NCAA Test Questions

[UmpJM]

Guys,

This is the second year I've taken the NCAA exam. I registered and took it last Sunday & got my score. I was curious about which questions I'd missed. So, today I went and checked the new NCAA test site to see what I'd missed and what the correct answers were.

There are two questions that I can't make sense of the answers on and wondered if any of the NCAA umpires here could shed some light.

Here are the questions.

R1, R3, no outs. B4 attempts to bunt but pops the ball up. R1 is stealing on the pitch. R3 is not stealing. The bunted ball is near home plate. As the catcher moves out to catch the pop up, the batter unintentionally bumps the catcher causing him to drop the pop up. The umpire believes the catcher would have had a chance to double-up R1 if he had not dropped the ball.
a. Since there was no intent by B4, the play stands.
b. Call B4 out, call R3 out and return R1 to first base.
c. Call the batter out and return all runners to the base they occupied at the TOP.
d. Call the batter out and call R1 out for the interference.

The NCAA site says "b" is the correct answer and cites 8-5e, 7-11f Penalty in the "explanation" for why "b" is correct.

I had answered "a" based on the following from the Exceptions listed in 7-11-f:

(4) If a batter/runner and a catcher fielding the ball make contact, no call shall be made unless either player attempts to alter the play.

The other one was:

R1 and R3, one out. R1 breaks early toward second base. The pitcher turns inside and throws to second in one motion. R1 is out on the throw as R1 slows down when he hears U3's call of "balk." U1 comes to U3 and asks, "What was the balk?" U1 is informed by the calling umpire that the balk is for throwing to an unoccupied base. U1 alerts the calling umpire that R1 had broken for second before the pitcher had started his inside move and prior to the pitcher's throw to second base.
a. This error in interpretation cannot be changed, the call will stand.
b. Change the call and give no explanation.
c. Change the call and return R1 to first base and R3 back to third and explain to the coach how the crew had misinterpreted the situation.
d. Tell your partner to mind his own business.

The NCAA test site gives "a" as the correct answer and cites "Appendix E" in the explanation.

Now I had actually read Appendix E. Given what Appendix E actually says, I answered "c". My thinking was that this situation is clearly a "rules misapplication" sitch rather than a "judgement" sitch. The vast majority of Appendix E deals with judgement calls and when it would or would not be appropriate for a calling umpire to get input from other members of the crew or a non-calling umpire to offer unsolicited input to the calling umpire. The only thing I found in Appendix E that touched on the test question was:

...however, if there is a misinterpretation of a rule, it should be brought to the attention of the umpire-in-chief.

And, of course, there is the whole first paragraph which emphasizes "getting the call right":

The first requisite of an umpire is to ultimately get all decisions correct. Umpire pride is important, but never as important as getting the play right. It is the philosophy of the NCAA that umpires always seek to get the call right. This may involve the reversal of a previously rendered decision. However, the correct decision—not the pride of any umpire—must prevail.

So, in this case, we've got a blatant rules misapplication which is easily correctable. But, the NCAA answer seems to suggest that even though it is an "error in interpretation" it CANNOT be changed. Presumably, the NCAA feels it is preferable to replay a game under protest than to just get it right at the time???

If any of you NCAA experienced umpires can shed some light, I'd appreciate it.

JM

[GerryB]

I'll take a shot here at number 2. U1's statement that the runner had broken before the pitcher had started his move is HIS judgment. U3, in calling the balk as throwing to an unoccupied base, presumably knows the rule and HIS judgment was that the runner had not left before the move started (that's why he made the call). So it can't be overturned, via Appendix E. It's only a gross misapplication of the rules if U1's judgment of the play is accepted as fact and U3 did not take that into account in his call because he was looking at his counter...which NCAA guys by definition don't do

Yes, apparent contradiction in case one, but it looks like they want 8-5e to take precedence due to the double play. 8-5e:
"If the batter-runner interferes intentionally or unintentionally with a
batted ball or the fielder fielding it, with a double play likely, the batter-
runner and the runner closest to home plate are out, regardless of where
the double-play attempt may have taken place; "

[UmpTTS43]

It seems that there are more questions this year where umpire's judgement come into play. When judgement is involved, it is hard to quantify and determine what the correct answer should be.

