ASA Exam #46 (SP)

[NCASAUmp]

When two consecutive batters are intentionally walked by the defensive team, the first batter can go directly to second base and the second batter goes directly to first base.

What say you? I got this one marked wrong, but I disagree.

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

When two consecutive batters are intentionally walked by the defensive team, the first batter can go directly to second base and the second batter goes directly to first base.

What say you? I got this one marked wrong, but I disagree.

You must have answered True.

Check Rule 8 section 1, C, 3

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

When two consecutive batters are intentionally walked by the defensive team, the first batter can go directly to second base and the second batter goes directly to first base.

What say you? I got this one marked wrong, but I disagree.

The correct answer is false.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The correct answer is false.

Yeah, I got fouled up by interpreting the question as saying that the umpire DID allow it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Yeah, I got fouled up by interpreting the question as saying that the umpire DID allow it.

Let's take the conversation in that direction.

While it is not acceptable action by the umpire to allow simultaneous intentional walks(IW), the players are still liable to touch all the appropriate bases.

However, the fact that the umpire may have "permitted", "accepted", whatever wording you want to use, the first runner may not be appealed since the umpire mistakenly accepted the subsequent IW.

Reasoning: For the purposes of an appeal, a pitch is considered a play. An IW replaces four pitches intentionally thrown outside the strike zone. Therefore 8.7.F-I.Effect.1.a applies and any missed base appeal on the first runner is denied.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Let's take the conversation in that direction.

While it is not acceptable action by the umpire to allow simultaneous intentional walks(IW), the players are still liable to touch all the appropriate bases.

However, the fact that the umpire may have "permitted", "accepted", whatever wording you want to use, the first runner may not be appealed since the umpire mistakenly accepted the subsequent IW.

Reasoning: For the purposes of an appeal, a pitch is considered a play. An IW replaces four pitches intentionally thrown outside the strike zone. Therefore 8.7.F-I.Effect.1.a applies and any missed base appeal on the first runner is denied.

Correct, which is related to the very next question on the exam.

I guess it was one of those cases where the wording of the question tripped me up. I thought they were describing one scenario, when they were actually describing something different. I was just wondering if it tripped anyone else up.

The important thing is that I know the rule, the "why" behind it, and the proper interpretation that goes with it.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

While it is not acceptable action by the umpire to allow simultaneous intentional walks(IW), the players are still liable to touch all the appropriate bases.

I was about to ask about co-ed play (where a male batter being walked becomes a 2 base award with an optional walk for the female following), but the rules clearly handle this, as the also clearly handle the case of two IW in normal slow pitch, such that the answer is obviously "False."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

I was about to ask about co-ed play (where a male batter being walked becomes a 2 base award with an optional walk for the female following), but the rules clearly handle this, as the also clearly handle the case of two IW in normal slow pitch, such that the answer is obviously "False."

This is not a bad key to use instructing new umpires. Awards are of bases, not to bases.