Missed NFHS Test Question
 

Gentlemen,

I missed the following question on the Alabama High School Registration test.
I took the test online, and got my score instantly. Please tell me where I went wrong. The following is the question number, question, correct answer,
and rule reference:

32 The Ball is Immediately Dead When: With the infield-fly rule in effect, an infielder intentionally drops a fair bunt in flight.` False 5-1-1j

I answered true, which according to my test results, was not the correct answer. Here are the relevant rules:

Rule 8-4-1 The batter-runner is out when (c) his fair fly, fair line drive, or fair bunt in flight is intentionally dropped by an infielder with at least first base occupied and before there are two outs. The ball is dead and the runner or runners shall return to their respective bases.

5-1-1 Ball becomes immediately dead when: (j) an infielder intentionally drops a fair fly, fair line drive, or fair bunt in flight with at least first base occupied and with less than two outs.
1. Infield fly rule (2-19)


2-19 Infield Fly
An infield fly is a fair fly (not including a line drive nor attempted bunt)......

What, if anything, am I missing ?

the answer should be "true" if #32 instead read, "this question is so poorly worded that we have confused ourselves in our effort to trip you up."

it is likely that they were trying to get you to think that infield fly was called erroneously which should lead to an answer of "false." however, because the ball was intentionally dropped, it is dead. the question stinks and the fed people should, once again, be stoned to death.

What a lousy question. Simply because R1 and R2 are on base, it's "In Effect"? The fair bunt doesn't put the IF "in effect", so the int. drop would be enforced. Thus, true. Yeesh.

Toss it, NFers!!

You get instant corrections in AL? Huh. IHSA online gives you a score, but need to wait for the deadline to pass to get specifics.

Wow, to death? I gotta ask....if THIS is a death penalty offense, what do you propse we do to women who wait until their $456.98 grocery cart full of Dorritos and Diet Pepsi is rung up BEFORE they begin their search for the checkbook...followed by the search for the pen...followed by the search for the driver's license.:D

Joe in Texas

Bobby, I think Alabama writes their own test. This isn't #32 on the FED test.

You may be right, Garth, but I do know that the online test generates a different set of questions each time, and/or rearranges their order.

My error....go ahead and stone FED.

This is question 57 on the FED online test. It would appear someone tried to be just a bit too cute. False can be supported, but not sensibly.

I too missed this question. I did not understand why it was false. I still don't. But mine is not to reason why, especially when it come to NFHS.

My thought process was this: IFF in affect. Fly ball dropped intentionally, batter is out, ball remains live. However, a bunt (or attempt) is not an IFF - so as stated before the "in affect" doesn't apply any more. So this is simply an intentionally dropped "fly ball." In which case, the ball is dead and batter is out - runners return.

This seems to be the logic pointed out previously in this thread. It's also the logic I see in the rules pointed out in the OP.

Did I miss something? Other than the "correct" answer to this question, I mean.

This same question got beat to death on the NFHS discussion boards last week. Not that there's anything wrong with that...if they say the answer is false then it deserves to be beat to death!

Check out Case Play 8.4.1.G. It describes this exact scenario and demonstrates that the ball is indeed DEAD.

The only time the ball remains live on an intentional drop with the infield fly rule in effect is when a batted ball is hit that actually meets the definition of an infield fly. A bunt does not, and is treated as any other intentionally dropped ball. Dead ball, batter out, runners return.

Also, note that rule 5-1-1 seems to have been misprinted this year, especially if you compare it to how it read for the past few years. The note at the end of the rule, "1. Infield-fly rule (2-19)", is meaningless as a stand-alone statement.

The infield-fly rule....what about it? :confused:

In previous years that note included the phrase, "...with the exception of...(the infield-fly rule)", or words to that effect (it was worded differently in both 2006 and 2007, then mangled in 2008). This year, they dropped the "exception" part of the rule, which makes no sense.

So, anyone that misses this question, then checks a 2008 rule book for clarification should really get confused!

Lets rephrase the statement thusly "The Ball is Immediately Dead = A

When: With the infield-fly rule in effect= B

an infielder intentionally drops a fair bunt in flight."= C


Thee only justification for an answer of "false" that I can think of is that B is not the exact conditions that must exist for A = C.

It is true that A = C when B exists, but A = C when B is not completely fulfilled, as well. Thus, since B is not really the requirement for A = C, some pinhead who writes the questions that the rules committee suggests decided that only "false" would be the accurate answer.

I don't believe the question is intentionally a trick a question, I think it is a stupid question.