That being said, although I did not take the test online, I have reviewed the questions and answers and had similar thoughts.

In your first question:

R1, R3, no outs. B4 attempts to bunt but pops the ball up. R1 is stealing on the pitch. R3 is not stealing. The bunted ball is near home plate. As the catcher moves out to catch the pop up, the batter unintentionally bumps the catcher causing him to drop the pop up. The umpire believes the catcher would have had a chance to double-up R1 if he had not dropped the ball.
a. Since there was no intent by B4, the play stands.
b. Call B4 out, call R3 out and return R1 to first base.
c. Call the batter out and return all runners to the base they occupied at the TOP.
d. Call the batter out and call R1 out for the interference.

We can only assume, by the answer they provided, that F2 was in a position to field the pop-up. Since F2 was in a position to make a play on the batted ball, 7-11f(4) does not apply since that rule addresses a batted ball and both the BR and F2 break from their positions, BR to first and F2 chasing after the batted ball, and contact is made with no intent to interfere/obstruct by either player. I don't know why that rule was referenced for this particular question.

8-5e does apply since F2 is in a position to field the ball. Unlike OBR where there has to be a willful and deliberate intent to interference in order to get more than one out, NCAA says that any interference, intentional or not, causes 2 outs when there is a possibility of a double play (umpire judgement). Since the BR unintentionally interfered with F2 making a play on the ball and prevented a possible double play, the BR and the runner closest to home is out.

On your second question:

R1 and R3, one out. R1 breaks early toward second base. The pitcher turns inside and throws to second in one motion. R1 is out on the throw as R1 slows down when he hears U3's call of "balk." U1 comes to U3 and asks, "What was the balk?" U1 is informed by the calling umpire that the balk is for throwing to an unoccupied base. U1 alerts the calling umpire that R1 had broken for second before the pitcher had started his inside move and prior to the pitcher's throw to second base.
a. This error in interpretation cannot be changed, the call will stand.
b. Change the call and give no explanation.
c. Change the call and return R1 to first base and R3 back to third and explain to the coach how the crew had misinterpreted the situation.
d. Tell your partner to mind his own business.

Once an umpire calls a balk, that call cannot (should not) be undone. It is wrong to suggest that an error in interpretation cannot be changed. That can lead to a protest and that would not be good. If a balk is called erroneously, someone has to step up and provide a reasonable judgement excuse that cannot be protested. This was a very poor question and answer.

The question/answer that I found odd was this:

R1 R3, 1 Out. R1 breaks on the pitch. B1 grounds to F6. F6 throws home and retires R3. Seeing R1 head for third, F2 throws there to retire R1 on a very close play. F4's obstruction of R1 between first and second base was recognized and call by U3 at the appropriate time.

a. Award R1 home
b. Award R1 third
c. Return R1 to second
d. R1 is out

Answer: [d] 8-3e(1) Penalty

Again a test question on a judgement play. Since they said R1 was out on "a very close play," and that R1 was obstructed and it was recognized, wouldn't it be appropriate to protect R1 to third since he may have made third had the obstruction not occured, especially on a "very close play?"

Tests such as these should not test you on situations where judgement come into play. I hope this is a trend that will quickly go away.

Don't know if this helped JM, but I got to rant a bit.

JMTC

[johnnyg08]

I guess I wouldn't have protected R1 to third base
the close play part of the question
is irrelevant. The runner advances at his own peril.
That being said...it's tough to get in the
head of the author of the test.
When you take these tests try to not
read into the questions and you'll be okay
not saying I wouldn't misread some
but when we start to read into more than
what's written the questions are harder.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I guess I wouldn't have protected R1 to third base
the close play part of the question
is irrelevant. The runner advances at his own peril.
That being said...it's tough to get in the
head of the author of the test.
When you take these tests try to not
read into the questions and you'll be okay
not saying I wouldn't misread some
but when we start to read into more than
what's written the questions are harder.

