Personally, I missed the question, took my score of 99 and accepted the fact the NFHS test writers are idiots.

In Illinois, you get the option of taking the paper test or going to the IHSA web site and taking on line. They send you the paper test and give you the option. There, the questions line perfectly with the paper test. It simplifies it because you can look at your paper copy, mark answers on either the test itself or the answer sheet, go online and just copy your answers. It took me a whole 10 minutes online plus I got my immediate score. Considering I spent only about three hours going reviewing the rule book and taking the test and with the goofy confusing questions, I thought a score of 96 was OK.

I think the question's intent is that you can't have an IFF on a bunt attempt...so the intentional drop rule comes into play...if any part of the question is false, then the answer should be false.

Had one last year...nearly had to eject because the defensive "coach" didn't know the rule...don't anticipate seeing another for awhile. Most kids at the FED level haven't been coached to correctly execute that play and many have all they can do to catch a ball, much less attempt to not catch it...JMO

Not a trick question. It is a false statement consistent with true/false tests. From this statement, one should be able to conclude that no matter the base running situation, never utter the phrase, "Infield fly, batter's out." on any ball that is bunted. I don't care how high the ball flies into the air. Same theory applies for all line drives, also. FED rule 2-19 is very helpful in making this determination if one is taking a FED test.

I believe what the statement is implying is that the infield fly rule takes effect when the umpire calls, "Infield fly, batter's out". Therefore the batter is already out, so don't kill the play. Just play it like you would if the bunt was a normal swinging attempt.

In other words, the ball is not immediately dead when the fielder intentionally drops the ball.

In Illinois the test key was changed so "TRUE" would be the correct answer. Since a bunt cannot be an infield fly, the fact that the pieces for an infield fly are in place (runner-wise and out-wise) has no bearing on the play. It's an intentionally dropped ball and is dead immediately.

Here'a a spin - the question says "intentionally dropped", which would IMPLY touched-then dropped, but how about if it's allowed to drop intentionally without being touched. That could be twisted into "intentionally dropped", but that ball isn't dead.

In Illinois we did throw out one question completly - It says, "Batter's Interference Occurs ...75. If the ball is always immediately dead." HUH?
We felt the wording was so bad we just tossed the question, so if you answer either true OR false you'll get credit.

For the most part, if you look at the test answers rule references, they will be pretty much verbatum what the questions are. I did say "pretty much". Part 2 test is "pretty much" the same. ;)

JJ

That's inconsistent with a FED case play in which "it's up to the participants to know the status" (or words to that effect).

but how about if it's allowed to drop intentionally without being touched

No, that's how you'd coach the play...that's why the batter/runner should run everything out, especially his crappy bunt. Live ball, play on, turn a triple play if you can...

(Assuming no IFF rule)

Anyone bother to read the case play?

8.4.1.G: With bases loaded and one out (a potential infield fly situation), B5 bunts a ball in the air. F3 uses the back of his glove to gently knock the ball to the ground (this meets the intentional drop definition) where he picks it up and throws to F2 who touches the plate then throws out B5 at first.

RULING: The ball is dead (Dead! There is our answer!). B5 is out and the runners return. (These next two sentences don't have anything to do with our question, rather they better help to explain what constitutes an intentional drop.) Manipulating the ball to the ground is prohibited. Allowing the ball to drop to the ground untouched is not considered an intentionally dropped ball.

Now...what was the question?

True or False: The ball is immediately dead when: With the infield fly rule in effect, an infielder intentionally drops a fair bunt in flight.

How can you read that case play and come up with anything other than true?

Hey, I gave it a shot and your point is quite true as well.

Had to explain that one to a coach one time as I was in the field pointing to the ball and my partner never said a word. I got the words out just before the ball hit the ground (misjudged the towering pop up) and the kid took off for third.

If something isn't screwed up on a test, then we need to start to worrying....;)

I guess you'd have to work as a test writer for FED.:D

Good catch - I read the case and still missed it. I guess one has to assume manipulating the ball to the ground is the same as intentionally dropping it, and for some reason I chose not to assume.

That is the straight forward part of the question. There is nothing that needs to be assumed.

The batter-runner is out when:

c. his fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight is intentionally dropped by an infielder with at least first base occupied and before there are two outs. The ball is dead and the runner or runners shall return to their respective base(s).

NOTE: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight to drop untouched to the ground, except when the infield fly rule (2-19-1) applies (5-1-1j).

It's not an assumption. It's a recognized, defined, printed interpretation!

Our state interpreter contacted Indianapolis and then sent me this:

"This was a rule change in 2007, in which they added the clause at the end "with the exception of the infield fly rule.

"I guess they want to make sure we remember the rule changes the following year!"