Yes. And I don't think they are smart enough for it to be an intentionally stupid question.

I think they just have the wrong answer on their answer key.

The noted Case Play is identical to this play (infield fly in effect, ball is bunted and intentionally dropped). The ruling given is dead ball.

That also matches the OBR interpretation.

I like to break stuff down and get into A=B=C logic, but sometimes the solution to a problem is the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that the answer key is wrong.

I've gone through this with Elliot before and the key has always been what they wanted for a variety of strange reasons. I have an inquiry in about this one. I'll let you know what I hear.

It's number 57 on the FED test. It was discussed ad nauseum on the NFHS discussion forum. Someone asked the same question. What it came right down to was that a) the question was poorly written, b) nobody seems to know what the real intention of the question is and c) how the words "in effect" are to be interpreted.

Our thread on that site broke down every part of the question. When you come right down to it, the issue of IFR really has no menaing to the question except to say that it means that there are runners on first and second or bases loaded, and there are less than two outs. Everything else written indicates the question is TRUE. Even if IFR was called by error players on both sides should be aware of the fact that an intentionally dropped BUNT in this situation is an immediate dead ball. The correct answer is in fact TRUE.

The words "IN EFFECT" should not imply that the IFR has been called, only that the situation is such that the IFR could be called if there was in fact an infield fly. I'm sure that cooler heads will prevail and the answer key eventually will be adjusted to allow either question to be correct, or they just throw out the question entirely.

Perhaps.

But that would conflict with how the term "intentionally dropped" is used in both the rule book or case play. There, an "intentionally dropped" ball is one that the fielder must actually touch, then purposely drop or guide to the ground in effort to decieve the runners and gain "unearned" outs.

Going off subject a bit...

How many "intentionally dropped" balls have you ever had to call? Me, I can recall only one in my career.

Kind of odd that there is much ado about possibly one of the least invoked rules in the game.

Personally, I missed the question, took my score of 99 and accepted the fact the NFHS test writers are idiots.

In Illinois, you get the option of taking the paper test or going to the IHSA web site and taking on line. They send you the paper test and give you the option. There, the questions line perfectly with the paper test. It simplifies it because you can look at your paper copy, mark answers on either the test itself or the answer sheet, go online and just copy your answers. It took me a whole 10 minutes online plus I got my immediate score. Considering I spent only about three hours going reviewing the rule book and taking the test and with the goofy confusing questions, I thought a score of 96 was OK.

I think the question's intent is that you can't have an IFF on a bunt attempt...so the intentional drop rule comes into play...if any part of the question is false, then the answer should be false.

Had one last year...nearly had to eject because the defensive "coach" didn't know the rule...don't anticipate seeing another for awhile. Most kids at the FED level haven't been coached to correctly execute that play and many have all they can do to catch a ball, much less attempt to not catch it...JMO

Not a trick question. It is a false statement consistent with true/false tests. From this statement, one should be able to conclude that no matter the base running situation, never utter the phrase, "Infield fly, batter's out." on any ball that is bunted. I don't care how high the ball flies into the air. Same theory applies for all line drives, also. FED rule 2-19 is very helpful in making this determination if one is taking a FED test.

I believe what the statement is implying is that the infield fly rule takes effect when the umpire calls, "Infield fly, batter's out". Therefore the batter is already out, so don't kill the play. Just play it like you would if the bunt was a normal swinging attempt.

In other words, the ball is not immediately dead when the fielder intentionally drops the ball.

In Illinois the test key was changed so "TRUE" would be the correct answer. Since a bunt cannot be an infield fly, the fact that the pieces for an infield fly are in place (runner-wise and out-wise) has no bearing on the play. It's an intentionally dropped ball and is dead immediately.

Here'a a spin - the question says "intentionally dropped", which would IMPLY touched-then dropped, but how about if it's allowed to drop intentionally without being touched. That could be twisted into "intentionally dropped", but that ball isn't dead.

In Illinois we did throw out one question completly - It says, "Batter's Interference Occurs ...75. If the ball is always immediately dead." HUH?
We felt the wording was so bad we just tossed the question, so if you answer either true OR false you'll get credit.

For the most part, if you look at the test answers rule references, they will be pretty much verbatum what the questions are. I did say "pretty much". Part 2 test is "pretty much" the same. ;)

JJ

That's inconsistent with a FED case play in which "it's up to the participants to know the status" (or words to that effect).

but how about if it's allowed to drop intentionally without being touched

No, that's how you'd coach the play...that's why the batter/runner should run everything out, especially his crappy bunt. Live ball, play on, turn a triple play if you can...

