Missed NFHS Test Question

[mbyron]

When you take these tests, please bear in mind that the test makers intend that no one receives 100%. If they have to write impossibly worded questions to achieve that result, they will.

The rationale behind that goal is that folks who miss questions will be more motivated to go to the books. We might quibble with the pedagogy, but the evidence here is that the means suit the end.

[dash_riprock]

This question is not as poorly worded as some would suggest. Only the answer is wrong.

"The infield fly rule is in effect" only means that there are less than 2 out, and at least 1st and 2nd are occupied. It is not a statement about the bunt. In order for the intentionally dropped ball rule (8.4.1.c) to be in effect, there must be less than 2 out, and at least 1st base must be occupied. Therefore, when the IFF rule is in effect, the IDB rule is always in effect as well. (The question does not otherwise state where the runners are or how many outs there are, so we need this information to know whether the IDB rule is in effect.)

Edited to remove the stuff that was false.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Many of the posts are suggesting (or stating outright) that an infield-fly is an exception to the IDB rule. It is not. Even if the ball were popped up on a swing (a true infield-fly), the ball would become dead the moment it was dropped intentionally. The batter would be out on the IFF rule, but the ball would not remain live like it would had it not been dropped intentionally.

Not true. The infield fly "take precedence" over the intentional drop, and the ball remains live if an infield fly is intentionally dropped.

See 2.00 - Infield Fly CMT for the OBR rule. The rule is the same in all codes.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by mbyron

When you take these tests, please bear in mind that the test makers intend that no one receives 100%. If they have to write impossibly worded questions to achieve that result, they will.

The rationale behind that goal is that folks who miss questions will be more motivated to go to the books. We might quibble with the pedagogy, but the evidence here is that the means suit the end.

There are too many gunmen on your grassy knoll!

Do you know any of the test makers? And they told you this? I seriously doubt what you say is true.

There is no way a test maker, in his effort to make sure nobody scores a 100%, would purposely create a question that would result in an overwhelming consensus about it being COMPLETELY SCREWED UP.

Just as we who take the tests have pride in doing well; those who create the tests have pride in creating fair and challenging questions.

Most poorly worded, or convoluted questions, are well-intended - it just comes out wrong. Something gets lost in the translation. In other words, they are the result of honest mistakes.

The guys who make the questions also have pride. I do not accept the notion (as you are inferring) that they sit down and deliberately conjure up screwed up questions that are designed to mislead and create false impressions.

Whoever authored this screwed up IFF/intentionally dropped ball question would probably openly admit (in retrospect), "Yeah, I worded that horribly. That's not what I intended to say. Crap! Sorry - bad question."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

There are too many gunmen on your grass knoll!

Do you know any of the test makers? And they told you this? I seriously doubt what you say is true.

There is no way a test maker, in his effort to make sure nobody scores a 100%, would purposely create a question that would result in an overwhelming consensus about it being COMPLETELY SCREWED UP.

Just as we who take the tests have pride in doing well; those who create the tests have pride in creating fair and challenging questions.

Most poorly worded, or convoluted questions, are well-intended - it just comes out wrong. Something gets lost in the translation. In other words, they are the result of honest mistakes.

The guys who make the questions also have pride. I do not accept the notion (as you are inferring) that they sit down and deliberately conjure up screwed up questions that are designed to mislead and create false impressions.

Whoever authored this screwed up IFF/intentionally dropped ball question would probably openly admit (in retrospect), "Yeah, I worded that horribly. That's not what I intended to say. Crap! Sorry - bad question."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

You are more correct than you know....(great and accurate post!!)

[PFISTO]

I believe that on our test here in NJ it says that if any part of the question is false then it's totally false and since you can't have an infield fly on a bunt then the answer is false

Originally Posted by PFISTO

I believe that on our test here in NJ it says that if any part of the question is false then it's totally false and since you can't have an infield fly on a bunt then the answer is false

Please reread the question - it indicates that the Infield Fly Rule is "in effect" it doesn't say anything about being enforced, or called or anything else, just "in effect". For the IFR to be "enforced" or "called", a fly ball has to be hit, not a bunt. There is nothing false about the question or any part of the question. The only thing that is false is what else the person reads into the question. Consider the facts:

1. The IFR is "in effect" means that there are runners on 1st and 2nd or the bases are loaded, AND, there are less than 2 outs. This is TRUE.
2. A fair bunt has been popped up: This is TRUE.
3. The ball is intentionally dropped by an infielder. This is TRUE.
4. The ball is immediately DEAD. This is also TRUE.