I understand what you are saying, however, the closeness of a play is relevant. When obstruction occurs on a runner without a play being made on him, you can protect him to the base that he would have attained, in your judgement, had the obstrucion not occured. If R1 would have been out by 10+ feet, I might not have protected him to third, but since it was a "very close play," I might have. That is why there is no definitive answer to questions such as these and you cannot quantify an answer in black and white. As long as we have the understanding of the rules, along with the intent, I'm sure we will be able to correctly apply them during the course of the game.

[TussAgee11]

JM - on your first play, i suppose they want F2 protected. Just the way the question is worded makes me wonder where the contact happened.

"The bunted ball is near home plate. As the catcher moves out to catch the pop up, the batter unintentionally bumps the catcher causing him to drop the pop up. The umpire believes the catcher would have had a chance to double-up R1 if he had not dropped the ball."

If the contact is occuring "as the catcher moves out" I don't see how we have anything and I agree with your answer choice. But then we are led to believe that F2 had settled under the ball, because the bump caused him to drop the ball. If he had settled under it, I suppose 8.05e is the only thing you have left to enforce. Double play.

Its really a poorly written question that does not accurately describe the situation where 8.05e comes into play. As I read it, I had (a) as well. As TTS said, I suppose the author wanted F2 settled under the ball ready to make the play. He did a poor job of letting the test-taker know that.

----

Per your 2nd problem, (a) would be a much better choice if it read "error in judgement" since that is what it is getting at. I suppose by the answer they give, In the judgement of U3 the move was made before the break for 2nd.

In practicality, if I was U1, I'd ask U3

"why did you have a balk?"
"throw to an unoccupied base"
"did you have the move before the break to 2nd?"
"yes".

Ok then, (a) would be the correct answer. Certainly can't reverse that.

If he said something like... "he was stealing 2nd?" or "doesn't matter", then we would use (c). That is either an umpire without all the information or a clear rules misapplication.

Of course, the test question doesn't give you why the calling umpire called a balk, if he had all the info, and if he properly applied the rules to what his judgement was, so its another poorly written question.

----

All in all, I wouldn't sweat it much JM. I don't think you missed a beat on either of your answers.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I guess I wouldn't have protected R1 to third base
the close play part of the question
is irrelevant. The runner advances at his own peril.

Not if I protect him to 3rd once the OBS occurs.

Now, I may change my mind a bit once I see the closeness of the play, but he is certainly getting 3rd on this play as described. If he tripped after 2nd, or stopped and yelled about the OBS before going to 3rd, or didn't run hard into 3rd, maybe we have an out. But the question doesn't describe any of that action, so, protect him to 3rd.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I understand what you are saying, however, the closeness of a play is relevant. When obstruction occurs on a runner without a play being made on him, you can protect him to the base that he would have attained, in your judgement, had the obstrucion not occured. If R1 would have been out by 10+ feet, I might not have protected him to third, but since it was a "very close play," I might have. That is why there is no definitive answer to questions such as these and you cannot quantify an answer in black and white. As long as we have the understanding of the rules, along with the intent, I'm sure we will be able to correctly apply them during the course of the game.

Yes, I can see that side too. Since we can't see the play, we have two different sides that are both possibly correct. If we could see R1 going into 2B, then see what he does before running to 3B...we'd have our answer...I'm still thinking that in this play...the "very close" piece is irrelevant probably based on what the author saw in his mind when writing the question...

[mbyron]

John,

Tell 'em to fix the answers.

[dash_riprock]

7-11-f Exception (4) is the classic "tangle/untangle" where the B/R is heading to 1st base and the catcher is pursuing a batted ball out in front of the plate (i.e., both players are doing what they are supposed to be doing). Unless there is an intentional act, like a shove, it's nothing.

In the NCAA question, the batter's unintentional bump "causes the catcher to drop the pop-up." You have to have INT on that. A bump that causes a momentary delay in his fielding of the ball is treated differently than contact that causes him to drop a fly ball. I know that is not exactly what the rule says, but that's the way I was taught to enforce it.

