The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   FED test questions (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/41921-fed-test-questions.html)

bossman72 Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:28pm

FED test questions
 
I obtained a FED test from someone and did it on my own for the heck of it (my state is 'one and done' when it comes to testing in your umpiring career). I would like to review / complain about 2 questions and get feedback from you guys:

#3) "Lineups become official when they are presented to the umpire-in-chief"

Answer: False

-This was puzzling why I missed this until I read 1-2-2 where they are official after they are "exchanged, verified, and accepted by the UIC." Poorly worded question IMO.



#65) "It is a balk when: The pitcher, while legally on the pitcher's plate, brings his pitching hand to his mouth and wipes it off."

Answer: False

-I thought this would be a balk since, according to FED rules, adjusting your cap while in this position would be a balk as well. I guess I'm assuming now trough this question that ANY time a pitcher goes to the mouth before he brings his hands together is a ball? I'm confused. Please set me straight on this one.


But overall, I got a 95. I missed:

#3
#32 - Brain fart. Knew it was no pitch in OBR, but couldn't remember if it was an "illegal pitch" in FED.
#57 - An entire thread is dedicated to this so I won't get into it.
#65
#91 - Simply didn't know that one.

umpjong Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:39pm

I think they just want to remind us that we can give the lineup card back to them if we see something wrong with it. After we look it over and we put in in our pocket or wherever you put it, its official.

Second one, I believe is with no runners on base. With runners on base going to the mouth would be a balk. With no one on its a ball.....

UmpJM Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:43pm

Bossman,

The correct answer to #65 IS True (i.e., it IS a balk). It's pretty much verbatim with case play 6.2.1B(b).

Also, from the POE section of the rulebook (top of p.69 for those following along at home):

(If there are runners on base,) "Going to the mouth while in contact with the pitcher's plate is a balk, not because the pitcher goes to his mouth, but because the action simulates the start of the pitching motion."

So your reasoning seems sound to me.

Now I haven't yet seen an "official" answer key, but the correct answer to the question is True, regardless of what the answer key says. Did FED screw the pooch on this one too?

JM

LDUB Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossman72
I#3) "Lineups become official when they are presented to the umpire-in-chief"

Answer: False

-This was puzzling why I missed this until I read 1-2-2 where they are official after they are "exchanged, verified, and accepted by the UIC." Poorly worded question IMO.

So the both the question and the rulebook say "Lineups become official when they are __________ the UIC".

On the test the blank is filled in with "presented to" and in the rule book it is "exchanged, verified, and accepted by", and you call that a poorly worded question? :confused: Seems to me that question could not have been worded any better.

bobbybanaduck Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:11pm

let me get this straight...the picher is standing on the rubber taking his sign with runners on, his throwing hand hangs at his side. before doing anything else he brings his throwing hand up and licks it, then wipes it off. FED considers that the start of the motion to pitch??? if that's true my lack of respect for their rules just dropped even lower, if that's at all possible.

what if it's fricken freezin out and instead of licking he blows on his hand to warm it up...is that allowed?

bossman72 Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDUB
So the both the question and the rulebook say "Lineups become official when they are __________ the UIC".

On the test the blank is filled in with "presented to" and in the rule book it is "exchanged, verified, and accepted by", and you call that a poorly worded question? :confused: Seems to me that question could not have been worded any better.


Would "tricky" question be a better adjective phrase?

I took 'presented' to be a generic term that means the same thing as "exchanged, verified, and accepted by"... IMO, it's a picky difference. I assumed that the 'exchanged, verified, and accepted' part was encompassed by the word 'presented.' Eh..

UmpJM Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck
let me get this straight...the picher is standing on the rubber taking his sign with runners on, his throwing hand hangs at his side. before doing anything else he brings his throwing hand up and licks it, then wipes it off. FED considers that the start of the motion to pitch??? if that's true my lack of respect for their rules just dropped even lower, if that's at all possible.

what if it's fricken freezin out and instead of licking he blows on his hand to warm it up...is that allowed?

bobby,

Then I take it you haven't seen...

