85% missed this one

[ggk]

well said, lawump.

this is a very poor question if they truly wanted to test your ability to apply this rule.

a similar, but fair question might be...

Fly ball to F7. R3 is tagging at 3rd. R3 must wait until the ball is caught by F7 before tagging up and heading home. Tor F?

To those who know the rule, this is obviously false. This type of question still tests your knowledge of "caught" vs. "touched" but it gives a reasonable chance to answer it correctly if you are familiar with the rule.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by lawump

He said that is true.

Meaning, that if the ball is touched by a fielder and then dropped, the runner is not liable to be put out for failing to re-touch. It is the act of the fielder making a legal catch that imposes upon the runner the requirement to retouch his base.

I agree that the question is worded poorly, however, sometimes we read too much into it. The ball was not dropped it was ALREADY CAUGHT Here is the question again

If a fair batted ball is caught, a runner shall touch his base after the batted ball has been caught by a fielder.

The ball has been caught - Premise one

Now read the second part a runner shall touch his base after the batted ball has been caught by a fielder

Bad wording I agree because as others mentioned the word "touched" should have been used not caught because the ball was Already caught.

Bad wording but Sometimes I think we are all guilty of reading too much into it.

There are 100 questions and you can pass with an 85. it's inevitable that a few of them are "shaky" but there is "wiggle room" to pass the test. Not all 100 questions are written this way.

Pete Booth

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by LDUB

In the question the blank is "been caught by" and in the book it is "touched".

Now how is that a joke? Could the question be any more straightforward?

ME ! Me ! Me! Call on ME, Teach!!

They din't read the rule book?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I think that if the question said "touched" instead of "caught, the answer would be true.
Timmy.

I think if the question had said "cat" instead of "runner" the answer would be false.

[johnnyg08]

I don't think it's BS question at all...the rule doesn't say caught, it says touched...don't put your own words into the question and you'd get it right. 85% getting it wrong is a little scary...

I think the test should remain open book...isn't the objective to go through the rule book and learn the rules...that's the objective...not who can memorize the rules.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I think the test should remain open book...isn't the objective to go through the rule book and learn the rules...that's the objective...not who can memorize the rules.

A test isn't supposed to teach you the subject matter, it is supposed to "test" your knowledge of the subject matter. I thought it was a good thing for umpires to have the rules memorized?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Welpe

A test isn't supposed to teach you the subject matter, it is supposed to "test" your knowledge of the subject matter. I thought it was a good thing for umpires to have the rules memorized?

I think memorizing stuff doesn't equal learning the rules...it just proves that you have a black and white memory of the rule book...that doens't equal a good umpire...sure it helps, but if you were certifying umpires wouldn't you want everybody to pass/ace the test because they looked up the rules and did the test...after all, this is a hobby for many of us. It's not our job. Keep the test open book...whether the test is open book or closed book, you're still testing knowledge. The only difference is that if you're testing open book, you're not testing memory. Just because I look up a rule in the off season or in between games...doesn't make me a better or worse umpire...under your logic, I should memorize the rules one time, then never open up the rule book again. Under this path, it continually promotes officials to open up and continually study the rules. Many will say that in order to be a great umpire, one should study the rules on a "daily" basis. Because one does that on a daily basis is that suggesting that you know the rules better than me because you have them memorized, and don't study the rule book...because you have it memorized?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I think memorizing stuff doesn't equal learning the rules...it just proves that you have a black and white memory of the rule book...that doens't equal a good umpire

I never said it made a good umpire, though rules knowledge is obviously a very important component in the make up of a good umpire. Of course rote memorization doesn't equal knowing what the rules mean and how to apply them but a properly written test can be a good indicator of such.

...sure it helps, but if you were certifying umpires wouldn't you want everybody to pass/ace the test because they looked up the rules and did the test...after all, this is a hobby for many of us. It's not our job. Keep the test open book...whether the test is open book or closed book, you're still testing knowledge.

