Part 2 test

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

You mean the "officials jurisdiction begins when..." question?

No, this one:

A substitute free throw is awarded if there are simultaneous violations by opponents:

A. And the try is successful.
B. And the try is unsuccessful.

These are the only two choices.

[Rich]

How about this one?

Which is a foul that may be either personal or technical?
A. Common
B. Flagrant
C. Intentional
D. Player-control

So there are 2 correct answers for this one. No choices that allow me to specify more than one, though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

How about this one?

Which is a foul that may be either personal or technical?
A. Common
B. Flagrant
C. Intentional
D. Player-control

So there are 2 correct answers for this one. No choices that allow me to specify more than one, though.

B.

There really is no act defined in the book as an intentional technical and calling something one, instead of just a technical, is meaningless.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by camron rust

b.

There really is no act defined in the book as an intentional technical and calling something one, instead of just a technical, is meaningless.

4-19-3.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

4-19-3.

Yes, I know it is defined. But, that is the end of it. None of the sub-parts of that rule apply during a dead ball. They either explicitly mention live ball or are in relation to a play (which also doesn't happen during a dead ball). It lists no examples of acts that occur during a dead ball. We all take it to be excessive contact during a dead ball, but why does it explicitly mention live ball if that is the case?

I think the implication in the rules is that you call a simple technical foul when contact occurs that would have been an intentional foul during a live ball. There is never a case where you need to call an intentional technical as it means absolutely nothing.

That explanation fits the question.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I know it is defined. But, that is the end of it. None of the sub-parts of that rule apply during a dead ball. They either explicitly mention live ball or are in relation to a play (which also doesn't happen during a dead ball). It lists no examples of acts that occur during a dead ball. We all take it to be excessive contact during a dead ball, but why does it explicitly mention live ball if that is the case?

I think the implication in the rules is that you call a simple technical foul when contact occurs that would have been an intentional foul during a live ball. There is never a case where you need to call an intentional technical as it means absolutely nothing.

That explanation fits the question.

Your logic, while sound, doesn't make this a better question. We constantly tell newer officials not to read too much into the questions on the test. Hell, that's normally a good test taking strategy in any situation (I just took a state licensing test and that was the biggest advice I was given during the preparation for the test).

This question, however, demands that you read a lot into it that's not there. I'd be curious to see which answer the NFHS deems correct.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

Your logic, while sound, doesn't make this a better question. We constantly tell newer officials not to read too much into the questions on the test. Hell, that's normally a good test taking strategy in any situation (I just took a state licensing test and that was the biggest advice I was given during the preparation for the test).

This question, however, demands that you read a lot into it that's not there. I'd be curious to see which answer the NFHS deems correct.

The answer follows Cameron's logic, however it doesn't make the question any better.