Quote:

6.1.2 Situation D: F1, while on the pitcher's plate in either the windup or set position, ... (b) shakes off the signal with his glove,...

Ruling: In ... (b), this is an illegal pitch or a balk if there are runners on base. ...
All kinds of interesting stuff in the FED rules.

JM

Tim C Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:50am

Jm
 
"Did FED screw the pooch on this one too?"

No, you just read too much into the question.

This is, with out question, the most poorly written NFHS Baseball Umpire test that I can remember.

Regards,

mbyron Fri Feb 15, 2008 09:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossman72
#65) "It is a balk when: The pitcher, while legally on the pitcher's plate, brings his pitching hand to his mouth and wipes it off."

Answer: False

Correct answer. It is a balk only when runners are on base, otherwise an illegal pitch. ;)

Remember: if it's not completely true, it's false.

bob jenkins Fri Feb 15, 2008 09:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
Correct answer. It is a balk only when runners are on base, otherwise an illegal pitch. ;)

Remember: if it's not completely true, it's false.

Bossman72 didn't quote the entire question. All the questions 65 - 68 begin with "With runners on base, it is a balk when ..."

And, while I agree that some of the questions / answers could have been better, no one (that I know) requires a 100% to pass.

Rich Fri Feb 15, 2008 09:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
"Did FED screw the pooch on this one too?"

No, you just read too much into the question.

This is, with out question, the most poorly written NFHS Baseball Umpire test that I can remember.

Regards,

Agreed. There are quite a few questions that would be laughed at by English teachers everywhere.

This is the one part of officiating I truly despise. I have to take seven of these exams a year (2 football, 2 baseball, and 3 basketball). It seems like every time I turn around I have another one that needs to be done and sent to the state.

BretMan Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20am

Re: question #65- Sounds like more editorial hijinks from the NFHS.

LAST YEAR, when the whole "hand to mouth" rule changes first hit the fan, it was interpreted that this was NOT a balk. Clarifying interpretations were issued to reinforce this. It was a ball to the batter, regardless of runners being on base or not.

THIS YEAR, they have "re-interpreted" the rule and their preseason materials clearly state, beyond doubt, that this IS a balk.

Another disconnect betwen the rulesmakers and the testmakers. "False" would have been a correct answer last year. This year, the answer is absolutely "true".

MadCityRef Fri Feb 15, 2008 02:22pm

[QUOTE=bossman72]I obtained a FED test from someone and did it on my own for the heck of it (my state is 'one and done' when it comes to testing in your umpiring career).

Which state stuck in the 19th century is that?

johnnyg08 Fri Feb 15, 2008 02:36pm

I love how just because somebody reads the test wrong that they automatically blame the test as to why they missed a question. While I agree that not every question on every test is going to be perfect...who cares if you miss one or two...do you know the rules or not?

bossman72 Fri Feb 15, 2008 03:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadCityRef
Which state stuck in the 19th century is that?


Good ol' PA. If you pass one test in the beginning of your umpire career, you can umpire as long as you want without a re-test as long as you pay your dues and are active each year.

Tim C Fri Feb 15, 2008 03:36pm

Gee,
 
MadCity:

I am sometimes amazed at your postings. This is one of them:

"Which state stuck in the 19th century is that?"

Oregon selects to offer Test 1 as a sample study guide for use by any association as they see fit. In Portland we use the test to help 1st and 2nd year student/umpires to get a basic gist of the rules. Others of us, mostly vets, use the test for adult conversation fodder and humor.

Oregon then moves to Test 2. The Oregon School Activities Association requires all varsity level umpires to take the test closed book. A score of 75 is necessary to work varsity games during the regular season. A score of 90 is required for any umpire to work ANY level playoff game.

I am guess that you would consider us 19th Century in your all-encompassing statement. We feel it is a good gauge of basic rules knowledge.

You can also follow this link to the article that was published about recruiting, training and retaining officials:

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/how_...officials.aspx

This article will help you see how one state (closely affiliated with the NFHS) uses testing to ensure that officials stay current with continuing education.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

Publication Committee Memeber
National Federation of State High Schools

High School Today

UmpJM Fri Feb 15, 2008 04:02pm

Tim C.,

I believe the MadCityRef was ridiculing the notion that passing a test ONE TIME provided a LIFETIME qualification to umpire, rather than the notion that repeated testing was a good idea.