On the balk question, NCAA is treating the balk call as judgment rather than a misapplication of a rule. In Appendix E, NCAA gives one example of a balk call that can be changed - when the calling umpire did not realize F1 had stepped off. My guess is, if that is not the specific reason for undoing the balk call, then the NCAA doesn't want it changed. I can see your problem with this one too.

Here's one from the written test given by my NCAA chapter:

A batter's legal position in the box is determined by:

a) Both feet are entirely within (not touching) the lines of the batters box

b) Both feet are entirely within the outer edge of the batters box lines

c) The batter is no closer than 6" from the inner edge of the plate

d) b & c

How would you answer that one?

[LittleLeagueBob]

John -

I hope it's ok to piggy-back on your topic - I would appreciate some collective wisdom on the following one that I missed:

R1, the batter bunts down the first base line. The ball has rolled into foul territory but hits a clump of dirt in the running lane and changes direction and rolls back into fair territory. The BR inadvertently kicks it.

a. BR is out only if the ball is fair when he kicks it.
b. BR is out.
c. Foul ball.
d. R1 is out.

Explanation
7-11-o

I put a, answer is b

Here is 7-11-o:

The batter is out when:
o. After hitting or bunting a foul ball, the batter-runner intentionally
deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base;
or intentionally interferes with the catcher’s attempt to field a third
strike. The ball is dead and no runner may advance;

BTW - I missed your 2nd Q as well...they've spent so much time on the "getting the call right" mentality that even tho this isn't one of the 7 scenarios listed in Appendix E, I thought they were trying to give us other examples where they prefer us to give unsolicited "help".

Thanks - Bob

[LittleLeagueBob]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Here's one from the written test given by my NCAA chapter:

A batter's legal position in the box is determined by:

a) Both feet are entirely within (not touching) the lines of the batters box

b) Both feet are entirely within the outer edge of the batters box lines

c) The batter is no closer than 6" from the inner edge of the plate

d) b & c

How would you answer that one?

Dash -

If they're trying to be cute, b is the only correct answer because the batter could be 10 feet from the plate and satisfy c, but obviously not be legal...

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by LittleLeagueBob

John -

I hope it's ok to piggy-back on your topic - I would appreciate some collective wisdom on the following one that I missed:

R1, the batter bunts down the first base line. The ball has rolled into foul territory but hits a clump of dirt in the running lane and changes direction and rolls back into fair territory. The BR inadvertently kicks it.

a. BR is out only if the ball is fair when he kicks it.
b. BR is out.
c. Foul ball.
d. R1 is out.

Explanation
7-11-o

I put a, answer is b

Here is 7-11-o:

The batter is out when:
o. After hitting or bunting a foul ball, the batter-runner intentionally
deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base;
or intentionally interferes with the catcher’s attempt to field a third
strike. The ball is dead and no runner may advance;

BTW - I missed your 2nd Q as well...they've spent so much time on the "getting the call right" mentality that even tho this isn't one of the 7 scenarios listed in Appendix E, I thought they were trying to give us other examples where they prefer us to give unsolicited "help".

Thanks - Bob

you put a... but if you read the question, it said the ball rolled back into fair territory..so B would be the correct answer....

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by LittleLeagueBob

Dash -

If they're trying to be cute, b is the only correct answer because the batter could be 10 feet from the plate and satisfy c, but obviously not be legal...

What about d (b & c)? I know c is redundant, but 7-1-e A.R. says "...If the line of the batter's box has been erased, the umpire shall require that upon the batter's initial stance, both feet are no closer than 6 inches from the inside edge of home plate."

B and D are both correct, but one of them will be graded as incorrect (I'll find out which in about a week). It just ain't fair.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by LittleLeagueBob

R1, the batter bunts down the first base line. The ball has rolled into foul territory but hits a clump of dirt in the running lane and changes direction and rolls back into fair territory. The BR inadvertently kicks it.

a. BR is out only if the ball is fair when he kicks it.
b. BR is out.
c. Foul ball.
d. R1 is out.

Additionally, BR would be out if he inadvertantly kicked the ball if it was in foul territory and the ball had an opportunity to go fair.