FED test
 

While I'm posting...:rolleyes:

The state is actually using the test scores to determine post season work (open book and you have to be over an 80) - not overly strict I know.

Anyway, a friend calls to go over some questions that he wasn't comfortable with. One stands out. It was on ejecting a pitcher for throwing close to a battter. 6-2-3 states (illegal act) Intentionally pitch close to a batter. Penalty: The pitcher shall be ejected if the act is judged to be intentional.

His question was: If a pitcher intentionally pitches close to a batter he shall be ejected. He said true b/c the question stated the intent. FED claims the answer is false. I don't get it. Yes, we have an option. When in doubt we can warn F1 first. So simply pitching close to a batter is not a "shall" be ejected. Again, the question stated it was intentional thus it is a "shall"

Can anyone explain how in the world this is False?

This should never happened in FED. Never. An ejection takes it out of the coaches hands and makes the umpire bear the brunt of what the coach should be taking care of.

Certainly, I wouldn't be afraid to eject, but is the pitcher willing to sit out a game because his coach told him to intentionally hit a batter?

Yeah, the answer to the question is probably true...but it's a dumb question to put on a test.

Typo or some confusion on what the question actually said.

No confusion on what the question actually said. We talked about it for 5 minutes, broke it down etc. We KNEW what the quesiton said.

I think the problem is that the infraction as stated in the rule book is "intentionally pitch close to a batter." Then there's the gobble-d-gook about intent and warnings etc in the penalty. If you take the 100,000 foot view - it says intentionally pitching close to a batter is illegal and you can do a couple of things if and when it happens. There is no shall until you get down to a closer vantage point.

The problem is that the rule should state that the illegal act is pitching close to a batter, since intent is left up to me...however the rule states "intentional" then the penalty states that "if we judge it intentional"...

long and short - we have options - and apparently we read the question too closely.

Sounds like he will get 99%. There always seems to be one or two questionable questions. Here in La. they threw the test out because there were so many ambigious questions and complaints. I believe not many passed either. Seems as though some tried to re-invent the testing procedure that Fed uses and it backfired. ???????

I just went through the test for the first time and I thought it was much better than prior years. There are a couple of problem questions but overall, I thought it was challenging and provocative. They even threw in a few joke answer choices. For example:

- secretly vow to never work either team again
- take a bench vote
- declare a do-over

I give it high marks.

In Illinois we are not using the FED-written test this year. The IHSA obtained a pre-written test from another state to use as their Part 1 test (which everyone takes) and the IHSA Baseball interpreters (7 of 'em) pooled their resources and wrote a Part 2 test (for those umpires seeking to qualify for and work post-season tournament play).
We're still using the FED rules and manuals, we're just not using their testing materials. As with any test, I'm sure there are a few poorly written questions and questions that test-takers will find fault with. But their OUR questions :D

JJ

I think it's gutsy, especially since you're still working off of the FED rules...it seems to make sense that you'd use their test. That being said, I think it's great that you have committed officials that are attempting to make a better test. IMO, there's never anything wrong with trying to do something better. Now, try to get them to be consistent with their R1,R2,R3 crud.

Those answers sound like what they took for the private schools. I didn't see any of those answers on the online test I took. Gotta agree, it is better, as a whole.

I don't think we use the NFHS Umpires Manual anymore.

Shhhh, don't tell Rich. ;)

Ouch, still using the manual huh? How does anybody move up after learning those mechanics?

You are within you right per rule to eject without warning if you judge the act to be intentional The times that this happens are often predictable. However, it is good umpire to warn both benches and eject on the next occassion. The fed answers are not always correct, live with that too. I can only imagine that fed wants to warn, or, the answer is wrong.