(Assuming no IFF rule)

Anyone bother to read the case play?

8.4.1.G: With bases loaded and one out (a potential infield fly situation), B5 bunts a ball in the air. F3 uses the back of his glove to gently knock the ball to the ground (this meets the intentional drop definition) where he picks it up and throws to F2 who touches the plate then throws out B5 at first.

RULING: The ball is dead (Dead! There is our answer!). B5 is out and the runners return. (These next two sentences don't have anything to do with our question, rather they better help to explain what constitutes an intentional drop.) Manipulating the ball to the ground is prohibited. Allowing the ball to drop to the ground untouched is not considered an intentionally dropped ball.

Now...what was the question?

True or False: The ball is immediately dead when: With the infield fly rule in effect, an infielder intentionally drops a fair bunt in flight.

How can you read that case play and come up with anything other than true?

Hey, I gave it a shot and your point is quite true as well.

Had to explain that one to a coach one time as I was in the field pointing to the ball and my partner never said a word. I got the words out just before the ball hit the ground (misjudged the towering pop up) and the kid took off for third.

If something isn't screwed up on a test, then we need to start to worrying....;)

I guess you'd have to work as a test writer for FED.:D

Good catch - I read the case and still missed it. I guess one has to assume manipulating the ball to the ground is the same as intentionally dropping it, and for some reason I chose not to assume.

That is the straight forward part of the question. There is nothing that needs to be assumed.

The batter-runner is out when:

c. his fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight is intentionally dropped by an infielder with at least first base occupied and before there are two outs. The ball is dead and the runner or runners shall return to their respective base(s).

NOTE: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight to drop untouched to the ground, except when the infield fly rule (2-19-1) applies (5-1-1j).

It's not an assumption. It's a recognized, defined, printed interpretation!

Our state interpreter contacted Indianapolis and then sent me this:

"This was a rule change in 2007, in which they added the clause at the end "with the exception of the infield fly rule.

"I guess they want to make sure we remember the rule changes the following year!"

It's a bunt, therefore, the IFF rule CAN'T be in effect.

That explanation reeks worse than the test question.

This was NOT a rule change last year. There was an editorial change in how the rule was written in the book, thus part of the rule appeared "highlighted". But the rule- and rulings- were not changed at all.

I pulled up my rule and case books going back to 2004 (all the ones that were readily available) and here is what I found.

2004, 2005, 2006: Rule and case book are identical each year.

2007: Rule book has editorial change to wording, same rule in effect. Case book same as previous years.

2008: Same rule, but rule book apparently misprinted (the "exception" note left out). Case book same as previous years.

I believe you. Can you give me the reference for the future please. Thanks

The interpretation is right there in the case play.

Manipulating the ball to the ground is prohibited. Allowing the ball to drop to the ground untouched is not considered an intentionally dropped ball.

Now, you do have to realize that the case play is illustrating the rule from the rule book that specifically covers an intentionally dropped ball.

Once you put the two together, the intent is quite clear.

My mistake - I thought maybe there was some other place. I guess if someone really wanted to massage this thing, they could justify that manipulating is not equivalent to intentionally dropping. Semantics aside, if a fielder decides to turn his glove away and let the ball hit it and fall to the ground, one could argue it's not the same thing. One could reasonably say that intentionally dropping a ball implies that the ball is caught to begin with and then let fall to the ground. That's why I was looking for something more definitive other than what was in the thread. It's pretty bad when we have to think about something that should be obvious, but isn't because of not only the context, but how it was meant by the writer. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a FED discussion abouthow to write rule changes.

Update
 

The State says I did indeed miss the question, due to the fact that you cannot declare a bunt an infield fly. I guess they were not interested in addressing the wording of the question. :rolleyes:

Pretty much the same explanation I posted above.

Still doesn't make sense
 

What? An intentionally dropped fly ball is an immediate dead ball. You can't declare a bunt an IFF (per State). A bunt or attempt is not an IFF per the rules.

So how did you STILL miss the question? If you can't declare it, then it's just a fly ball in the infield, dropped intentionally. Kill it now. Answer is true by my interpretation of State's explanation.

You were indeed correct.

That explanation can only lead you to the statement being true. I don't understand how that clarified anything.

edited b/c I just realized I kicked this entire post originally - claimed everything to be false when indeed we have answered this to be true and FED has this answer to be false. I didn't recall the wording of the test question at the time of the original posting.

