Incorrect 2019 NFHS exam questions

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

The point of that question was really about ball location, not an attempt to say that it was the same as the ball literally touching a the floor.

In the old paper test days, there were section headings that sometimes gave context to the question...something like "Ball Location". Perhaps this is from one of those days.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point of that question was really about ball location, not an attempt to say that it was the same as the ball literally touching a the floor.

In the old paper test days, there were section headings that sometimes gave context to the question...something like "Ball Location". Perhaps this is from one of those days.

I'm pretty sure (without the books here to check) that the statement in the question is right from a rule, or from the fundamentals.

Assuming that I am right about that, then the question might not literally be valid, but it's valid from a test-taking sense.