Is question number 21 false?

what's the question, don't have my test in front of me.

"point of interuption" is a method of resuming play after a double personel or technical foul.

The rules reference on the answer key for #21 is R4-36-1.

Oh, that one...It is true...the word 'double' extends to mean double personal or double technical, which makes the question true. There was much discussion around my area about it and one guy even called the state and they said it was True.

i guess i may reading to much into it, but if its a double personel it at the POI. A technical foul would be division line oppisite table.

it all depends on if they mean a technical or a 'double technical', the former would be division line, the latter at the POI

true, but thats what confusing about the question it does not say double technical. i believe it to be false by nfhs letter of the rule.

They meant double personal and double technical in the question. The FED coulda been a little clearer on this one - fer sure.

The correct answer is "True".

The answer is TRUE.

If they had meant it the way you're interpreting it, it would have read,

"Point of interuption is a method of resuming play after a double personal FOUL or A technical foul."

The fact that the statement doesn't include FOUL or A makes the statement TRUE.

"Point of interuption is a method of resuming play after a double personal or technical foul," meaning that the words double and foul extend to the conjunctive phrase "personal or technical."

Well put, Tony.
Now just sit back and wait for Juulie to come along and give you your ATTABOY.

Yes, Tony gave a good explanation. But just for the record, I'm not Mr. Grammar Guy. So my "Attaboy"'s are completely unofficial.

Per the results of my test w/ the Illinois High School Assoc., the correct answer is False. The question does not say "double technical foul" - therefore you utilize the standard resumption of play method. Double T - use POI; single T - use normal method.

The question isn't worded all clearly as it could have been, but try not to read too much into the question. Simply read it as it's written and you should be O.K.

read
 

it as it is written and it makes no sense

what is a double personal (a new drink at starbucks perhaps)? i think the explanation given above makes sense as far as english is written.

instead of saying "double personal foul or double techincal foul" just keep the common firt and last word and make it "double personal or technical foul"

Jeff, I'd double check that one with the state, if I was you. I've got the answer key put out by the FED. The answer on the official NFHS answer key for #21 on the Part 1 exam is True.