FED Exam Strikes Again
 

This question appeared twice. I guess it's very important we all know what a MF is since it gets called so often.

A situation in which two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approximately the same time is known as:

A) A multiple foul.
B) A double foul.
C) A simultaneous foul.
D) An intentional foul.
E) A false double foul.

The premise of this question is wrong as the act described in the question is BI, not GT.

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.

Is there anything in the Case Book that defines "legally enters the court" as having both feet on the court?

A substitute becomes a player when:

A) He/she reports to the scorer.
B) He/she has both feet inside the playing court.
C) He/she is beckoned onto the court by an official.
D) All of the above.

I am pretty sure I got this one wrong.

It is an out-of-bounds violation if a player:

A) Leaves the court to avoid a screen.
B) Leaves the court to avoid a foul.
C) Leaves the court to avoid teammates.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.

It was awful. I never collaborate (I don’t believe in doing that) and got a 92%. That’s by far my lowest score in a decade. I attribute it all to lousily worded questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. I got my lowest score in a few years, too.

The Part 2 Exam was stupid as well. Glad my main state stays away from this test and has for over 10 years.

Peace

Poorly Worded Questions ...
 

Speaking of poorly worded questions.

I got an IAABO "you make the call" video today. The situation was illegal live ball contact on a shooter that may, or may not, have been excessive.

The question had only two choices for an answer: intentional foul, or personal foul, as if they're mutually exclusive.

An intentional foul can be personal foul.

I deemed the contact to not be excessive and answered personal foul.

Even if I had ruled an excessive contact intentional foul, that would still be a personal foul, so technically personal foul wouldn't be wrong.

I really dont get why they try this too cute by half crap, especially when there is lower hanging fruit that can waste half an hour at local rules meetings. It can be fun exercises sometimes on the ride up to a game, in locker room for pregame, or to torture the rookies, or bar after the game.

Just glad that after getting your varsity classification here, we dont have to worry about those tests anymore.

Watched our online state rules meeting and in going over the POE this year, the infamous 2012 above the shoulder contact POE was brought back up. Too bad its still not codified and you have to do some digging to find the thing.( on arbiter here if you need a refresher: https://www1.arbitersports.com/Group...%20Outline.pdf)

I don't think they try to trick test takers, I think FED is just so poor at writing and editing material as evidenced by the "contact above the shoulders" POE that never made it into the book that your state is supposed to be enforcing - just one of many examples.

That, and there is always a plethora of dumb questions about multiple fouls and the diameter of the rim that no one cares about.

Contact Above The Shoulders ...
 

Contact Above The Shoulders

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

If FED wants it enforced that way they need to put it in the rules and not require us to rely on 8-year-old interps. Simple as that.

Games People Play, Joe South, 1968 ...
 

Agree. Stupid NFHS.

No rule NFHS can come up with can be worse than swimming and diving's suit rule. "The suit shall cover the buttocks for men and the buttocks and breasts for women."

Who is going to enforce this rule? The answer, someone who wants their officiating career to end that day (as evidenced by last years brown storm in Alaska over this rule). There are only two possible results from this rule being enforced. The official who makes the call will be black listed because of the appearance having them on deck will portray, or someone will try filing some sort of complaint against said official who will have to defend his/her name in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.

NFHS can make a rule that a dunk is worth 20 points and it would not be as stupid as the swimming and diving suit rule. That rule is the king, queen and emperor of stupid rules. The fact they didn't get rid of the rule after the storm from last year says all we need to know about the NFHS.

Why is this rule stupid? AFAIK, when it was made, there was a valid reason behind it, to preserve modesty. Or is the rule stupid because enforcing it would cause a sh#storm? If the latter, then skinny-dipping should be legal per NFHS rules (not that it would be advisable) :p.

The second question is inane. What purpose does it serve? You can't have goaltending on a ball entering the basket from below, because it is not a try, just like you cannot have goaltending on a throw-in.

I agree with you on #3. A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court, or if (s)he entered the court illegally, when the ball becomes live. However, that answer is nowhere to be seen. In addition, as BillyMac mentions, the question where the answer choices include intentional foul and personal foul as mutually exclusive makes no sense, because an intentional foul can be a personal foul if committed while the ball is live, or a technical foul if committed while the ball is dead. NFHS should get their act together and hire an editor who knows both the English language and basketball. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same stupid and poorly-written questions showing up over and over again.

I experienced the same situation on this year's exam. I got a 94 which was my lowest score in awhile. I commented several times to several colleagues just how poorly worded the questions were this year. I had all of the questions that SC Official had in the OP. I guess that the NFHS didn't like my answers. Oh well? Moving on!

You can't?