Sub becomes a Player?
 

I am just want to see if the following question is splitting hairs with the way it is worded??

If a substitute enters illegally, he becomes a player after the ball becomes live? My answer key has this question as T, but the rule book specifically states that a sub becomes a player when the ball becomes live, not after. So which is it --- when the ball becomes live or after it becomes live.
Or would you consider these two occurrences to be at the same time? I am probably reading too much into the question??

Thanks in advance!

I am just want to say that, if a sub becomes a player when the ball becomes live, then he should still be a player after it's live. Quibbling over the metaphysical distinction between being and becoming is above the NFHS paygrade. True.

The question isn't splitting hairs; you are. :D

It's obvious in other areas that the NFHS doesn't know the difference between "when" and "after."

I am just asking a simple question. However it only seems reasonable to me that if the NFHS is going to use this question, then why not use this question as it is written in their rule book. I agree that if a sub is a player when the ball becomes live, then he is a player after the ball becomes live. I am simply wanting other opinions regarding this basic question without the elementary and childish responses from the guys who post most frequently. Responses like this does not encourage other members to post questions.

Oh, sorry. I thought he was splitting hares.

http://ih1.redbubble.net/work.534067...5,black.v3.jpg

Happens All The Time ...
 

Get used to it. Same old, same old.

Happens All The Time ...
 

Get used to it. Same old, same old.

I think the elementary and childish responses should indicate to you that your question is elementary (although certainly not childish). Your questions were actually answered correctly and fairly quickly.

The test question is not, in fact, splitting hairs. It takes "when" and "after" to be the same for the purposes of becoming a legal player. Your question attempts to split that hair, and the responses you got seem to indicate that your concern is unnecessary.

<s>After</s> When you've been on the forum for a while, you'll realize that many questions are answered quickly and then the thread becomes a series of childish inside jokes. This is normal and is not a reflection on the person who has asked the original question.

Feel free to post your own childish joke <s>when</s> after you've read this post.

Thanks For The Invitation ...
 

Does this also pertain to me?

I will take that only as a reflection of the quality (or lack of) of the NFHS question ----- as my post was a direct copy of their question!!

I could care less about how fast I receive a response from my post. If the response is sarcastic as a lot of the response are, then how fast or slow I receive it is irrelevant.

Although I have not posted near as many threads as some members of the forum, I visit this site quite regularly, especially during the season and sometimes cringe when I read some of the inappropriate and catty response that some members post. Just simply answer the questions and quite trying to knock other members down. This isn't grade school guys !!!!!

Another point you might bear in mind: NFHS WANTS officials to miss questions to which they (the officials) were SURE that they knew the answer. That moment often sends officials back to the book, which is the ultimate objective.

If the language of the question doesn't quite match that of the book, too bad. Ambiguous, vague, and poorly worded questions are not accidental but tactical.

You've Never Seen The Pre Kinder And Gentler Jurassic Referee ...
 

Good point, however I doubt that things will change around here. I used to think the same as you, but after a while I just decided to play with the other kids. As you will soon discover, if you hang around long enough, many Forum members that post in the most "inappropriate" manner often have the best information, and in many cases, give the best advice on the Forum.

One exception. If you see a post by Old School, ignore everything he has to say. We scared him away, but you never know, he could be back.

Good grief. I wasn't knocking you at all. My point was, in reality, this question itself does the exact opposite of splitting hairs; it inappropriately conflates two terms.

The natural response when reading the question, especially when the stakes of the test are high (ratings, money, or whatever), is to overthink the question and start splitting hairs. We've all done it, and to a degree, we all still do it from time to time.

If you wanted to know if we think the question should be worded differently, you should have asked that question instead of getting huffy when we don't answer a question you didn't ask.

My further point is that the NFHS has already demonstrated an inability to recognize the difference between those two terms.

Hair splitter.

Yep, myself is a big hair splitter.