too.

If you are going to place the test taker in a first-person view in the question then you really need to include all info that a person in a first-person view would have had, if not then you are just imploring the test taker to assume the info that is missing. And faulting someone for making different (but possible) assumptions than the test maker isn't really fair IMO.

 

None of you are making any sense anymore. You keep saying the online test is screwed up because the directions weren't there. We get that, we've explained your recourse, which is nothing other than to point it out. There isn't enough of that dead horse to beat anymore so stop trying.

And yes referees aren't supposed to stop play for no reason but unfortunately they do and you are expected to know what to do next. When you read the prompted situation you have to go through a step by step process in you mind just as you do when refereeing it just happens slower.

1. What is the situation; PK, active play, etc?
2. Are there special parts of this law that require me to let play go until it concludes? i.e. A PK
3. Where was the first infraction or reason to stop play and should I stop?
4. Did play stop when it shouldn't have via my whistle?
5. What is the proper restart given the above facts and knowing play has been stopped?

Some might not be asking for a spoon feeding, but many are. That's the whole issue with testing in general today, it isn't testing anything worthwhile. Its about regurgitation.

[Edit: Changed order and wording of 2 and 3]

 

I'm sorry FairPlay, but your excuses for defending this sound like you have some stake in the process!

But, seriously, those questions are poorly written and they could use subtle tweaks. Not that hard to fix. I agree two and three are simple answers, but they aren't simple in the context of the the other 97! As someone earlier posted, if you have a question that asks about inadvertent whistles, and later on you have a question that MIGHT have an inadvertent whistle in it but actually doesn't, you will need to figure that out. But, the scenario doesn't actually say that. It says "you have stopped play for the described situation." What does stopped play mean? I think it means to most of us that we have blown our whistle. No why would you blow your whistle for a goal being scored? I also have never heard it said (or written) that WE stop play when a goal is scored, I think I have always seen it as play is stopped, which connotes a big difference.

 

My only stake in this is that I'm tired of running into referees that don't know their you know what from their elbow because they don't have to prove anything on the recert test.

I have 11 year olds in my classes that pass this with flying colors. The test is hard and you aren't expected to get 100. If you were it would be the only passing grade.

Please do continue to sit here and think you are getting a raw deal. If you think your complaints have merit. Take them up with US Soccer, good luck to you. I am done walking through this revolving door argument though, so good luck on the rest of your seasons and good luck for those that have to retest.

 

Fairplay....that is insulting beyond belief. You as an instructor have way more weight than any of us lowly 8's. I'm sorry if you think the tests are perfect (my words) but they are not and can be fixed fairly easily. You sound like a petulant coach and an imperial referee. All of whom we run into from time to time.

It is not a revolving door argument. These are valid points. You are the one who refuses to look at the questions. Sorry, but that is just my opinion. And you probably button your friggin shirt all the way to the top too.

 

No, it's not the best question. It may even be a bad question However, even without the section header, the question provides enough information to answer correctly. So those who are saying it's impossible to answer correctly have, at minimum, one invalid point.

 

I'm sure at this point I am becoming insulting but I am at the end of my rope with having the same complaint thrown back at me everytime I or someone else explain something only to have it completely ignored. The idea that you feel because you don't get the question (I know you are not alone) qualifies it as a poor question while others have no problem whatsoever is insulting to me. I also find it insulting that I do acknowledge the points that people post about the questions, regardless of whether I agree with them, and give a counter point ,then my thoughts are completely disregarded as being the nonsensical ramblings of someone "on the inside".

I have agreed that without the directions the question about the inadvertant whistle would not be easy to answer, but that problem lies with the delivery of the question not the question.

I have agreed that the question about Blue #12 changing jerseys with the keeper is poorly worded and I remedy that in my classes by clarifying.

I have done everything I can to explain to you the questions that you find unfair but you just keep coming back with "it's still unfair" and you are more than welcome to have that opinion, but it doesn't make it fact, just as my opinion isn't fact. The questions will be misunderstood by people, that is inevitable but it doesn't make them bad questions, it simply means that person needs more of an explanation and that is what I do during the test.

As to buttoning my shirt, I am assuming you mean my jersey on the field and I do button the top button, but only because it is my preference and I couldn't care less what everyone else does. I hope you can live with that.

BlackBart
That is very cute but wouldn't you change you call based on the fact that your fellow ref crew informed you that you were wrong and ignore the parents? Then you might want to have a talk at half time about assisting and not insisting on you so as to not erode your credibility as a referee. Just my opinion.