I would guess that you and he are in violent agreement that an umpire should be required to regularly demonstrate his mastery of the rules over time.

JM

bobbybanaduck Fri Feb 15, 2008 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
bobby,

Then I take it you haven't seen...



All kinds of interesting stuff in the FED rules.

JM

no sir. massachusetts doesn't do FED, and neither do i.

MadCityRef Sat Feb 16, 2008 03:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
Tim C.,

I believe the MadCityRef was ridiculing the notion that passing a test ONE TIME provided a LIFETIME qualification to umpire, rather than the notion that repeated testing was a good idea.

I would guess that you and he are in violent agreement that an umpire should be required to regularly demonstrate his mastery of the rules over time.

JM

Yeah, Timmy don't like me. :(
Like all Axemen, I Strive for Excellence. ;) Next stop, Altoona!! :D

Wisconsin requires part 2 and a mechanics test if you're a playoff eligible.

Illinois requires part 2 when trying for elevation (promotion), and mechanics only in football, and only once, to Certified (highest of three levels.)

IL: I would like to see oldsters take the part 2 and mechs. regularly, say every three years. IHSA is now requiring a clinic every year to keep one's playoff points. This is good, but most clinics teach at maintaining the current level without challenging officials to get better.

But then, just because you can pass a test doesn't mean you're any good, which I prove constantly. :rolleyes:

Tim C Sat Feb 16, 2008 09:14am

"Yeah, Timmy don't like me."

Is that the best you got?

Sad.

jkumpire Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:29am

I Must Protest
 
The trend looks like that more and more state organizations will mandate testing for all umpires every year.

However, I live in a state that does not have mandatory testing, and I think that is the better alternative. I really dislike testing yearly for several reasons

First, getting 75 or 80 on the FED test is rally not that tough. A Smitty who had 1 year of experience 10 times can get a minimum score to do games.

Second, testing is a governmental device to try and enforce certain outcomes, and so the test determines what is important to know to do the job. Organizations use tests as tools to measure competency, and most of the time it is a very inaccurate measure. Okay, so how many uniform questions matter, and how many field questions matter for umpires who work HS baseball? So, team A is in illegal uniforms playing Team B on a non-regulation field. Does that matter to me as the UIC? No!!! Yes, I need to to sent a report to the state association, but what will happen after my report gets there?

Now Team A and Team B in the same situation are playing, and the BU kicks two big judgment calls at 2B, and calls a balk when there was nothing there. That is what matters, field competence. No test will help with judgment, or seeing situations and responding to them.

Third, the Fed test is a fairly well-done test. Under the constraints FED works in, I would defy anyone (including me since I am not a fan of the test) to find a better alternative for FED to use. My guess is that a 76 question test will get the job done if it is all T/F. But FED will never run one.

Ultimately, it is an internal matter. Good umpires become good umpires because they are internally motivated to study, learn, communicate with other umpires and give 100% effort on the field, and just as much off the field. Testing is for most of us, a waste of time.

Now, what would be a good test:

FED solicits game film from all over the country, or puts people in real world rule situations, videos them, then passes out a test saying: "What happened in this case, and why?" Or, "What is the correct call here, and why?" Or, "How do you as the UIC or Bu respond to this play situation?"

As I am sure you can tell there are several problems already. First, how much tape is needed to get this test set up? Two, who grades the responses, and how do you test people who don't write well? Three, what is passing? If I get 3/4 of a question right, do I miss it?

That is a better test than the current one.

Finally, I would like to see FED do questions like this once in a while.
"F1 stand on the pitchers plate in the wind-up position, both hands at his side. He then goes to his mouth. You then have:"
A. Illegal pitch
B. illegal pitch, or balk with runners on base
C. Nothing
D. Call time and start all over again

johnnyg08 Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:33am

C

jkumpire Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:45am

Johnny
 
You Sure?

dash_riprock Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12pm

A

Tim C Sat Feb 16, 2008 01:27pm

Mmmmmm!
 
