I'm not looking for answers, rather I'm looking for discussion.

I've gone through the latest, greatest Part II exam, and as usual there are about 3 questions that I simply can't figure out.

(Can't figure out what the test MAKER was trying to say that is.)

These are the three I've left blank:

#6 -- A restraining line may be used as a boundary line when space is limited, and may extend the entire length or width of the court.

(I think this is meant to be true, as it seems to kinda describe what's said in 1-2-2. But worded very weird.)

#55 - A1 may be out of bounds without penalty if A1, while dribbling, goes out of bounds to avoid B1 and then comes back inbounds to continue the dribble.

(This doesn't imply an interrupted dribble, does it? It seems to really make a difference. If not an interrupted dribble, which implies loss of control of the ball, it's false -- 9-3 NOTE)

#65 -- The difference between the penalty administration for an intentional foul and a technical foul is the designated spot where the ball will be thrown in.

Who knows what this means?

I've sent this on to two learned colleagues that frequent this board and, well, they differed in two of their responses. I haven't lost my mind after all. I think.

Please discuss, if you're so inclined. My test has already been stuck in the mail, so it ain't gonna help me at all.

--Rich

I've got T, F and M (maybe).

If in 65 they mean ALL the differences between them the answer is F.

If they mean *A* difference between them then the answer is T.

I think they're going for the first one, so my vote is F.

I think what #65 is implying is that, if true, the number of free throws, who takes them, when they're taken, and how they're taken are all the same for both intentional personal and for technical fouls. Seeing that the number and who takes them could be different, I'd call this a false statement.

For 55, I don't think it's an interrupted dribble, either. The only question in my mind is whether they're looking for the OOB violation or they meant to write a situation where the player is given a technical foul for leaving the court to gain an advantage.

On 6, I'd be careful. First off, I would believe that the restraining line would HAVE to run the entire length or width of the court (as opposed to just being allowed to) but I've never seen a court with these before. Also, the restraining line is only the boundary line during the throw-in - I'm not sure if the NF is trying to trick everyone by saying that the restraining line is the boundary for going both IB and OOB.

Amen!
 

I'm with you on #6... what is this full length of the court stuff? I answered True because the official can establish/impose a restraining line - I do it all the time on our podunk Idaho courts.

For # 55, I took to heart the words "while dribbling" and said False. The dribbler cannot step out of bounds.

For #65, I said True. A general technical foul is always thrown in at the division line. An intentional foul will be thrown in at the site of where the foul was committed (which could be the division line but not likely).

Now you've got several sets of answers... and my odds of getting them correct are still 50-50. :D

Re: Amen!
 

This hour and it's handful of responses just proves that these are three CRAPPY questions. I'm out to work a boys varsity game, but I'll look in once I get home.

True
False
True

I'd say false for all three.

Without a definition of the term "penalty administration," I'd take that to mean more than just the inbound after the free throws. With an intentional foul, the fouled player (or his/her substitute) must shoot the FT's; on a technical, anyone can shoot. Also, an intentional could be worth 3 FT's, while a technical is always worth 2 (our insane time-ending block-off-the-bench-down-by-three discussions notwithstanding). These differences make me say that there are other differences, which makes the statement false.

Of course, it would be possible for a technical and an intentional to have the same succeeding inbounds spot - in that case, the stated difference does not occur, and the statement is again false.

I've taken (and passed with a 93) the Part II test, and Tony's nailed it. I got 65 wrong also, and was told that I was over thinking it. Which I think is a very stupid response. They know they can say that to me, because I always overthink everything. So it completely begs the question of why...

To those of us who use & understand the English language the answer is False.

The test question gives AN example from the list of possible differences. In fact the penalty differs depending on what the technical foul is.

It does not give THE (as in an exhaustive list) difference.

I agree with Rich, it's a crappy question that does nothing to test one's knowledge of the rules.

Oh well... :shrug:

I agree with you, Dan. That's why I got it wrong.

Oh, dear! That didn't come out right! Let's adjust the English a little here, too.

I agree with your reasoning, Dan. Unfortunately, when I used that reasoning, I got it wrong. It is not written to test knowledge of the rules, it's just plain a crappy question, just as you said. is that better?

[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 14th, 2004 at 09:21 PM]

Yeah I know.

Just venting. :)

By saying that Tony's nailed it, I'm taking it that the answers are TRUE, FALSE, TRUE. Oh well, I can't be perfect all the time, but I know that I know how to administer an intentional foul and how to administer a technical foul, so in my mind the test is the one screwed up, not me.

In my opinion these are the correct answers for the test. A large part of successful test taking is having a sense of what the test writer intended the answer of the question to be. While I agree with all of those who have pointed out the problems with 65 (I actually think the other two are rather clear), it is obvious to me that the NFHS intended the question to be True.

I thought the point of question #65 was to see if the official knew that "Intentional" and "Technical" are NOT different "types" of fouls. (We get several questions here about this: "A does such-and-such. Should I call an I or a T?")

You can have an IT foul. So, how could the administration be different? Had the question been "IP vs. T", then I'd agree that the answer was true.

I answered T-F-T but my partners and I have had discussions on all of the questions.

On the restraining line, one of my partners believes the restraining line is only for either the front court or the back court. I disagree with him.

As for the player avoiding a player and going out of bounds, it was my interpretation that an offensive player can not leave the boundary lines of the court.

I took the technical foul question and tried not to read to much into it.

Which leaves me wondering why #65 isn't "Intentional and techinical fouls are not different "types" of fouls.

But what do I know? :shrug:

Personal and Technical are the different "types".

Within those types, fouls can be common, intentional, flagrant, playercontrol, multiple, ... (and not all "catgories" apply to both "types").

Of course Bob.

This makes the answer FALSE. Asumming we <s>know</s> can agree on what "type" means.

In any event there's many ways to make this question a lot more straight forward than it currently reads. IMO.

This is refering to the administration of the penalty, not the penalty itself.

Of course Jim, that's it!

Now...can you tell me where in the book it distinguishes between a foul's penalty and the administration of that penalty?

Round about way
 

I think it does but in a round about way.

The penalty is listed in rule and in the summary of penalties, <b>two free throws plus ball for the throw in.</b>

the administration is listed in 7-5-8 and then in 7-5-11.

not clear, but does get the job done and gives the difference in the two.

Thanks
David

Demonstrate your correctness to your partner by the following example:
1-2-2 "The restraining line becomes the boundary line on that side or end, as in 7-6. It continues to be the boundary until the ball crosses the line."
This means it is now the OOB line/plane for that entire side of the court or end of the court because,
9-2-3 "The thrower shall not...Pass the ball so it is touched by a teammate while the ball is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane (except as in 7-5-7)."
Now if the throw-in is from the sideline in the backcourt and you have less than 3 ft of space there, the thrower cannot pass the ball down the sideline well into the frontcourt where a teammate catches it while it is still on the OOB side of the restraining line. This would be a throw-in violation.

The NFHS was very careful to put "while dribbling" and "to continue the dribble" in this question. It is a violation according to the Note in 9-3. The T for 10-3-3 is not applicable to this question.

Exactly. In my opinion all the NFHS is trying to do is make the point that intentional PERSONAL fouls are inbounded at the spot nearest the occurrence of the foul, while the throw-in following a T is ALWAYS at the division line opposite the table. They are not concerned with which player(s) is(are) allowed to shoot, and the asumption must be made that intentional foul means intentional personal foul for this question.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 16th, 2004 at 03:53 AM]