Your answer was correct. Don't sweat the quiz, just call it correctly in a game.

The FED rule and interpretation is exactly the same as OBR. Check your Jaksa/Roder manual or MLBUM or JEA or whatever you have.

If a batted ball is an infield fly, and if the ball is intentionally dropped, then the ball remains live.

A batted ball that meets the infield fly definition is the lone exception to the rule.

In all other cases where an intentional drop is ruled, the ball is dead.

And all you guys that are getting jobbed because the FED test has the wrong answer- show your instructor the Case Play!

When you take these tests, please bear in mind that the test makers intend that no one receives 100%. If they have to write impossibly worded questions to achieve that result, they will.

The rationale behind that goal is that folks who miss questions will be more motivated to go to the books. We might quibble with the pedagogy, but the evidence here is that the means suit the end.

This question is not as poorly worded as some would suggest. Only the answer is wrong.

"The infield fly rule is in effect" only means that there are less than 2 out, and at least 1st and 2nd are occupied. It is not a statement about the bunt. In order for the intentionally dropped ball rule (8.4.1.c) to be in effect, there must be less than 2 out, and at least 1st base must be occupied. Therefore, when the IFF rule is in effect, the IDB rule is always in effect as well. (The question does not otherwise state where the runners are or how many outs there are, so we need this information to know whether the IDB rule is in effect.)

Edited to remove the stuff that was false.

Not true. The infield fly "take precedence" over the intentional drop, and the ball remains live if an infield fly is intentionally dropped.

See 2.00 - Infield Fly CMT for the OBR rule. The rule is the same in all codes.

I agree the IFF takes precedence in OBR and NCAA, but I can't find that in the FED rules. Any idea where it is?

That's what I was getting at in my first post way back on page one.

NFHS rule 5-1-1j tells us that the ball is dead on an intentional drop.

Up until this year, that rule had wording at the end to the effect that an infield fly is the exception to the rule. It looks like they botched the printing in the 2008 rule book.

Compare this same rule in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 books. You'll see three different versions of the same rule, each stating the same thing with different wording.

The editorial change is highlighted in the 2007 book, then apparently mangled in the 2008 version.

I stand corrected Bob & Bret. I'm editing my post. And mangled is a good choice of words to describe 2008 5.1.1.j. The last phrase should read "except on an infield-fly as defined by 2.19."

So then, it is as our state interpreter described and the answer FED gives is correct.

Just remember the intent of both--to prevent a cheap DP.

If the IFF is in effect (not just "conditions exist"), since the B/R is out, the runners are not forced to advance on the batted ball and a cheap DP is not possible, so an intentional drop stays live. If, even though the conditions exist, the IFF is not in effect, then the B/R is not out, the runners are forced to advance and a cheap DP is possible, so the ball is declared dead.

The question is just bad. It asks you to make a decision based on two conditions that are mutually exclusive, but are presented as though both are true.

If the intentional drop went off F3's glove an into the dugout would you award a base to the runners?

Day game or night game?

night game :D

2-man or 3- man?

2 man :D

If it stayed live (IFF), I would award two bases to each runner except the B/R, who is out.

If it became immediately dead (no IFF) I would not award any bases.

I know the rules...thanks for checking though. Just playin' dude...lighten up

I didn't check, and I wasn't responding to the WOBW in which you were engaged.

A literal reading of the question as phrased by riprock calls for an answer of "no"--even though the correct ruling involves the award of bases. Interesting, given the topic of this thread.

commenting to Stephen. I know you didn't check.

I believe that on our test here in NJ it says that if any part of the question is false then it's totally false and since you can't have an infield fly on a bunt then the answer is false

Please reread the question - it indicates that the Infield Fly Rule is "in effect" it doesn't say anything about being enforced, or called or anything else, just "in effect". For the IFR to be "enforced" or "called", a fly ball has to be hit, not a bunt. There is nothing false about the question or any part of the question. The only thing that is false is what else the person reads into the question. Consider the facts:

1. The IFR is "in effect" means that there are runners on 1st and 2nd or the bases are loaded, AND, there are less than 2 outs. This is TRUE.
2. A fair bunt has been popped up: This is TRUE.
3. The ball is intentionally dropped by an infielder. This is TRUE.
4. The ball is immediately DEAD. This is also TRUE.

So...... then answer MUST be TRUE.

I think I posted this on page 2 of this thread. Looks like we're starting to repeat! :rolleyes:

And yet, when that same logic was presented to FED, the reply was that the answer of "False" remains correct for reasons explained earlier in this thread.

