NFHS Part I Exam (Question #5)

For NFHS 2005 Exam (Part I), what is the penalty, signal and reference? I realize it is a nonplayer foul (Rule 2-30-10), but not sure what the penalty and reference is. Is this still an Illegal Participation foul?

Thanks,
Serg

Got my test back yesterday with the answers and reference. I marked that question false, and got a freebie as they said true or false was counted correct. They gave 2 rule references (and I don't have my book handy to read up on them) 2-16-2e and 3-7-4. If I recall right, when my test group got together, half of us said it's a illegal substituion while the other half went with illegal participation. Now, that makes me wonder, since the test wasn't clear, what would you call?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: VaASAump has a good point. When the Fed decided that for 2005 anyone who entered the field was an illegal participant, they took out of the rule book the only place where a non-player entry onto the field during a down was covered. It used to be NF 3-7-1. [Check your 2004 rule book.] And then they thought about it some more and have said in the case book and on their web site that the illegal participation foul should only be called when the official is convinced that the person was truly at least attempting to participate. But they left this gap: What about the team member who enters the field with no intention of participating? Case book says don't penalize this as an illegal participation foul. But then what do you flag? They took out the rule that covered it!

[BktBallRef]

We discussed the question at length about a month ago. Under the old rule, it would have been IS. Under the change, it's IP. The answer key had TRUE but the answer was actually FALSE under the new changes.

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
Got my test back yesterday with the answers and reference. I marked that question false, and got a freebie as they said true or false was counted correct. They gave 2 rule references (and I don't have my book handy to read up on them) 2-16-2e and 3-7-4. If I recall right, when my test group got together, half of us said it's a illegal substituion while the other half went with illegal participation. Now, that makes me wonder, since the test wasn't clear, what would you call?

This was what got me thinking (oh no, not that!!). I marked the question false, but didn't get a freebie. My test came back as this answer was wrong.

But your references have me confused. Rule 2-16-2e talks about a noncontact foul during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress. Rule 3-7-4 refers to a replaced player or substitute who attempts unnsuccessfully to leave the field and who does not participate in or affect the play, constitutes an illegal substitution.

Test question states that substitute B12 enters the field during the down ......

Am I reading too much into the question? Maybe this is why RefUmpWelsch got a freebie. Even the NFHS staff was confused.

I think I would still call Illegal Participation.

Serg

[Warrenkicker]

5. If substitute B12 enters the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a non-player foul.

False 2-16-2e Non-player or unsportsmanlike-a non-contact foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress, 9-6-4a It is illegal participation: When any player, replaced player or substitute enters during a down.

This was thrown out around here also because the Fed answer sheet lists the wrong rules reference. It lists 3-7-4 which was right last year but wrong this year.

PENALTY: Illegal participation (4a [live-ball, basic spot]) (S28) 15 yards.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally posted by VaASAump
Am I reading too much into the question? Maybe this is why RefUmpWelsch got a freebie. Even the NFHS staff was confused.

Seems to me the NFHS staff is perpetually confused. I mean, the part II exam was so poorly written that I'm planning on writing them a letter lambasting them for NOT PROOFREADING AT ALL.

[cowbyfan1]

Yeah I like how that have the same question 2 times in the same section. And it is pretty poorly written. There are a number of questions that you could justify a true and a false for.

The freebie on that question was courtesy of the NSAA staff here in Nebraska. There was actually 3 freebies on the test this year. The rule references I cited are from my returned test, which listed all of the rule references as well as the correct answers. We did the test online, so we got all that in one sheet instead of two like we have been. So if the rule references are "funny", maybe everyone's right. Maybe the FED staff got confused and that in turn confused everyone else.

[ljudge]

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
There was actually 3 freebies on the test this year.

What else did they give freebies on? I expect to get my test back tonight. I told my crew I was confident the question (somewhere between 1-10) about pass interference was going to be wrong in the answer key. It's the question that says PI cannot appear away from the direction of the pass. We know under the new rule that OPI can occur away from the pass but I have a feeling the answer key is going to say true and I purposely put false.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by ljudge

What else did they give freebies on? I expect to get my test back tonight. I told my crew I was confident the question (somewhere between 1-10) about pass interference was going to be wrong in the answer key. It's the question that says PI cannot appear away from the direction of the pass. We know under the new rule that OPI can occur away from the pass but I have a feeling the answer key is going to say true and I purposely put false.

Answer key says true, they threw that one out.

The answer key on 20 is wrong ,answer key says true but actually the answer is false.

What I got back said that numbers 2, 3, and 5 were not scored (therefore, "freebies") and they counted either True or False a correct. Number 2 was the one referring to the pass interference occurring away from the ball, while number 3 was about illegal substitution.