ncaa-m ?

[ChuckElias]

It's a horribly worded question. First, it doesn't tell you what A2 did before releasing the "pass". If A2 ended a dribble before the pass, then he may NOT recover it. That would be a double dribble. It says he received a pass and then passed, so we have to assume that there was not a dribble, I guess.

Also, the question doesn't tell you whether the "pass" hits the floor before being touched by A2. If it doesn't bounce, then A2 may NOT recover it.

Nevada's answer is exactly correct. He can recover it but may not dribble. But it's a terrible question. There are about 5 questions on this year's exam that should never have made it through the editing process.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

It's a horribly worded question. First, it doesn't tell you what A2 did before releasing the "pass". If A2 ended a dribble before the pass, then he may NOT recover it. That would be a double dribble. It says he received a pass and then passed, so we have to assume that there was not a dribble, I guess.

Also, the question doesn't tell you whether the "pass" hits the floor before being touched by A2. If it doesn't bounce, then A2 may NOT recover it.

Nevada's answer is exactly correct. He can recover it but may not dribble. But it's a terrible question. There are about 5 questions on this year's exam that should never have made it through the editing process.

I think since the situation states that a1 passed to a2 to a3 the assumption that there is no dribble is valid.

However, it's irrelevant.

The question doesn't ask if there's a violation, since there is not enough information to determine that. The situation doesn't state whether or not the ball went from frontcourt to backcourt, or out-of-bounds, for that matter.

The question asks "Can a2 get the ball w/o a violation?" This is asking whether there is a hypothetical set of circumstances where there would not be a violation, and the answer, as you've pointed out, is yes.

Of course, whether they actually knew they were asking this or not is open to debate.