Part 2 Help???
 

I've got five questions from the NFHS Part 2 basketball exam that prompted some discussion among several of us in our exam review session. Would appreciate your interpretations on the following....

#5. The alternating-possession procedure is used when a double personal foul is called while A1's unsuccessful try is in flight. False

....now I'm not exactly sure here, but the double personal foul causes "point-of-interruption" spot throw-in....not AP, however, does the unsuccesful try (no team control) have any significance to this statement?

#14. It is a requirement to have an "X" on the floor in front of the official scorer to avoid reporting errors. True

.....1.17 states the "X" shall be placed.... does 'shall' infer 'required'?

#16. The basketball shall be spherical and have a deeply pebbled cover with any number of horizontally shaped panels. True

.....maybe a dumb question in your mind, but we were concerned with the words "any number". Did this raise an issue with anyone else? Rule 1.12.1b & c covers this statement, but does not specify any number of required horizontally shaped panels.

#35. The officials' jurisdiction ends when the referee approves the final score. False

.....2.2.4 refers to officials' jurisdiction terminates and the final score approved when all officials leave the visual confins of the playing area.

#62. It is a technical foul for a player to purposely obstruct the vision of an opponent with or without the ball. True

.....10.3.7d classifies this as a technical foul, but is a bit tricky because we can't find anything referring to the the person "without" the ball. Can this make the statement False? :eek:

#5: Rule 6-4-3g. At point of interruption there is no team control because of the try. Only way to put the ball back in play is by using AP.

#14. You correctly cite rule 1-17. A grammer lesson is coming so beware.
Shall in the rule is used as an auxiliary verb which expresses an obligation.. That directly tells me it is a requirement.

Whether you can "infer" or not you will have to ask Rainmaker. She is the expert on the usage of that word. :D

(Maybe your confusion on these rules stems from "inferring" too much additional information into the question rather than taking the sentence at face value.)

#16 The specifications mention panels. Nowhere is there a specification of how many; no citation of a specific number required (ie. only 8 panels) nor is a range given (ie. between 8 and 12 panels). Therefore any number of panels is OK.

(You could try to argue that the answer is false since the ball may not have only 1 (one) panel but given the spherical shape required that logic would be faulty if such a ball cannot be made even if we wanted to.)

#35 Maybe the question is a little poorly written but here you are trying to nitpick too much. Your logic is that the leaving of the floor and approval of score happen simutaneously. If the final score is approved then the officials must a have left the confines of the playing area. Conversely, if the officials have left the confines then score is approved.

The word and in 2-4-4 links two equal phrases. Separating the phrases into sentences of their own we get the following.

The jusidiction of the officials is terminated when all officials leave the confines of the playing area.

The final score has been approved when all officials leave the confines of the playing area.

#62: What is equally as tricky is that in 10-3-7d you cannot find anything referring to a person with the ball either. It only refers to an opponent.

Opponent = a player on the other team.
5 = number of players on the other team.
1 = number of basketballs used in a game.

If opponents are in team control then
1 = maximum number of opponents in game that can possess the ball.
4 = maximun number of opponents without the ball.

Is the player with the ball my opponent? YES
Are the players without the ball my opponents? YES

conclusion: It is a Tecnical foul to pruposely obstruct the vision of an opponent with or without the ball.
(hint: also missing is any reference to offense/defense).

Communicator implies.

Communicatee infers.

I learned that on L&O: Criminal Intent from the all-knowing Detective Goren.

This is good stuff Daryl. Shows how simple most of these rules questions really are. Applying them on the court is another thing, and not so easily mastered.

Nice explatation Daryl!

From what I've seen, the biggest problem most folks have with the NFHS test questions is that they try to read too much into them. FWIW, this year's test is the best written I've seen in terms of clarity. Its not perfect, but a whole lot better than some of the stuff we've had to put up with in the past........

I'm picking a nit here, but even if the opponents have team control, it is possible for all 5 to be without the ball.

Good nit. 4 being the maximum only holds true if the other 1 has player control.

True true! I had to explain this to a coach last night regarding a foul (and why we weren't shooting free throws while in the bonus) after a deflected pass and subsequent scramble for the ball. "Well it hasn't been that way all year," Coach said. "Well that's the rule coach, and that's how it's going to be tonight," I said. Or did I just want to say that......