The Official Forum
Page 3 of 7 12 3 45 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Missed NFHS Test Question (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/41482-missed-nfhs-test-question.html)

justanotherblue Wed Jan 30, 2008 03:10pm
It's a bunt, therefore, the IFF rule CAN'T be in effect.

BretMan Wed Jan 30, 2008 05:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
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!"
That explanation reeks worse than the test question.

This was NOT a rule change last year. There was an editorial change in how the rule was written in the book, thus part of the rule appeared "highlighted". But the rule- and rulings- were not changed at all.

I pulled up my rule and case books going back to 2004 (all the ones that were readily available) and here is what I found.

2004, 2005, 2006: Rule and case book are identical each year.

2007: Rule book has editorial change to wording, same rule in effect. Case book same as previous years.

2008: Same rule, but rule book apparently misprinted (the "exception" note left out). Case book same as previous years.

BigGuy Wed Jan 30, 2008 06:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan
It's not an assumption. It's a recognized, defined, printed interpretation!
I believe you. Can you give me the reference for the future please. Thanks

BretMan Wed Jan 30, 2008 06:17pm
The interpretation is right there in the case play.

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, you do have to realize that the case play is illustrating the rule from the rule book that specifically covers an intentionally dropped ball.

Once you put the two together, the intent is quite clear.

BigGuy Wed Jan 30, 2008 07:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan
The interpretation is right there in the case play.

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, you do have to realize that the case play is illustrating the rule from the rule book that specifically covers an intentionally dropped ball.

Once you put the two together, the intent is quite clear.
My mistake - I thought maybe there was some other place. I guess if someone really wanted to massage this thing, they could justify that manipulating is not equivalent to intentionally dropping. Semantics aside, if a fielder decides to turn his glove away and let the ball hit it and fall to the ground, one could argue it's not the same thing. One could reasonably say that intentionally dropping a ball implies that the ball is caught to begin with and then let fall to the ground. That's why I was looking for something more definitive other than what was in the thread. It's pretty bad when we have to think about something that should be obvious, but isn't because of not only the context, but how it was meant by the writer. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a FED discussion abouthow to write rule changes.

umpduck11 Sat Feb 02, 2008 05:39pm
Update
 
The State says I did indeed miss the question, due to the fact that you cannot declare a bunt an infield fly. I guess they were not interested in addressing the wording of the question. :rolleyes:

GarthB Sat Feb 02, 2008 06:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpduck11
The State says I did indeed miss the question, due to the fact that you cannot declare a bunt an infield fly. I guess they were not interested in addressing the wording of the question. :rolleyes:
Pretty much the same explanation I posted above.

ManInBlue Sat Feb 02, 2008 06:42pm
Still doesn't make sense
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpduck11
The State says I did indeed miss the question, due to the fact that you cannot declare a bunt an infield fly. I guess they were not interested in addressing the wording of the question. :rolleyes:
What? An intentionally dropped fly ball is an immediate dead ball. You can't declare a bunt an IFF (per State). A bunt or attempt is not an IFF per the rules.

So how did you STILL miss the question? If you can't declare it, then it's just a fly ball in the infield, dropped intentionally. Kill it now. Answer is true by my interpretation of State's explanation.

You were indeed correct.

That explanation can only lead you to the statement being true. I don't understand how that clarified anything.

edited b/c I just realized I kicked this entire post originally - claimed everything to be false when indeed we have answered this to be true and FED has this answer to be false. I didn't recall the wording of the test question at the time of the original posting.

DG Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpduck11
Gentlemen,

I missed the following question on the Alabama High School Registration test.
I took the test online, and got my score instantly. Please tell me where I went wrong. The following is the question number, question, correct answer,
and rule reference:

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

I answered true, which according to my test results, was not the correct answer. Here are the relevant rules:

Rule 8-4-1 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 bases.

5-1-1 Ball becomes immediately dead when: (j) an infielder intentionally drops a fair fly, fair line drive, or fair bunt in flight with at least first base occupied and with less than two outs.
1. Infield fly rule (2-19)


2-19 Infield Fly
An infield fly is a fair fly (not including a line drive nor attempted bunt)......

What, if anything, am I missing ?
Your answer was correct. Don't sweat the quiz, just call it correctly in a game.

BretMan Sun Feb 03, 2008 01:16am
The FED rule and interpretation is exactly the same as OBR. Check your Jaksa/Roder manual or MLBUM or JEA or whatever you have.

If a batted ball is an infield fly, and if the ball is intentionally dropped, then the ball remains live.

A batted ball that meets the infield fly definition is the lone exception to the rule.

In all other cases where an intentional drop is ruled, the ball is dead.

And all you guys that are getting jobbed because the FED test has the wrong answer- show your instructor the Case Play!

mbyron Mon Feb 04, 2008 08:28am
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 Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:58am
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 Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:03pm
Quote:
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.

dash_riprock Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:28pm
I agree the IFF takes precedence in OBR and NCAA, but I can't find that in the FED rules. Any idea where it is?

BretMan Mon Feb 04, 2008 01:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock
I agree the IFF takes precedence in OBR and NCAA, but I can't find that in the FED rules. Any idea where it is?
That's what I was getting at in my first post way back on page one.

NFHS rule 5-1-1j tells us that the ball is dead on an intentional drop.

Up until this year, that rule had wording at the end to the effect that an infield fly is the exception to the rule. It looks like they botched the printing in the 2008 rule book.

Compare this same rule in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 books. You'll see three different versions of the same rule, each stating the same thing with different wording.

The editorial change is highlighted in the 2007 book, then apparently mangled in the 2008 version.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36pm.
Page 3 of 7 12 3 45 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1