Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Reed
I choose answer b, because....
The runner R2 clearly would have reached home absent the obstruction and trip. Otherwise the coach would not have pushed the runner toward home. I trust the coach's instincts, but not his restraint. I also trust Carl to not pose a trivial question, and if the runner is only awarded third, the answer is straightforward.
So the problem is that during one play, two infractions occur, and the indicated penalties are in direct conflict.
FED rules do not "protect" the runner to an advance base; instead the runner is awarded the advance base. The runner does have an obligation to touch the bases legally during an award, and this runner did. He has committed no infraction, rather the coach has interfered. Note that the FED definition of award states "...In actuality, it is the right to advance without a play being made that is awarded."
Compare the situation posed by the test question to a just walked B/R who trips while approaching first base. The base coach helps B/R get up. Is B/R out for coach interference?
I don't know the answer for either situation, but Carl wants an opinion. For the test question, I say the runner gets to keep his award because it precedes the interference.
Dave Reed
|
What caused the thread is this: My answer was C. The Key gave B as the answer.
Here's information that will help explain the situation. From Roland Wiederaenders:
My notes from the 1996 test show that
1. Dotson Lewis decided to omit the question because there were two possible answers, both true at the same time. The test procedure allowed for only one correct possible answer for each test question.
2. In a note sent to the chapter presidents, the answer was revised to allow: First, B, giving the runner third base, protecting him there, and no farther. Since the hit described in the question was not accurately described as either an outfield or infield hit, we don't know where the ball is.
If the hit was to the outfield, then the test provides no possible correct answer [A is not sufficient because of the first sentence]. If the hit was to the outfield, and the ball was thrown to home plate and the runner was called out, then the obstruction penalty would have awarded him home plate. Again, there is no possible test answer to cover that possibility.
If the hit was to the infield, and the throw came to third, the coach's push may have been cause for an interference and out decision. Again, the test question was not complete enough, so we are left with more answering indecision.
3. For the sake of peace at the chapter meeting, here's what my notes indicated our collective decision would have been. Answer B, holding out a left arm, giving the runner protection to third base. Then Answer C, penalizing the team for the coach's pushing indiscretion.
We supported the idea that there were two plays listed in the question; therefore, two answers were proper.
I see it as another example of Jim Evans' typical educational saying: "A little information is a dangerous thing!" This question gave too few details in attempting to demonstrate the teaching emphasis for 1996 that Texas umpires were not seeing or calling enough obstruction, and the coaches were *****ing about it. In short, it was a dumb *** question!
For purposes of the curriculum databank of questions, I will replace this one with two others:
One will demonstrate that we sometimes penalize infractions in order: Catcher interference (obstruction, FED calls it) with the batter's swing. He pops up and prevents the pitcher from making the catch at the foul line. Result: B1 gets first.
A second will demonstrate that some infractions are penalized out of order: Catcher interference (obstruction, FED calls it) with the batter's swing. He pops up and prevents the pitcher from making the catch at the foul line via a malicious crash. Result: B1 is out and ejected.
I considered that, using the catcher obstruction as a paradigm, Dotson's test answer was Correct. Obstruction occurred
before the interference, so ignore the interference.
But the runner was protected BY RULE to third, which he made safely. As Roland points out, there's not enough information to determine whether the runner should be protected by umpire judgment to home.
Thus, my final answer: C. When he made his protected base, he advanced at his own risk. During that advance, however short it was, the coach interfered. Delayed dead ball (allowing the defense to play on the batter-runner) followed by an out.
BTW: I scanned the test into WordPerfect on 25 November and took the test that evening - for the first time. I never took that test and so was not part of the state-wide discussion of the question/answer. That's because I retired at the end of the 1995 season to watch my grandson (throws right, bats left) play Pony League. I came out of retirement because a candidate umpire said: I'd like to see that fat old man get out here and do what he's teaching.
In the meantime, my grandson switched to tennis. (His father is a tennis coach in the public schools.) Little Carl is in the eighth grade now and just won a singles tournament, not UIL sponsored. His prize was an all-expens paid trip to a two-day tennis camp in Dallas. The prize included $200 from the city to help pay for his mother's hotel room.
It ain't a million dollar contact - yet, but at least his choice of sports pleased his dad.