The problem with the explanation from Indianapolis is that this, despite their contention, was not a rule change in 2007.

The rule has been the same in as many FED rule books as I could go back and search through. In 2007 there was an editorial change in regards to how the rule was worded and printed, but neither the rule, nor the Case Book rulings, where changed at all.

Kind of disturbing that somebody from "the home office" doesn't know the difference between an editorial change and a rule change.

The reasoning they gave for a "false" answer to this question is, in itself, false.

Are we sure about this one??? We already have a bunt, not a hit ball therefore the IFF is null and void. However if there was a hit ball and an IFF, intentional drop ball, ball remains ALIVE and in play,

At our test on Wednesday night...which is administered in person by the assistant executive director of the SC High School League for baseball...the administrator actually said that it was the most poorly written question he had ever seen on the test and he just flat out told us all to put "False".

This, too, is true - but what does it have to do with the problem at hand? The question is refering to a bunt attempt dropped intentionally. There is no mention of a batted ball in the question.

BigGuy's list of true statements is true, his conclusion that the answer is true is correct.

We all say it's true, except FED. Yes, we're sure about this one.

I'll try this one more time, There are runners on first and second and/or third base. Therefore it takes a fly ball that can be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder or outfielder to have the IFF in EFFECT. I hope we can agree on this part. Now then, was there a ball hit that fits this description. No it was a fricken bunt, that was bunted into the air. Bunt's by rule do not fall under the definition of IFF. SO, there can be no IFF. NO ball was hit that comes remotely close to the definition of IFF. You have the potiential for an IFF, that doesn't mean you have an IFF. This makes the question FALSE. Yes, it's a poorly worded question, however this is common place with FED questions. They're testing your ability to use and understand the rule book. So if you declared an IFF you booted it. When you should have simply killed the play because of the intentionally dropped ball.

J-Man, question for you. This sitch is simply an intentionally dropped bunt, like you said. What makes the statement false? The ball IS dead immediately.

You have described exactly what everyone else has. And we all said that it's true. I agree with your post, except the "This makes the question false" part. I think you misread the question.

justanotherblue,

The way the question is written, it is asking whether the assertion that a ball is immediately dead is true or false under a given set of conditions. The conditions presented by the question are:

1. The IFF rule is in effect

2. The batter hits a fair bunt in flight

3. The fielder intentionally drops the ball

Now it is not clear what the writer's intent was in including the first condition. Does it mean the conditions before the pitch are such that an IFF could occur? Perhaps he intended it to mean that an umpire erroneously announced an IFF call. Perhaps he didn't know that a bunt, by definition, cannot be an IFF (this would be the interpretation most consistent with the incorrect answer in the rule key).

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Given this set of conditions, the ball is, by rule, immediately dead. So, the correct answer to the question, as written, is TRUE.

If the question had asked the correctness of the assertion that this situation resulted in an IFF, then the answer would be FALSE. But the question didn't ask that. At least not in English.

JM

Ya know, yes, the ball is dead, but don't you think it's kinda important to know why?! Not all recognize that a bunt can't invoke the IFF, we all should recognize an intentionally dropped ball is an immediate dead ball. Yep regardless the ball should be called dead, so hopefully as an umpire the ball was called dead, but was it for the right reason. It's a fed question, poor as it may be, they rule false as I agree. The key for me in the question is the word bunt. What the Fed intent is only they know. You can use the intentionally dropped ball. Hopefully we all would make the same call, but for which reason. Food for thought.

It's time to kill this thread.

Answer FALSE on the test, don't call IFF on a bunt and kill the ball when an infielder intentionally drops a ball with at least 1st occupied and less than 2 out.

I don't follow your thought process at all. How do you get false out of this? We know the bunt is not an IFF, so you kill this immediately - thus making the statement TRUE. The ONLY time you would NOT kill it would be when the IFF is enforced. We agree that this sitch is NOT that time.

Let me rephrase it - If I posted on here the following question, how would you respond? "Runners on 1st and 2nd less than two outs. Batter attempts a bunt and pops it up. F1 drops the ball intentionally. Would this be an immediate dead ball?"

If you would answer "yes" to this proposed question, then the FED question is true. All I did was remove the ridiculous FED wording.

I follow your process right up until you get to claiming this to be false. Other than false being the answer that FED gives, I just can't see it being the correct answer, and your logic leads away from it as well.

How can the statement "It is an immediate dead ball when: with R1 & R2, less than two outs, a fielder intentionally drops a bunt attempt that is popped up on the infield" not be true?

