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:

<blockquote>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. <b>Then Answer C, penalizing the team for the coach's pushing indiscretion.</b>

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!</blockquote>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 <i>before</i> 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.

carl,

do you think you can make the test available for download?

C. Just because.

JJ

burt reynolds: "why dontcha give me Ape Tit for $200"
alex trebeck: "its not Ape Tit, its A Petit...nevermind"

It's copywrited by TASO. I'll check into it.

Truth to tell, it's not a very good test since the writer had not trained in writing evaluation instruments.

He has "tells,"; that is, "All of the above" when even a rookie knows that one answer is not right. That reduces it to a "True" or "False" answer and doubles his chances of getting the right answer. He has questions where, if you know the answer to Number 6, you can't miss Number 12. Those are often T/F items, sprinkled in with the multiple choice.

He also has questions with foolish distracters. Here are some actual "possible" answers:

<blockquote>"The umpire should tell the catcher he will check with his partner when he wants to and not to bother him anymore."

It's the base umpire's call.

Look away; tell the defensive coach you did not see it.</blockquote>The beauty of the tests, for my purposes, is they will allow the Texas state clinicians to evaluate their umpires without having to go to the trouble of creating their own items.

One thing I'm doing at the training in January: Each clinician will get a copy of the databank (looseleaf style to make it easy to duplicate a page). I'll ask each umpire (should be over 100) to pick five questions from five different tests. Then TASO will determine if there are any questions that appear multiple times. From that list, we'll create a power exam of questions selected by the clinicians themselves.

Exciting times in Texas.

I didn't say it was the RIGHT thing to do. I didn't like it either. I just threw it out there.

Carl,
Could you please explain how you retired in 1995 to watch your grandson play baseball, but ten years later he is in eighth grade. Did I miss something there or was he three when he started? Those games are a blast to watch. (grin - not sarcastic)

Carl was born in 1991; that makes him 14 now, one year older than the average eighth grader.

That's because his birthday is November 26, the same date as his paternal great-grandmother. He was 7 when he started the first grade.

He'll catch up next year. When he reaches high school, he will already have four credits: algebra I and II, geometry, and Spanish I. It's a class for English dominant speakers. Still, he's the only gringo in the group. His teacher told me at open house Carl had the best accent.
My math shows he was four in November 1995 after I retired in May. We play T-ball in Edinburg at four. When he started baseball in 1996, he was 4 years, 5 months old.

He threw right, batted left. Good.
He's a Boston fan. Bad.

Being a Boston Fan is not bad.

It is an exercise in humility, patience, and a belief in the idea if you support something that you really, really believe is good and right someday you will be rewarded for your loyalty.

It is also a lesson in the absurdity of curses and that egregious mistakes of the past can be overcome by smart management.

The grit of Schilling, the heart of Wakefield are only outshined by the clutchedness (my term) of Ortiz, the 2005 MVP. That's right the MVP. The tiebreak, is, get this, fielding percentage. Ortiz 0.976, the ball swatting cheaterof '04, 0.971. Who says Papi can't field?

Finally, if you spend the second most, you can still buy a championship.

I'm dumb but I'm not stupid.

D

I enjoy umpiring the twenty four year olds, but would rather watch the four year olds play.

At least he roots for a team that has won a World Series in the last century. I'm still waiting...and waiting...and waiting...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B]Let's assume for the sake of continuing this discussion, that the umpire instantly recognized a situation where the obstructed runner should be awarded home, no question about it, based on the 3B man's obstruction, position of the ball, etc. Shortly after making this decision, the runner trips on 3B and is helped to his feet by the 3B coach. What do we have now? I have my answer ready.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B]Is he helped to his feet, or helped in the direction of home? I see this as two seperate situations.

First, there is the obligation to run the bases correctly, even on an award. (Award 1B to 3B, missed 2B can get an out on appeal) Second, is the coach assisting him in running the bases?

Coach assistance - OUT. Coach just picks the kid up - Award home and keep playing. JMO

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ManInBlue
[B]Is the coach assisting him running the bases by helping him to his feet? Are you kidding me?

<i>The tiebreak, is, get this, fielding percentage. Ortiz 0.976, the ball swatting cheaterof '04, 0.971. Who says Papi can't field?</i>

Nice try but no cigar.

.976 creates a partial vacuum for a first baseman but .971 is great for a third baseman.

At First Base:

Ortiz 2005 .976
Dick "Dr. Strangeglove" Stuart lifetime .982
Keith Hernandez lifetime .994
Steve Garvey lifetime .994
Don Mattingly lifetime .996.

At Third Base:

A-Rod 2005 .971
Mike Schmidt lifetime .961
Eric Chavez lifetime .965
Clete Boyer lifetime .966
Brooks Robinson lifetime .971

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B]No, I'm not, actually. Although I argue that the HR situation doesn't have enough similarities to this play to be used as comparison, in this case I will use it. The coach can pick a kid up that trips over a base while "being awarded" his four bases on a HR. That's legal, so I see the same type of situation unfolding in your hypothetical situation. Picking him up and helping him advance have been differentiated in the rules during the award.

So, no, I'm not kidding you. Please feel free to offer a rebuttal. You posted a hypothetical situation. I posted a question that could arise in the situation. I guess I could be playing the part of the Devil's Advocate here. But I see that the question has some relevence.

I mean no offense by the following statement, but...You seem to be a well versed official. You're responses that I've seen make valid points. I would hope that "Are you kidding me?" isn't the best reply to this that you have. I would expect more from someone like you. I would expect a thorough explaination of why you think this is such a ridiculous question. I'm sure I have just thoroughly pissed you off. So, I await the barrage that is coming.