Johnny said:

"C"


Dash said:

"A"


Would you like some parting gifts?

Refer to 2008 Case Book play:

6.2.1 Situation B:

Ruling "(b) the pitcher has balked and R1 is awarded second base."

Regards,

dash_riprock Sat Feb 16, 2008 02:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
Johnny said:

"C"


Dash said:

"A"


Would you like some parting gifts?

Refer to 2008 Case Book play:

6.2.1 Situation B:

Ruling "(b) the pitcher has balked and R1 is awarded second base."

Regards,

6.2.1 Situation B (b) is from the set position. jkumpire's question (a good one) is from the windup. You can have my parting gifts.

johnnyg08 Sat Feb 16, 2008 02:17pm

But doesn't it have to simulate the beginning of the pitching motion? Or is that just in the OBR rule set?

dash_riprock Sat Feb 16, 2008 02:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08
But doesn't it have to simulate the beginning of the pitching motion? Or is that just in the OBR rule set?

The question said F1 was in the windup with both hands at his sides. From this position, moving one arm does not commit him to pitch. Going to the mouth on the rubber is an illegal pitch (ball), but he has not balked.

johnnyg08 Sat Feb 16, 2008 02:23pm

that's what I'm saying...is the FED rule different? By the looks of it...yes.

dash_riprock Sat Feb 16, 2008 03:20pm

The ball is immediately dead in FED only.

bob jenkins Sat Feb 16, 2008 05:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock
The question said F1 was in the windup with both hands at his sides. From this position, moving one arm does not commit him to pitch. Going to the mouth on the rubber is an illegal pitch (ball), but he has not balked.

Moving one hand to in front of the body and stoppng does not commit him to pitch. Other movements do.

See the case play on "adjusting the hat" (it might be the one Tee references).

And, yes, JohnnyG, FED rules are different.

Tim C Sat Feb 16, 2008 06:18pm

Dash
 
The NFHS overheads are FINALLY quite clear on this issue.

With a runner on base and F1 goes to his mouth, not mattering if it is the set or the wind-up position, it is a balk.

The rule clarification for 2008 made the going to the mouth situation simple.

If F1 is not in contact with the pitcher's plate he can go to his mouth as long as he wipes. It F1 is in contact with the picther's plate and there are runners on (does not matter if it is from wind-up or set, and he goes to his mouth it is a balk.

It really is quite clear in the written rule (Case Book)and the overheads.

If you look at both Case plays 6.2.1 A and 6.2.1B the violation is obvious.

Regards,

dash_riprock Sat Feb 16, 2008 08:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
If you look at both Case plays 6.2.1 A and 6.2.1B the violation is obvious.

Regards,

Neither one proves your point. In 6.2.1 A, there are no runners on base, and in 6.2.1 B, F1 is in the set position.

However, from the FED website, 2008 Rules Interpretations, SITUATION 6: While on the pitcher's plate in the windup position, the pitcher has both hands at his side or both hands together in front of his body. He brings his pitching hand to his mouth and then distinctly wipes it off. RULING: This is an illegal pitch. Each runner on base would be awarded one base. If the bases were empty, a ball would be awarded to the batter. (6-1-2 Penalty)

From this, I concede. I change my answer to B, and I'll take those parting gifts.

Tim C Sat Feb 16, 2008 08:35pm

Dash:
 
I will say what separates you from many of the eumpire.com posters is that when shown that an answer is different from your view you accept the answer and move on.

I wish that all on this site had the same ability.

Regards,

dash_riprock Sat Feb 16, 2008 09:06pm

Tim
 
Thanks Tim. I'd much rather get something wrong on this forum than on the field. That's why I'm here.

BretMan Sat Feb 16, 2008 09:52pm

Gee, fellas...I told ya this was a balk 24 posts and two pages back!

And I'm right at least as often as a blind squirrel or a stopped clock... :rolleyes:

BigGuy Tue Feb 19, 2008 08:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
Bossman,

The correct answer to #65 IS True (i.e., it IS a balk). It's pretty much verbatim with case play 6.2.1B(b).

