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.

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.

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,

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

Ya know, yes, the ball is dead, but don't you think it's kinda important to know why?! Not all recognize that a bunt can't invoke the IFF, we all should recognize an intentionally dropped ball is an immediate dead ball. Yep regardless the ball should be called dead, so hopefully as an umpire the ball was called dead, but was it for the right reason. It's a fed question, poor as it may be, they rule false as I agree. The key for me in the question is the word bunt. What the Fed intent is only they know. You can use the intentionally dropped ball. Hopefully we all would make the same call, but for which reason. Food for thought.

It's time to kill this thread.

Answer FALSE on the test, don't call IFF on a bunt and kill the ball when an infielder intentionally drops a ball with at least 1st occupied and less than 2 out.

I don't follow your thought process at all. How do you get false out of this? We know the bunt is not an IFF, so you kill this immediately - thus making the statement TRUE. The ONLY time you would NOT kill it would be when the IFF is enforced. We agree that this sitch is NOT that time.

Let me rephrase it - If I posted on here the following question, how would you respond? "Runners on 1st and 2nd less than two outs. Batter attempts a bunt and pops it up. F1 drops the ball intentionally. Would this be an immediate dead ball?"

If you would answer "yes" to this proposed question, then the FED question is true. All I did was remove the ridiculous FED wording.

I follow your process right up until you get to claiming this to be false. Other than false being the answer that FED gives, I just can't see it being the correct answer, and your logic leads away from it as well.

How can the statement "It is an immediate dead ball when: with R1 & R2, less than two outs, a fielder intentionally drops a bunt attempt that is popped up on the infield" not be true?

Flip a coin next time and improve you odds of getting it right
 

Dude,

What other questions did you miss? I see you're also having trouble grasping the whole "contacting the rubber" issue as well.

It's a fed question. Who really cares. MIB, your first two sentences says it all. It's a fricken bunt! Figure it out. I'm done with this one.

At least in IL the problem is solved!
They've thrown out the question

What problem do YOU have with what I said? Is there anything incorrect in my statement to make you think I don't understand this sitch?

I've got this one covered, Dude. And I have no issue with the "contacting the rubber" issue.

justanotherblue - Right, and agreed. This is a bunt, immediate dead ball. We'll leave it at that.

This dead horse has been beaten enough.

For the record, I missed one other question that I simply misread. Knew the answer and couldn't figure out why I answered the way I did. Does that satisfy you Stevie?