Saw this on another site, do any of you who took the test last night differ on many of these? Specifically 16 and 93?

1 T
3-4 T
6-9 T
11-14 T
17-21 T
23-24 T
26-27 T
29-30 T
32-35 T
37 T
41 T
45-47 T
50-51 T
53-55 T
59 T
62 T
64 T
66-68 T
71 T
73-74 T
76 T
78-80 T
83-84 T
86-89 T
91-93 T
97-98 T

all numbers not listed are false.

Where can I find the questions to review?
 

As an outsider to your profession, I am still interested in learning as much as I can about officiating. Where can I find the questions from this year's exam?

Does anyone have the test they could fax me? I like to use the test to study. If so, please e-mail me. [email protected] or fax 217-586-8277.

[Edited by kenref1 on Dec 9th, 2003 at 09:17 AM]

Ugh! They made us turn in our test sheet along with our answer sheet. Apparently they'll mail them back to us along with our graded answer sheet. I suppose it's so we don't share them with others who still have to take the test. But by the time we get them back, the fun discussions will be over. :(

For a response to: "Specifically 16 and 93?"

I couldn't find 16. But, I'd not call a T. So I put False. Any ideas of where this case would be found?

And 93, rule 3-3-4, says the player directed to leave cannot reenter until the next dead ball. There is no reference that they can use a time out to keep this player in. see also rule 3-4-15

I only had five diff than you, Joe:

47 79 81 93 98

..and on 79 and 81, I think you were right (after further review). :)

we all argued 98. but its word for word in case book 9-7-2 that u can't have a 3sec call during an interrptd dribble.

good luck all

#16 is false. You do not charge the team with a T.

#93 was a source of controversy. I expect it to be thrown out in my state. I answered true.

#47 is false.

#63 is true.

#79 is false.

#98 is true. The rule was changed last year. See the rule book for 9-7-2. Case play 9.7.2 has not been changed since last year's rule change.

Question 98 is true in fact that question has appeared on previous tests.

Help with #47, why is this false?

As for #63, violations occur following resumption of play procedure, not technicals. "The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations." Rule 4-37, page 38

#81 is also false, it appeared on a previous test.

#47
 

For 47 it is false beacuse theplayer touched the RING and not the ball. The only time we can have BI with just touching the ring is if hte ring is pulled down and contacts the ball prior to returning to its original position. (rule 4-6)

When the ball is in the IMAGINARY cylinder, it's BI if a player touches the ball. It is not BI if the player touches the ring or basket, unless the ball is in the ring or basket.

Here's my thought process.

B violates by not having a player in the space on the first throw. That's resuming play because that is the initial delay. When the space is still not occupied for the second throw, it's a T.

8-1-1c
Following a violation by one or by both teams, if that team(s) continues to delay it is a technical foul.

Once the first FT is shot, we are no longer under the RPP and it's a T.

I may be wrong but I don't think the fact that A makes the first FT has any bearing. Quite honestly, I can find anything that addresses this. But I seem to remember a case play that said even though the FT is made, it's still considered a violation by B under this procedure.

I agree that #81 is false.

Here's my thought process.

B violates by not having a player in the space on the first throw. That's resuming play because that is the initial delay. When the space is still not occupied for the second throw, it's a T.

8-1-1c
Following a violation by one or by both teams, if that team(s) continues to delay it is a technical foul.

Once the first FT is shot, we are no longer under the RPP and it's a T.

I may be wrong but I don't think the fact that A makes the first FT has any bearing. Quite honestly, I can find anything that addresses this. But I seem to remember a case play that said even though the FT is made, it's still considered a violation by B under this procedure.

[/B][/QUOTE]
I hate to bring this up again but going over my part 2 test got me thinking...
Everything that has been said before about the situation is correct. Here's where I'm struggling: Under Resuming Play, B violates by not having two players in the first spaces. However, with the successful FT attempt, the violation goes unpenalized. Considering the fact that the violation went unpenalized should it be a T?

Has anyone posed this question to their state interpreter or has anyone received a definitive answer from the NFHS or their state association?

No. It's not "a violation if the FT is missed; a T if the FT is made." If that were the case, A would intentionally miss the FT. They lose that point, but get the potential for two more, plus the ball.

If there's another throw, the procedure repeats -- again, a violation for B to not be in the bottom two spots.

I put 16 as false and 93 as true. Comments are welcome. By the way, they took up our tests also and said they would mail them too us. But they didnt do it in the part one test.

93 is false. Rule 3 Section 3 Art. 4 "A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been properly started following his/her replacement." It's not a buy-in situation like a bleeding player is.

[Edited by whistleone on Dec 17th, 2003 at 04:33 PM]

The question doesn't say that he's already been directed to leave the game. Comparing it to the rule, it's poorly worded.

Since I am not taking the test I have not seen a copy. I am curious about the reference to question 98. It refers to rule 9-7-2 and case 9.7.2. Is the casebook wrong? What actually changed last year?

The rule changed last year. 3 seconds can be called during an interrupted dribble. The case book play has not been changed to reflect the rule.

You can have an interrupted dribble in the lane and still continue the 3 second count. (Rule change last year)

Case 9.7.2 ..."there is no three-second count during rebounding action or during a throw-in or interrupted dribble." Should have omitted the "interrupted dribble".

RD

Whoops...type to slow..Big Dog BBR beat me to it.

Question 64 is the one about correcting time on the clock. I know the answer is correct, but where in the books is it?

Yes, it happens to the best of us. You'll feel like a million when you beat him the first time.