Also, from the POE section of the rulebook (top of p.69 for those following along at home):

(If there are runners on base,) "Going to the mouth while in contact with the pitcher's plate is a balk, not because the pitcher goes to his mouth, but because the action simulates the start of the pitching motion."

So your reasoning seems sound to me.

Now I haven't yet seen an "official" answer key, but the correct answer to the question is True, regardless of what the answer key says. Did FED screw the pooch on this one too?

JM


Official answer key is TRUE.

MadCityRef Wed Feb 20, 2008 01:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
"Yeah, Timmy don't like me."

Is that the best you got?

Sad.

I'll use my best when OSU wins a game.

Tim C Wed Feb 20, 2008 08:47am

Hmmm,
 
"I'll use my best when OSU wins a game."

I am confused. OSU has won the last TWO National Championships.

You are an odd one.

Regards,

MrUmpire Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
"I'll use my best when OSU wins a game."

I am confused. OSU has won the last TWO National Championships.

You are an odd one.

Regards,

Perhaps he meant Oklahoma State University?

BretMan Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:25pm

Must be Ohio State University which has (much to my chagrin) played in, and lost, not only the last two college football championship games, but also the NCAA basketball championship game!

Rita C Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:06am

Obr
 
Remember all, in OBR, it is not a balk or illegal pitch for a pitcher to bring his hand to his mouth.

Rita

mbyron Fri Feb 22, 2008 08:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rita C
Remember all, in OBR, it is not a balk or illegal pitch for a pitcher to bring his hand to his mouth.

Rita

As long as he's off the mound.

BTW, Rita, did you notice the title of this thread? :eek:

bob jenkins Fri Feb 22, 2008 09:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
As long as he's off the mound.

BTW, Rita, did you notice the title of this thread? :eek:

Even if he's on the mound it's not a balk or an illegal pitch. IT's a "ball".

UmpJM Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:10am

bob,

Technically, I believe it's an "illegal act". ;)

JM

PeteBooth Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:59am

[QUOTE]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
The NFHS overheads are FINALLY quite clear on this issue.

With a runner on base and F1 goes to his mouth, not mattering if it is the set or the wind-up position, it is a balk.

The rule clarification for 2008 made the going to the mouth situation simple.

If F1 is not in contact with the pitcher's plate he can go to his mouth as long as he wipes.

TEE will you do some preventative umpiring on ths issue?

In other words you see F1 do this

Are you going to

1. Simply call the infraction
2. Dust off the plate and tell F2 to talk to F1 and NEXT time it is a balk or
3. if you are BU tell any infielder to talk to F1.

I am interested in how "other" associations instruct their umpires on these "ticky/taky? type rules. Similar to the "old days" when in FED F1 could not check a runner. How many associations enforced that rule.

Thanks TEE

Pete Booth

GarthB Fri Feb 22, 2008 01:33pm

Twp
 
R1, F1, off the mound, goes to his mouth, without wiping off he grips the ball. He now can _____________.

UmpJM Fri Feb 22, 2008 01:37pm

Garth,

Request Time and ask for a new ball.

JM

GarthB Fri Feb 22, 2008 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
Garth,

Request Time and ask for a new ball.

JM

More TWP:

And, if he wipes off after gripping the ball and then takes the rubber?

David B Fri Feb 22, 2008 02:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarthB
More TWP:

And, if he wipes off after gripping the ball and then takes the rubber?

Same answer as above, i'm going to ask for the ball and replace it.

Thansk
David

UmpJM Fri Feb 22, 2008 02:41pm

David,

In Garth's second sitch, you would, no doubt, add a ball to the batter's count as well, yes?

JM

Rita C Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
As long as he's off the mound.

BTW, Rita, did you notice the title of this thread? :eek:

Yes dear. And you have no idea how often I have this conversation with my brothers in blue every year. You would be another one. So many have it wrong. This is as good as any thread to have this discussion.

Even if he is on the mound, even if he is in contact with the rubber, it's not ever a balk or an illegal pitch in OBR. It's a ball to the batter, period.

It's one of the differences I wish people would get.