So...... then answer MUST be TRUE.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

1. The IFR is "in effect" means that there are runners on 1st and 2nd or the bases are loaded, AND, there are less than 2 outs. This is TRUE.
2. A fair bunt has been popped up: This is TRUE.
3. The ball is intentionally dropped by an infielder. This is TRUE.
4. The ball is immediately DEAD. This is also TRUE.

So...... then answer MUST be TRUE.

And yet, when that same logic was presented to FED, the reply was that the answer of "False" remains correct for reasons explained earlier in this thread.

[BretMan]

The problem with the explanation from Indianapolis is that this, despite their contention, was not a rule change in 2007.

The rule has been the same in as many FED rule books as I could go back and search through. In 2007 there was an editorial change in regards to how the rule was worded and printed, but neither the rule, nor the Case Book rulings, where changed at all.

Kind of disturbing that somebody from "the home office" doesn't know the difference between an editorial change and a rule change.

The reasoning they gave for a "false" answer to this question is, in itself, false.

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Please reread the question - it indicates that the Infield Fly Rule is "in effect" it doesn't say anything about being enforced, or called or anything else, just "in effect". For the IFR to be "enforced" or "called", a fly ball has to be hit, not a bunt. There is nothing false about the question or any part of the question. The only thing that is false is what else the person reads into the question. Consider the facts:

1. The IFR is "in effect" means that there are runners on 1st and 2nd or the bases are loaded, AND, there are less than 2 outs. This is TRUE.
2. A fair bunt has been popped up: This is TRUE.
3. The ball is intentionally dropped by an infielder. This is TRUE.
4. The ball is immediately DEAD. This is also TRUE.

So...... then answer MUST be TRUE.

Are we sure about this one??? We already have a bunt, not a hit ball therefore the IFF is null and void. However if there was a hit ball and an IFF, intentional drop ball, ball remains ALIVE and in play,

[lawump]

At our test on Wednesday night...which is administered in person by the assistant executive director of the SC High School League for baseball...the administrator actually said that it was the most poorly written question he had ever seen on the test and he just flat out told us all to put "False".

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

Are we sure about this one??? We already have a bunt, not a hit ball therefore the IFF is null and void. However if there was a hit ball and an IFF, intentional drop ball, ball remains ALIVE and in play,

This, too, is true - but what does it have to do with the problem at hand? The question is refering to a bunt attempt dropped intentionally. There is no mention of a batted ball in the question.

BigGuy's list of true statements is true, his conclusion that the answer is true is correct.

We all say it's true, except FED. Yes, we're sure about this one.

[justanotherblue]

I'll try this one more time, There are runners on first and second and/or third base. Therefore it takes a fly ball that can be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder or outfielder to have the IFF in EFFECT. I hope we can agree on this part. Now then, was there a ball hit that fits this description. No it was a fricken bunt, that was bunted into the air. Bunt's by rule do not fall under the definition of IFF. SO, there can be no IFF. NO ball was hit that comes remotely close to the definition of IFF. You have the potiential for an IFF, that doesn't mean you have an IFF. This makes the question FALSE. Yes, it's a poorly worded question, however this is common place with FED questions. They're testing your ability to use and understand the rule book. So if you declared an IFF you booted it. When you should have simply killed the play because of the intentionally dropped ball.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

Gentlemen,



32 The Ball is Immediately Dead When: With the infield-fly rule in effect, an infielder intentionally drops a fair bunt in flight.` False 5-1-1j

J-Man, question for you. This sitch is simply an intentionally dropped bunt, like you said. What makes the statement false? The ball IS dead immediately.

You have described exactly what everyone else has. And we all said that it's true. I agree with your post, except the "This makes the question false" part. I think you misread the question.

[UmpJM]

justanotherblue,

The way the question is written, it is asking whether the assertion that a ball is immediately dead is true or false under a given set of conditions. The conditions presented by the question are:

1. The IFF rule is in effect

2. The batter hits a fair bunt in flight

3. The fielder intentionally drops the ball

Now it is not clear what the writer's intent was in including the first condition. Does it mean the conditions before the pitch are such that an IFF could occur? Perhaps he intended it to mean that an umpire erroneously announced an IFF call. Perhaps he didn't know that a bunt, by definition, cannot be an IFF (this would be the interpretation most consistent with the incorrect answer in the rule key).

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Given this set of conditions, the ball is, by rule, immediately dead. So, the correct answer to the question, as written, is TRUE.

If the question had asked the correctness of the assertion that this situation resulted in an IFF, then the answer would be FALSE. But the question didn't ask that. At least not in English.

JM