Paul LaRosa

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Question 84 2020 Study Guide #2963
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Guys – the correct answer to #84 is “c”. Note that Rule 7-1-9 includes the words “in an attempt” which essentially tells us that A does not have to react for B’s action to be a foul. Now we can debate our officiating philosophy and how we might handle this in a game, but keep in mind this is a test and the answer needs to align with the Rule Book guidance. Let me know should you have any questions. Paul

    in reply to: New Extra-Point 5-man Mechanics #2825
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Louis – As I understand, lots of debate on this mechanic. A number of officials across the state were involved in the discussion and while not perfect, this was the mechanic chosen. Leaving the line of scrimmage open on one side by moving a wing under the goal posts creates a number of issues as well. Moral of the debate: no good answer for a 5-man crew. Thanks – Paul

    in reply to: Practice test #2797
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    David – the correct answer is True. You could get a False answer based on your ruling only if the ready for play had already been given. One of the things you have to be careful of when reading the question is to not assume anything not written, therefore in this play the foul occurred before the snap AND before the RFP, therefore the chains have not been set. Penalize B 5 yards and set the chains…first down, goal to go at the 7. Thanks – Paul

    in reply to: LHSAA Registration #2796
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Dues paid to LHSAA explanation: $52.00 total; $17 insurance, $30 paid to NFHS by LHSAA (set amount that covers NFHS membership, rule/case books etc), $5 that goes to LHSAA office of Director of Officials to be used for officiating initiatives. Thanks – Paul

    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Bill – good to hear from you. This item has evolved over an extended period of time. The original committee you reference, which was chaired by Kevin Mawae was frankly a horrible failure. We met once, Kevin took a job out of town, and the committee basically dissolved. As part of our effort to get a new officials agreement approved by the Principals Assoc at their annual meeting next month (our current agreement will expire in July 2019 and thus there needs to be action by the PA in January) we have included language to setup a new committee with LHSAA, Principals Assoc, and LHSOA representation. We believe this new committee has a better chance to achieve real results as we have included definitive timelines for meeting and actionable activity. We will keep you posted on our progress. thanks and happy holidays. Paul

    in reply to: 2018 Practice Test #2739
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Both #2 and #130 are TRUE. Your logic in #130 is right on point. No new force by A, B put ball in and out of the EZ so touchback for A.

    On #2 the key word here is “commercial”. The rule does allow for various type logos on the ball but there can only be ONE commercial logo, i.e., a Nike swoosh for example. Local assoc, state assoc, and NFHS logos are NOT commercial logos. Therefore True is correct answer, manuf logo is only commercial logo allowed.

    in reply to: 2018 Practice Test #2737
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    We are working on the practice test now. We first had to make sure we had correct answers for all the questions on the Study Guide but I believe we are very close to having it up. thanks – Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Possible camp #2609
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    There are no additional basketball camps this year, there were several over the course of the summer. In 2018 the only camp scheduled at this point is the Officiate Louisiana Day which will be held in New Orleans at the Marriott Hotel on Canal St. on July 28, 2018. Attendance at this event will satisfy camp requirements for all sports. Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Rules Clinic #2588
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Wow, sorry to hear you feel that way Bob. Since you chose to announce your clear dissatisfaction over a public message board, I’ll reply in the same public forum. I believe the LHSOA has fought very hard to create benefits for its members, members who pay no dues to the LHSOA for their membership. It is true a $5.00 assessment is being collected when you register with the state, but those funds are specifically earmarked for Officiate Louisiana Day to be held in N.O. next year. The LHSOA lobbied to get rid of the proctored rules test, now you can sit in your den with your buddies and take it online. We fought for and got you a pay raise, and while it wasn’t much, the Principals Assoc. were heading down a path to potentially reduce your pay – that’s precisely what they did in baseball. We worked to develop an Annual Summit where all of our officials could come together and learn from each other AND we put this on for you for a cost of $11.00 AND we got you 5 points credit on your Rules Test just for showing up. Could we do more, absolutely, are we working to do more, definitely. If you don’t think the LHSOA creates any value for you, next time you have a problem with what’s coming out of Baton Rouge, try going it alone…let me know how that works out. Thanks for expressing your opinion. I don’t believe the facts support it, but I certainly have no problem in you expressing it. Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Rules Clinic #2585
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    I’ve already replied to this original post but I will repeat my response since apparently it was not read. Yes, it would be nice if we could combine all of our requirements into one event…Rules clinic, Camp, and maybe even throw in the test. Unfortunately it does not work. Each of these requirements are different, and they require different approaches to execute each. I understand the challenges we all face in committing the time to do these, but let’s examine the facts:
    1)Camps: we have to attend ONE every TWO YEARS; is that really unreasonable? Several opportunities to meet this requirement pop up around the state over a 2-year period – continuous training is part of nearly every profession we practice, we’re getting paid to officiate, we’re professionals
    2)Rules Clinics: they last about an hour or so, are held throughout the state, and happen once a year; unreasonable that we have to attend, seems not
    3)Test: once a year, online and we’re basically given the questions, and if you take the Practice test on this site a few times you will get the answers; unreasonable – no. Come on guys, are the requirements really that burdensome? Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Question 107 #2579
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    #107 is being corrected to reflect that the correct answer is Inadvertent Facemask. This may be appear in the answer key immediately on the practice test but the correct answer is “C” and if this question is on the actual test, that will be the answer. Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Rules Clinic #2567
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    I am looking into this although I believe there are some specific reasons why this does not work very well. We tried it a few years ago at the Football camp in N.O. and learned some lessons. However, I am checking. When will you get to Shreveport, we need to know what our timing options are??? Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Football Officials test #1282
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    I took the test yesterday. I believe it is the best written, most fair test we’ve had in a number of years. I do not believe there can be any criticism of this test and I further believe that any officials who score poorly can only point to a lack of preparation. Good luck to all and congratulations to those who have already tested and done well. Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Football Officials test #1275
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Great, nice job Justin. Paul LaRosa

    in reply to: Football Officials test #1273
    Paul LaRosa
    Moderator

    Haven’t taken it but one of the first guys locally to test was a 3rd year official who scored 95. He thought it a very fair test. I believe that’s a good sign

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)