|
|||
Quote:
Here's information that will help explain the situation. From Roland Wiederaenders: My notes from the 1996 test show thatFor 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. |
|
|||
Quote:
alex trebeck: "its not Ape Tit, its A Petit...nevermind" |
|
|||
Quote:
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: "The umpire should tell the catcher he will check with his partner when he wants to and not to bother him anymore."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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
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)
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz |
|
|||
Quote:
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...
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz |
|
|||
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B] Quote:
|
|
|||
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B] Quote:
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] Quote:
|
|
|||
The tiebreak, is, get this, fielding percentage. Ortiz 0.976, the ball swatting cheaterof '04, 0.971. Who says Papi can't field?
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
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
||||
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B] Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|