Missed NFHS Test Question

[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.