Incorrect 2019 NFHS exam questions

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by DrPete

I am NOT a rules expert like many on this forum. I did have all four of these questions on my version of the test and scored a 98, so I got at least three out of four correct.

Question 59:
If a goaltending violation is penalized for touching the ball entering the basket from below:

b. No points are scored, regardless of the violating team.

I understood this question to mean that the ball passed through the basket from below, so there would be no points scored no matter who touched the ball. Rule 9-12-3 addresses this.


Question 65:
Correctable errors do not involve:
a. Judgment.
c.Setting aside a rule.
e. A and C only.

The definition of a correctable error in 2-10 does not include judgement or setting aside a rule.


Question 71:
Don't see any problems there.


Question 72:
A bonus free throw:
c. Is never more than one additional attempt.
d. Is awarded only if the first free throw is successful.

The only logic I could come up with here is that c. is incorrect because you could award a second attempt if there was a defensive violation, but that is a stretch. Therefore, using my NFHS to Common English dictionary, I deduced that d. was the answer they were looking for.

How in creation can there be goaltending on the ball entering the basket from below? It's not a try, the ball is not entirely above the height of the ring, and is not on its downward flight with a chance to score when it is touched. As written, the situation in Question 59 does not meet the rulebook definition of goaltending. Question 59 needs to be scrapped.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

How in creation can there be goaltending on the ball entering the basket from below? It's not a try, the ball is not entirely above the height of the ring, and is not on its downward flight with a chance to score when it is touched. As written, the situation in Question 59 does not meet the rulebook definition of goaltending. Question 59 needs to be scrapped.

Congrats, Sherlock. You have grasped why I posted that question in this thread. 😁

[ilyazhito]

I thought that question made no sense when I saw it on the test. Is Theresia responsible for writing the test questions, or is someone else involved?

[Nevadaref]

Ok, here are the NFHS answers & my thoughts on these.

59. The NFHS answer is B. The problem is that they are clearly attempting to test one’s knowledge of the basket interference rule, not goaltending as the question states. There is no possible way that GT can occur when the ball enters the basket from below as it will either become dead when it passes through the goal while moving in the wrong direction since this is a violation or the ball will remain within the basket where if it is touched by a player, the infraction is BI. This question has now been on the exam for two years in a row.

65. The NFHS answer is E. Ugh. The very definition of a correctable error provided in 2-10-1 states that it involves setting aside a rule. I answered A as several of you responding to this thread also have posted.

71. Apparently, I’m in the minority in believing that there is a problem with this question. The NFHS answer is D. All of the above, but I can prove that this is not correct. My opinion is that this is true only when the ball contacts an official.
Consider NFHS Case Book play 5.2.1 Sit C. The play details a 3-pt try by A1 which is subsequently legally touched by either an opponent or a teammate while the ball is in flight towards the goal. The player touching the try can be either within the two-point area or fully outside the 3-pt line. Therefore this breaks down into four cases to consider. Three of these result in a 3-pt goal being scored. That cannot be the case if the ball had contacted the floor. The goal would only be worth two points per NFHS Case Book ruling 5.1.1 Sit A.

I don’t know when 4-4-4 was changed, but this rule is not correct. There is a difference between a ball contacting an official or a player on the court.

72. The problem here is purely definitional. The “bonus” is defined as the second FT awarded for a common foul in NFHS rule 4-8-1. Parts a&b of that rule tell us when this second FT is awarded. Since it is automatically awarded beginning with the 10th foul in a half, the NFHS provided answer of D cannot be correct. The answer should be C. (Yes, this definition is a hold-over from the days when a single FT was awarded for the first six common fouls committed by a team during a half and “the bonus” kicked in with the seventh foul and had to be earned by making the first awarded FT attempt.)

[ilyazhito]

Interesting then why NFHS didn't notice the error and correct "goaltending" to "basket interference". This is ironic, given the point of emphasis to officials to use proper terminology.

[BigCat]

As to 71, off top of my head, I’d say 4-4-4 has been that way for long time. I’m thinking they just didn’t modify it when 3 point came into game? I agree that there is a difference as you mentioned. (And admit it didn’t cross my mind until you mentioned it and case play above..)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

As to 71, off top of my head, I’d say 4-4-4 has been that way for long time. I’m thinking they just didn’t modify it when 3 point came into game? I agree that there is a difference as you mentioned. (And admit it didn’t cross my mind until you mentioned it and case play above..)

I’ll have to sift through my old books to determine the history of 4-4-4.
Meanwhile, here is another example of the difference in touching.

A3 attempts a try for goal from inside the FT lane just prior to the expiration of time in a quarter. The try is released before the horn sounds, but defender B4 legally deflects the try after the release and after the horn has sounded. The ball still enters the basket despite B4’s deflection.

NFHS 5.6.2 Sit A informs us that this is a good goal and is scored. However, replace B4’s touching with the ball striking the floor and 5.1.1 Sit B tells us that the ball became dead and that the try does not count.