Flip a coin next time and improve you odds of getting it right
 

Dude,

What other questions did you miss? I see you're also having trouble grasping the whole "contacting the rubber" issue as well.

It's a fed question. Who really cares. MIB, your first two sentences says it all. It's a fricken bunt! Figure it out. I'm done with this one.

At least in IL the problem is solved!
They've thrown out the question

What problem do YOU have with what I said? Is there anything incorrect in my statement to make you think I don't understand this sitch?

I've got this one covered, Dude. And I have no issue with the "contacting the rubber" issue.

justanotherblue - Right, and agreed. This is a bunt, immediate dead ball. We'll leave it at that.

This dead horse has been beaten enough.

For the record, I missed one other question that I simply misread. Knew the answer and couldn't figure out why I answered the way I did. Does that satisfy you Stevie?

I haven't even received my packet for MN yet...I suppose it's because our season starts later than where it's not -40 degrees?

There are too many gunmen on your grassy knoll!

Do you know any of the test makers? And they told you this? I seriously doubt what you say is true.

There is no way a test maker, in his effort to make sure nobody scores a 100%, would purposely create a question that would result in an overwhelming consensus about it being COMPLETELY SCREWED UP.

Just as we who take the tests have pride in doing well; those who create the tests have pride in creating fair and challenging questions.

Most poorly worded, or convoluted questions, are well-intended - it just comes out wrong. Something gets lost in the translation. In other words, they are the result of honest mistakes.

The guys who make the questions also have pride. I do not accept the notion (as you are inferring) that they sit down and deliberately conjure up screwed up questions that are designed to mislead and create false impressions.

Whoever authored this screwed up IFF/intentionally dropped ball question would probably openly admit (in retrospect), "Yeah, I worded that horribly. That's not what I intended to say. Crap! Sorry - bad question."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

You are more correct than you know....(great and accurate post!!)

Hmmm....

Having thought about it some, there is really nothing wrong with the wording of this question.

The only thing wrong is the answer key.

JM

Agreed
 

I agreed with you 41 posts ago.

The wording "in effect" is confusing to many. Does "in effect" mean IFF has been incorrectly called or are conditions prior to the bunt right for IFF? I don't think an umpire test needs to be written in such a fashion that a Bill Clinton parsing of the words needs to take place.
I believe if it was as simple as changing the answer key IL would not have thrown out the question.

Ok,
 

I was in NFHS meetings in Indianapolis on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

I asked one of the test writers about this question.

The answer was:

"The question was written exactly as the rules committee requested.

"The only thing left open to interpretation is the term "in effect" and at no time does the question state an infield fly was called.

"The committee contends that the rules are clear that any ball intentionally dropped by a fielder becomes dead in this situation.

"If a reader of the question jumps to the conclusion that "in effect" means an infield fly was called then it is their issue that they are overreading the words in the question."

Take this as you want. I am not sold on the defense of the question but it is time to move on.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

Publication Committee Member
NFHS

"High School Today"

It is that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Perhaps they changed the key to 'true' previously, however since then they have thrown out the question.

Agreed
 

As I truly expected this thread to die out around eighty posts ago, I would
concur with your statement, and would request that this thread be locked,
but not deleted.

Yeah, I swore off this thread a week ago. Pretty much said what I had to say and didn't think I had any more to add.

But every "official" explanation that gets posted from Indianapolis just puts their foot deeper in the pile of...whatever.

Tim has now offered another- directly from one of the test writers, at that. The explanation lays out a clear reasoning why the answer to this question should be TRUE! (And then goes on to say that the "confusion" is due to the reader's lack of comprehension, over-reading or false conclusions).

I would disagree. The question is quite simply written. The rules that apply are quite clear. The Case Play that covers this is clear, too.

The "confusion" seems to be on the part of the FED testmakers, who in their own answer key have declared the correct answer to be FALSE!

There still seems to be some sort of disconnect here. Way to botch the test, then blame the confusion on the guys that have to take the test. Nice.

Then why do they insist the answer is "false?" This statement you've made would indicate the answer should be "true."

Either the writer you talked to hasn't read the question, or hasn't seen the FED answer sheet, or doesn't know the rule.

Well,
 

Garth:

This test writer said that the question was considered TRUE all along.

Regards,

How about the answer? :D

So, then, (dare I ask) why is "FALSE" given as the correct answer on the FED answer sheet and by Indianapolis?

Man, I'm getting a headache.

oh well...so I get one wrong on the test. we should all get it right on the field...where it really counts.