At this point I just want to be done with this argument so will truly bow out and you can type whatever you want about me or my opinion. I just don't want to keep getting annoyed and type things that are insulting as it is normally not my way of going about things. Good luck to everyone on your seasons I will see you in other topics with a less heated nature.

 

Still not agreeing... the bit about the whistle having been blown is part of the questions. It is not simply the "delivery" if one question is unanswerable without it. (As presented to me, the correct answer ["continue playing, no infraction"] was not one of the possible answers.)

Like I said, I've never gotten less than 90% so it's no skin off my nose, but when questions confuse numerous people--and remain in place for several years without being clarified--there's an issue. And it's easily fixed, so why not do it?

 

That's a really odd way to think about that situation. Everyone out there knows the right call...including all of your crew. Yet you want to ignore your crew's help and keep your call so that your credibility doesn't get eroded. Uh huh.

It now makes sense why you don't see other's perspectives throughout this entire thread...

 

Well, no. What he said was "...wouldn't you change you[r] call based on the fact that your fellow ref crew informed you that you were wrong and ignore the parents?" That's hardly a suggestion to ignore your crew's help.

MHO, but it appears to me that all of y'all are now to the point of arguing just for the sake of arguing. Just sayin'...

 

I have noticed the following progression among volunteers, particularly those who run soccer leagues:

Stage 1 (Newbie) - You are eager and energetic but have little idea what is going on. You either sit quietly or ask a lot of questions, depending on your personality.

Stage 2 (Motivated) - You understand the objectives and structure of the organization and have some fresh ideas about how it could work even better. You are frustrated at how difficult it is to try new things.

Stage 3 (Burnout) - You have been doing this forever and know exactly how it should be done. You spend most of your energy protecting the organization from the ill-advised notions of newer volunteers. No, we tried that 23 years ago, and it didn't work. The way it is now is perfect, or at least the best we can do. Stop attempting to fix what isn't broken.

Here's the thing. If you have folks at Stage 3 running the show, the newer recruits will see that they aren't particularly needed or valued, and they will leave. Only the most stubborn and pig-headed progress past Stage 2, and the process perpetuates.

That can be really hard on an organization. The antidote to our toxic cycle is for the graybeards to consciously open themselves to new suggestions. Maybe it will work this time; maybe not. Sometimes, it's better for the organization to try something that doesn't work than to alienate the next generation.

What I see in this discussion are a number of voices with suggestions to try something else, rewording or clarifying a particular question next year. There are also an instructor or two who think the question is perfect just the way it is. Sounds familiar.

In my opinion, the questions should be tweaked from one year to another anyway, and if someone is going to adjust it, why not consider some of the suggestions? Even if every one of them is ill-advised, the referee corps will still benefit from an air of willingness to accept and improve. If nothing else, variety beats stagnation.

- QC

 

I don't think anyone is saying the question is perfect. However, with there pre-amble that is on the written test the inadvertent whistle question is clear and answerable unless you ignore or forget the "you have stopped play" piece.

To those sayin fix the test, how do you suggest that happen? Instructors and states do not write the test, us soccer does. States can, and do, provide feedback, but so can you, email them with suggestions, I am sure they will love to listen.

As for the test Changing year to year, I a gree but it takes time to write a test. They do change some of it year to year. Last year they started providing three tests not two. They, being us soccer, provide a state test, a grade 8 - 7 recert an entry level and a recreational ref test. Ok I lied, that s four. This year was also probably challenging as the expected new levels did not occur and they had effects on the test s for this year. The people who write the tests are the same ones who were very busy rebuilding the program for the expected levels, which was dropped very late in the year.

People are saying "they" should fix it, we'll, you, all of us, are part of they. Fix the wording and send the suggestion to us soccer, maybe you will see your words on next years test

 

But if you are an instructor defending the absolutely poor wording of questions, then you perpetuate the problem. Who knows, maybe fairplay is an sdi for all I know.

But, as far as i know if the ball crosses either the goal line or touch line, it is out of play. The referee does not stop play for that. Play stops itself. We dont whistle for goals, do we? Read the stupid question again, and tell me why the referee has stopped play? He didnt stop play, play stopped itself. That's the problem with the question. And if you cant see that, then stop defending the structure of the questions. If earlier on the test there is an inadvertent whistle question, what's to say there isnt another inadvertent whistle. It's Law 9, i think.