Incorrect 2019 NFHS exam questions
 

I am of the opinion that a few questions on the NFHS exam this year are incorrect. Let me know what you think.

Here are the questions:

Question 59:
If a goaltending violation is penalized for touching the ball entering the basket from below:
a.
The basket counts if the violation is by the defense.
b.
No points are scored, regardless of the violating team.
c.
The ball is awarded to a team based on the alternating-possession arrow.
d.
None of the above.


Question 65:
Correctable errors do not involve:
a.
Judgment.
b.
Scoring.
c.
Setting aside a rule.
d.
All of the above.
e.
A and C only.

Question 71:
A ball which touches a(n) ________ is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's
location.
a.
Teammate
b.
Official
c.
Opponent
d.
All of the above

Question 72:
A bonus free throw:
a.
Is awarded for team control fouls.
b.
Begins with the sixth team foul.
c.
Is never more than one additional attempt.
d.
Is awarded only if the first free throw is successful.

#59. I'm not entirely sure what they're asking. What enters from below? the ball? the hand? I'm guessing it is the hand. In that case, (a) is the correct answer. Ultimately, this is one of the two worst worded questions on the test.

#65. Correctable errors always involve scoring and the setting aside of a rule. Since those ((b) and (c)) can't possibly be the right answer, (d) and (e) can't be the right answer either. That leaves (a).

#71 is fine. (d) is the correct answer IIRC. What do you think is the issue on that?

#72 is less clear. (c) is actually true, but (d) is the rulebook language. I chose (d).

Well, I’ve only thought about the first one listed, 59 and have a headache....If it is the hand reaching through basket from below and touching ball outside cylinder that sounds like goaltending...but it is basket interference under rules. They are probably looking for answer A but terrible question.

65, I agree is A. Correctable errors involve non judgment screwups.... Not shooting bonus or shooting when shouldn’t. Counting a 3 when it is a two. Wrong player shooting FTs. Just screwups..not making a bad foul or travel call etc.

The premise of question 72 is anachronistic. Change the bonus to be "the set of free throw(s) awarded to the non-fouling team for any common foul starting with the offending team's seventh team foul", or something to that effect, and you wouldn't have a question that doesn't make sense due to rule changes.

Except the "bonus" isn't the set of FTs. It is the ONE FT that the shooter gets as a bonus for making the first. That is why it is called the "bonus". The first shot isn't a bonus, it is the standard result.

Right. That's why it should never be called the "double bonus." D can't be the right answer to the last question, because of the "automatic bonus" on the 10th foul. C is obviously the right answer.

The only question I have an issue with is 59 -- and here because the example in the second half of the question can't be goaltending. But, if we ignore that, or change the question to BI, then the answer (A) is obvious.

Calling it the bonus assumes that there is an automatic first free throw for common fouls, with the bonus being the reward for making said first free throw. There used to be one on all common fouls, but there is no first free throw until the number of team fouls equals 7 (unless there is a shooting foul or other foul carrying a penalty involving free throws). Since there is no first free throw anymore, the definition of the bonus needs changed to reflect the new reality. My proposed definition resolves the anachronism in the current rules. Either do that, or restore the first free throw on common fouls, to keep the current definition.

Or they could quit putting bullsh!t questions on the test that have absolutely zero value.

Looks as if I’ve selected some good ones for discussion. Several conflicting answers have been provided by some rather knowledgeable officials.
I’ll allow some more time before I chime in with my thoughts and post the answers that the NHFS provided, which I disagree with, of course.

Amen. Like the one about the diameter of the ring.

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.
CORRECTION: Setting aside a rule is part of the Correctable Error rule, so the correct answer is a. judgement

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.

Dr. Pete, please post the text of 2-10-1.

Correctable Errors
Rule 2 Section 10 Article 1

Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in:
a. Failure to award a merited free throw.
b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.
c. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw.
d. Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket.
e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

I told you guys I was NOT a rules expert. I read items a through e above, and didn't completely read the sentence above that says " ....if a rule is inadvertently set aside... " I guess that is the one question I missed on the test.

Thanks for pointing that out.

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. 😁

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Just responding to this as I do not like this question either --

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. Yes the question has been on two years in a row, and I haven't liked it either time, LOL.

However in the NFHS rule book on page 61 under goaltending -- Rule 9-12 Penalty #3 "if the violation results from touching the ball while it is in the basket after entering from below, no points are scored and the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation".

My take is some computer data entry guy found that quote and hence the question and crazy wording -- the way that the question is read makes a difference (hand from below or ball from below?), and they reference goaltending, but using the hand through the goal from the bottom up is technically basket interference -- which we would award 2 points if the defense was responsible. The question I had was worded this way "If a goaltending violation is penalized for touching the ball entering the basket from below:" Then we had to choose from the options. If goaltending is penalized puts the thought that the defense did it into your mind. Terrible question in my opinion.

There is another question which I didn't like because the changed portions of the answer and all could be correct or 1 could be wrong in my opinion.

"A ball is at the disposal of a player in all of the following situations, EXCEPT:"
options are
"a. Handed to a thrower or free thrower.
b. Caught by a player after it is bounced to him/her.
c. Placed on the floor at the spot.
d. Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.
e. Bounced to a thrower or free thrower."

They changed wording on B that I don't like and E isn't totally complete -- so I would pick B caught by a player -- because 4-4-7 says "caught by a thrower or free thrower after it is bounced to him/her." Switching player for thrower free thrower is more poorly worded to me that "bounced to a thrower or free thrower" But all of them could be considered correct since b and e are both partial statements.

Follow The Bouncing Ball ...
 

I like e. Bounced to a thrower or free thrower, because in the case of a free throw, either team can request a timeout until the ball is caught (at the disposal) of the fee thrower. Probably also true for a ball bounced to a thrower.

The Penalties under 9-12 apply to both 9-11 and to 9-12.

And, penalty 3 can only apply to BI.

What other cases are you (as a referee) going put the ball at the disposal of a player by bouncing the ball to a player other than for a throwin or free throw?

The ball isn't at a player's disposal when it is bounced to them. It is at the disposal on a bounce only once it gets to them an dis caught (as in b). That is the point of this question....disposal, live ball, counts, etc. all begin when the player is handed the ball, catches the ball on the bounce, or could execute a throwin but are delaying. A ball in route is still dead.

4-4-4 A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location.

I get that -- I just read that question and see a player on the court inbounds -- thrower out and freethrower on the line -- I also process that bounce as it being caught because in my head I see my self bouncing it and them catching it. Just the way my brain processes those two things lol

I would love for this to be a rule:

39. A player holding the ball:
....
Must announce which foot he or she will use as pivot foot.
....
....