Horrible question...
 

ok.. this is no 16 on the test...

A team may be issued a delay-of-game warning following a time-out for water on the floor.

t or f


You dont have to give me the answer, but if you can ref where in the book you can find it... that would be appreciated.

I cant find it anywhere.

True. NFHS rule 4-47-4

It's one of the 4 situations (I think there are 4) where a delay of game warning is issued...if they do it again after the warning, then you T them. Pretty harsh, but they shouldn't have water spilled on the floor during a time-out.

Thanks guys...

the part that hung me up was the wording. When you read it, the question makes it sound like the timeout was for the water on the floor.

Yeah, it kind of does. No one ever claimed that those test questions are well-written.

So you would prefer to see it structured this way?

A team may be issued a delay-of-game warning for water on the floor following a time-out.


Better, but not a big deal.

Perfect... Maybe you should write the test??... ;)


I know but the first 10 times I read it I couldn't see why it would be an issue if the time out was issued for water being on the floor.

some people are very litteral. Thats me. I take it as stated.

There is an art to taking these tests. You have to figure out what point the testwriter is trying to get across. Most of the time the question is simply trying to determine whether or not an official is aware of a new rule.

Here is another one.....
 

No28

A1's free throw ends when A1's foot breaks the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line farthest from the basket before the try touches the ring or backboard orbefore the free throw has ended.

fist of all with all of this talk about A1.. I have this strange urge for steak..

anyway... I would say false. The foot can break the vertical plain, but cannot touch the floor past the line.. right??

9-1-3e

Mike, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you really need to hit the books.
This is a very simple question.
For example, regarding your final statement I have to ask: have you read that or is that just what you have heard or happen to think for some reason? Don't officiate by myths and what you think. Look this stuff up and learn how the rules work. You'll be much better for it in the long run.

your scenario would make a dunk or layup from the freethrow line a legal freethrow provided the ball hit the rim before the player lands on the floor.

That was one I was having trouble finding in the book. Hence why I posted it.

Actually that is what a senior official was saying. Now granted.. he did admit that it has been a few years since he ref basketball.. so.. that is why I posted it here.

LOL.. see now putting it in this context it makes perfect sense...

Its all in the wording that throws me off.

Thanks for all the help guys. I appreciate it. :)

dont say that too loud. Im a coach ;)

[QUOTE=Nevadaref]There is an art to taking these tests. You have to figure out what point the testwriter is trying to get across. QUOTE]

Which makes it a poorly written test.:mad:

LOL.. Trust me.. on the floor I get the call right. The games are not played in words. ;)

Took the test last night - frustrating. Obviously, I have not mastered the "art" of taking the test. Knew the rules better than last yr (thanks to this site and the books).

Know the rules, yes. Trip you up, why? :(

Terms like "may", "always", "will", "should" are purposely made for confusion - IMO.

PS - I'm sure I did just fine!

Yes.. they open it up to interpretation. The rules should be absolute.

Is the 3-second violation "absolute"? Is determining whether contact is a foul "absolute"? Is when to call a T "absolute"?

There are a lot of things in basketball that are based on interpretation. I suppose they are just trying to get you to think about the question and the rule(s) behind it so you have a better understanding overall. Even knowing the difference between the words "may" and "shall" can help you understand what they are trying to convey. "Shall" you call a 3-sec. violation every time an offensive player is in the lane for more than 3 seconds? Or "may" an official call that violation, (if certain conditions are met)?

No, they are not made for confusion...they're to see if you REALLY know the rule.

If it says "never/always", look for an exception. If you can find one, it's false. Those are the easy ones.

If it says "may"...it is asking if they are allowed to do something...not required, but allowed.

If it says "shall", it is a requirment. If it is not required, this would be false.

Really, it comes down to knowing things that are always/never versus things that have exceptions and knowing what is optional/permitted versus required. Those are exactly the things the test is trying to detemrine. Once you know those, making a rules-based call on a play becomes easy.

Test-taking should never be an art. Matter of fact, for fun, I submitted one of the tests from the NF (won't say which one or which sport) to our "quality test monitoring" task force here at work. They couldn't believe I had to take such a piss-poorly written test three times a year (football, basketball, and track) on an annual basis. I then took their astonishment to write better tests for the classes I teach. Thanks to the Fed, I'm a better test-writer! :D

If you don't know the subject matter, how can you tell whether a test is poorly written?

In my experience (and I'm not picking on anyone in specific here, and there are plenty of excpetions), those who complain about the test *generally* only want a high score (that is, they want the answers). Those who take the test as a learning experience and research the answers *generally* don't complain about the test.

Yes, there are a few questions each year that could be better. But, since no one requires 100% (afaik), those generally don't affect the results.

I can assure you I'm not digging for the answers. If I wanted just the answers I would have gotten them. It was offered to me, I declined.

"There are no horrible questions..."

...only horrible people who ask questions.

What kind of questions are we talking about?

Exactly.

<font size ="1">(Hey...wait a minute...)</font size>

I don't know, bob. I always have a lot of problems with the test, and when I go over the results, I find that there are one or two questions for which I was honestly mistaken about the rule. The others that I get wrong are situations where I simply didn't understand what they were asking. Everyone always says, "Don't read anything into it." and "You're thinking too much". But I don't find that advice even remotely helpful. And I know there are other people who have the same kinds of issues.

An example is a question that baffled me a couple of years ago. It said something to the effect that the official was ready to give the ball to the inbounding team, but there was no player ready, so the official utilized the resuming play procedure to get the game started. It was supposed to be false. I put true, because I just figured the resuming play procedure meant putting the ball down on the floor and beginning the count. Silly me. What they meant by resuming play procedure was "something listed under the title 'Resuming Play Procedure'" rather than meaning the actions that lie behind those words. In a real game, I would have handled that situation exactly correctly, I just wasn't using the correct wording on the test.

That particular difficulty has been "fixed" now, with the committee ruling that that situation has been added to the "Resuming Play Procedure."

But other types of misunderstandings arise every year. I find the whole situation very, very frustrating.

another....

#31 When the ball is bounced to the free thrower, it is at his or her disposal when released by the official.

R4-4-7(b)

4-4-7b

oops, yeah what JR said.

Yep.. but it kind of vague in the rule book. It goes into better detail in the case book.

Are you serious?? IMHO, the answer couldn't be clearer... I mean it's right there word 4 word.

Oops.. nevermind... I just missed it.. sorry.. going on 4 hous sleep... :o