Rita

mbyron Sat Feb 23, 2008 08:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rita C
Yes dear. And you have no idea how often I have this conversation with my brothers in blue every year. You would be another one. So many have it wrong. This is as good as any thread to have this discussion.

Even if he is on the mound, even if he is in contact with the rubber, it's not ever a balk or an illegal pitch in OBR. It's a ball to the batter, period.

It's one of the differences I wish people would get.

Rita

Well, hon, the discussions that I've had with my brothers and sisters in blue have concerned not the type of violation but whether F1 can go to his mouth AT ALL.

That I why I emphasized that it is legal provided that he's off the mound. In my post I did not specify what kind of violation it was, so please don't correct me for an error I did not make.

MrUmpire Sat Feb 23, 2008 01:43pm

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]
Quote:


TEE will you do some preventative umpiring on ths issue?

In other words you see F1 do this

Are you going to

1. Simply call the infraction
2. Dust off the plate and tell F2 to talk to F1 and NEXT time it is a balk or
3. if you are BU tell any infielder to talk to F1.

I am interested in how "other" associations instruct their umpires on these "ticky/taky? type rules. Similar to the "old days" when in FED F1 could not check a runner. How many associations enforced that rule.

Thanks TEE

Pete Booth
You know, if the coaches are dumb enough to lobby for this rule, it should be called. Everytime. Maybe then we can get rule 6 rewritten sensibly.

I have a modest proposal for a language change.

"FED Rule 6, see OBR Rule 7.00"

Rita C Sat Feb 23, 2008 08:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
Well, hon, the discussions that I've had with my brothers and sisters in blue have concerned not the type of violation but whether F1 can go to his mouth AT ALL.

That I why I emphasized that it is legal provided that he's off the mound. In my post I did not specify what kind of violation it was, so please don't correct me for an error I did not make.

I wrote:

<b>Remember all, in OBR, it is not a balk or illegal pitch for a pitcher to bring his hand to his mouth.</b>

You then wrote:

<b>As long as he's off the mound.</b>

That makes it sound to me like you were saying it could be either of the two if he were on the mound. Even if he is on the mound or on the rubber, it is neither a balk nor an illegal pitch in OBR if he brings his hand to his mouth. It is always a ball to the batter.

Do we agree on that?

Rita

dash_riprock Sat Feb 23, 2008 08:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rita C
Even if he is on the mound, even if he is in contact with the rubber, it's not ever a balk or an illegal pitch in OBR. It's a ball to the batter, period.

It's one of the differences I wish people would get.

Rita

F1 finishes his stretch, comes to a complete stop. He then goes to his mouth. Ball? (Well, you did say "it's not ever a balk.")

BigUmp56 Sat Feb 23, 2008 08:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock
F1 finishes his stretch, comes to a complete stop. He then goes to his mouth. Ball? (Well, you did say "it's not ever a balk.")


In this case it's not a balk for going to his mouth. With runners on it's a balk for breaking his hands without disengaging.


Tim.

Rita C Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigUmp56
In this case it's not a balk for going to his mouth. With runners on it's a balk for breaking his hands without disengaging.


Tim.

Exactly.

Rita

dash_riprock Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:13pm

Yes I agree, but it's just another example of FED re-inventing the square wheel. They emphasize that the penalty for going to the mouth while on the rubber is a ball rather than a balk, but, with men on base, going to the mouth while on the rubber will ALWAYS result in a balk (from either pitching position), because it is an arm movement not associated with the pitch.

It's like having Professor Irwin Corey as the rules interpreter, assisted by Norm Crosby.

Steven Tyler Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock
Yes I agree, but it's just another example of FED re-inventing the square wheel. They emphasize that the penalty for going to the mouth while on the rubber is a ball rather than a balk, but, with men on base, going to the mouth while on the rubber will ALWAYS result in a balk (from either pitching position), because it is an arm movement not associated with the pitch.

It's like having Professor Irwin Corey as the rules interpreter, assisted by Norm Crosby.

By Jove ole mate, I've think you've hit upon something. A pitcher cannot balk unless there are runners in place to lap the bases. Pip, pip ole chum.