No I wouldn't. Different sport but my football association's tests are all closed book and we are expected to study for them ahead of time. I would not want my officials to learn from taking a test that is supposed to measure your rules knowledge. That is what practice tests and study groups are for. An open book test might be testing knowledge....or it might be testing how well somebody can look a rule up. The latter doesn't help you much when you're on the field in the middle of a knotty problem.

If you accept money to umpire, it is a job. Granted, its a job we all enjoy and it probably isn't your primary source of income, but it is still a job.

The only difference is that if you're testing open book, you're not testing memory. Just because I look up a rule in the off season or in between games...doesn't make me a better or worse umpire...under your logic, I should memorize the rules one time, then never open up the rule book again.

Those are a lot of words you've put in my mouth. I've never advocated reading the rules once and never again.

Under this path, it continually promotes officials to open up and continually study the rules.

I agree with that approach, but during the test is not the time to be doing that.

[johnnyg08]

"Good at looking up rules" could equal "good at taking tests" neither equal whether or not you're a good umpire or not. "Great at taking tests" could equal "horrible umpire"

[johnnyg08]

So I say...keep it open book and promote the fact that people open up the book and take the test. Not everybody will get together to form study groups (it is a good idea though), not everybody will take practice tests (it's not the LSAT), do practice tests make you a better umpire or does it make you a better test taker? I think we're going to continue to split hairs here...want to call a truce?

[Welpe]

Not everybody will get together to form study groups (it is a good idea though), not everybody will take practice tests (it's not the LSAT), do practice tests make you a better umpire or does it make you a better test taker?

They are tools to help learn and retain the rules. I didn't know practice tests were limited to school entrance exams.

I suppose a test where everybody is intended to pass is a good if you're not concerned about testing actual knowledge.

When I used to work softball, we had an open book ASA test. This seemed to allow a lot of warm bodies in that read the rules once or twice but never really learned them. Once we went to a closed book test, a lot of those people either went away or had to learn the rules better. I was perfectly happy with this because I do NOT like working with people that don't know the rules.

I think we're going to continue to split hairs here...want to call a truce?

It's a slow Friday at work but I'm tired of this discussion going in circles so I'm fine with that.

[dash_riprock]

I wish all rules "discussions" on the field could end like that!

[lawump]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I think we're going to continue to split hairs here...want to call a truce?

I'm in for the truce...just for the record, I wasn't arguing one side or the other (hell, I haven't even stated what I answered) I was just seeking feedback from this esteemed forum (in my first post) and then giving to you all what was said by a member of my association at our post-test meeting.

I could give a darn, because I know every varsity umpire in my association will get this call correct on the field.

[Welpe]

My apologies for hijacking your thread lawump.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by lawump

He said look at the meat of the question: "a runner shall touch his base after the batted ball has been caught by a fielder".

He said that is true.

When told by another association member that the answer is "false" because a runner must touch a base after the ball has been TOUCHED by a fielder, he said, "that's not what the question is asking. A runner does not have to re-touch his base after it is touched, he only has to re-touch if it is caught. Meaning, that if the ball is touched by a fielder and then dropped, the runner is not liable to be put out for failing to re-touch. It is the act of the fielder making a legal catch that imposes upon the runner the requirement to retouch his base.

"Thus, a runner shall touch his base after the batted ball has been caught by a fielder is true, because if the fielder does not catch the ball there cannot be a requirement to retouch, period."

What he said makes sense, except he did not analyze the entire question. It says "If a fair batted ball is caught, a runner shall touch his base after the batted ball has been caught by a fielder."

All the arguing about what happened if the fielder touches the ball but doesn't catch it does not matter as the question clearly states that the ball was caught.

The question has 2 parts:

1. If a fair batted ball is caught
2. the runner shall retouch his base after the ball is caught.

One has to look at both parts in order to understand the question. The guy in your association only looked at the second part.