Cheerio,
ST

Pete in AZ Sun Mar 09, 2008 04:35am

Fed Exam Answers for part 1
 
This has gotten silly since it looks like the Fed is splitting hairs again with words. This is just another reason why most of my buds and me don't do HS ball anymore. I got a copy of the test but no rule book for the past 2 seasons. Does anyone have the Part 1 Exam answers so I can go over them. If it is easier, just list the tru ones. Thanks in advance.

David B Mon Mar 10, 2008 01:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
David,

In Garth's second sitch, you would, no doubt, add a ball to the batter's count as well, yes?

JM

Probably not. (Only if a coach were to complain first)

No one would notice this but me and I would consider this looking for boogers.

I just consider that preventative umpiring.

(and yes I know what the rule book says ...)

Thanks
David

Pete in AZ Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:50am

Fed Test Answers
 
Come on guys, I asked a week ago for a little help here. Who has the answer key for the NFHS Part 1 test? I've read all of the BS so far and it would be nice to see what they actually score as correct.

Can someone please just print the true answers if it is too much work?

mbyron Wed Mar 26, 2008 06:45am

The issue is not the work, it's the cheating.

Pete in AZ Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:13pm

Help!!!!
 
It's not cheating since I don't work HS ball here. Some of our extra leagues use those rules though and i refuse to pay to belong to NFHS just to get the rule books. All I'm asking for is a little help here. Our season started months ago.

Jurassic Referee Thu Mar 27, 2008 06:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete in AZ
It's not cheating since I don't work HS ball here. Some of our extra leagues use those rules though and i refuse to pay to belong to NFHS just to get the rule books. All I'm asking for is a little help here. Our season started months ago.

Not cheating?

Boolsh!t!!

If you have to do some leagues that work FED rules, then you should <b>buy</b> the appropriate rule books. It's ridiculous to even think of working any league without bothering to learn their rules. And just getting the exam <b>answers</b> sureashell isn't going to teach you everything that you should know.

Sorry, but there's nowayinhell anyone just wants a set of exam answers by themselves for any other reason than to cheat imo.

mbyron Thu Mar 27, 2008 07:15am

Yeah! Sic 'em, JR!

Pete in AZ Sun Mar 30, 2008 05:53pm

I'm amazed at the level of arrogance from two of you. If you don't want to help, that's cool just shut the f-ck up. I want to thank one of you for emailing me what I asked for. You clearly remember what it means to help not hinder. The other two can kiss my hairy white a--. I've seen their kind and there is a reason why they are relegated to working leagues with reading tests for rules. Good luck with that. I prefer to use the NFHS test to show why the leagues I work are sane. At my pregames, when I here that they want to use Fed based rules, I ask which ones. They always look at me like, yeah we know, they all suck except for the mercy and slide rules. We specify those and move on to real baseball.

The True Answers for the 2008 NFHS Test are 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100.

From what the guy who emailed me his test, the season has been in swing and the test closed for weeks. Maybe some of you don't have an end date for this test. Be prepared for JR to get on his soap box. How sad and lonely that life must be. Grow up.

GarthB Sun Mar 30, 2008 06:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete in AZ
I'm amazed at the level of arrogance from two of you. If you don't want to help, that's cool just shut the f-ck up. I want to thank one of you for emailing me what I asked for. You clearly remember what it means to help not hinder. The other two can kiss my hairy white a--. I've seen their kind and there is a reason why they are relegated to working leagues with reading tests for rules. Good luck with that. I prefer to use the NFHS test to show why the leagues I work are sane. At my pregames, when I here that they want to use Fed based rules, I ask which ones. They always look at me like, yeah we know, they all suck except for the mercy and slide rules. We specify those and move on to real baseball.

The True Answers for the 2008 NFHS Test are 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100.

From what the guy who emailed me his test, the season has been in swing and the test closed for weeks. Maybe some of you don't have an end date for this test. Be prepared for JR to get on his soap box. How sad and lonely that life must be. Grow up.

You're right. No one has the right to pass judgment on anyone just because they are too lazy or incompetent to answer a FED rules test. Congratulations on your victory.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1