I don't disagree that the test was maddening.

I couldn't possibly care. I haven't read any of the supplemental tripe they've put out in years, including their manual and anything other than the rule and case book. I know how to handle a check swing without being told how to by the NFHS.

Oh, and enjoy your season, too. Mine will probably not start this weekend.

I used to look forward to spending time on the tests and looking up the rules each year and getting my usual 95-100.

Now in La. this year we took a web-based exam. Sixty questions in 60 minutes, which didn't seem bad at first except when most of the questions took 30 seconds to read and figure out what the heck the question was. Then 3-4 answers that were sometimes as long as the questions.

The review:p:p:p W E L L, that gave us the questions we were asked, sometimes the correct answer (sometimes) and if you were lucky you could actually have the ability to see the entire question asked.

Anyone with a copy of this years test,... I would welcome the email. Yes I am 9 games into the season but always looking to stay on top of this.

End of story: I got an 82 and the test requirement was thrown out for this year but, we did have to buy new hats, shirts and jackets (if you wanted to do any playoffs) and you would never guess that only one supplier had them, coincidentally of course.

Enjoy your season gentlemen!!!!!!!!!!

It appears that FED has brought us to the point that one can either umpire by the rules or by the test. I'll stick with 10-1-4A.

Does anyone have a PDF of the Supplement? I forgot to grab one at my rules meeting.

Referee Magazine publishes the piece directly and they doalmost nothing for free. I found this link:
https://www.pubservice.com/RIStore/P...st.aspx?WG=317

Good luck.

I'll just email my rules interpreter. At the least, he can mail me a copy.

The arrogance of that response is misplaced. [/QUOTE]

Given your error, maybe it is time to read and learn from the supplements. It's okay to be wrong occassionally. All of us are and most of us know that we only get better through continuing education. The recent NCAA Chicago meeting reminded me of why studying the supplements is critical. The check swing mechanic was clarified this year. Further, a guy who worked in Omaha last year confessed that the new OBS rule was only made clear through the supplements - the discussion and debate among fellow umpires only muddied the matter. His humility and willingness to help others impressed me. Veterans should use the resources of this board to assist, not belittle fellow umpires. I know more than I did, but not all that I want.

I don't know you but have heard that you are a decent umpire. I urge you to use some of that skillset to help others learn the right way to do things here. It does none of us any good to have rookies do things incorrectly.

I wish you well, Rich. The snow will be gone soon and diamonds ready for us to work. Soon enough we'll both be longing for cooler weather. I mean it when I say, have a safe and enjoyable season.

Mike

I think you are trying to make the answer fit the question, myself. The bat in front of the batter MAY be used to help the umpire. The determining factor is and has always been whether the umpire thinks the batter made an attempt to strike at the ball. The answer *should* clearly be C. A is too strongly worded and once you put the "should" next to the words in A, it's just too much.

You know, I think you mean well, so I'll just throw you on the ignore list and that will be that. Gotta say, I am really tired of your post patterns since you've come here which are:

"Blast, blast, blast, blast, blast.

Have a nice season."

You seem to be on a high horse and I hope you enjoy your position there.

Have a nice season. Bye.

Sigh. I guess that acting professionally and being courteous to my fellow umpires is considered 'being on my high horse'.

You made the mistake of thinking that your thousands of posts puts you in a position of authority and respect here. It does not. You compunded the error by insisting that you don't need to learn contemporary mechanics because you know it all. If anyone is acting like a prima dona it is you.

To address the topic, the Fed wants umpires to consider two things when calling a check swing strike - did the batter attempt to strike at the pitch and did the barrel of the bat pass distinct landmarks. It is not a trick question. It was placed on this year's test because it was a point of emphasis to which six columns in the preseason guide addressed.

You answered incorrectly and are too proud to admit that you blew it. Sad. Ignore me if you will. I truly feel bad for the coaches who encounter your misplaced arrogance.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Except I did. :confused:

Where the heck did that post of mine go off to?

Bob, please check the Officiating.com servers for intermittent data write and archive errors. :p

[QUOTE=MikeStrybel;743277To address the topic, the Fed wants umpires to consider two things when calling a check swing strike - did the batter attempt to strike at the pitch and did the barrel of the bat pass distinct landmarks. It is not a trick question. It was placed on this year's test because it was a point of emphasis to which six columns in the preseason guide addressed.[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that both must be true, or only one of the two?

Going by the rule, you only have to have one and that is whether or not the batter struck at the ball. The location of the barrel in relation of the body "may" be used to help determine this.

From what I am gathering from Mike's post, it sounds like they are intending that both criteria must be met at least according to their preseason guide. But then the Fed has never issued a publication such as a POE or preseason guide that contradicts the rule, right? ;)

My guess is that you know why it was deleted.

I'd leave it at that.

The NFHS still wants plate umpires to cover third on bases empty triples and have the plate umpire run over the mound to cover the plate. How can I possibly take any of their stuff seriously when they can't fix something that elementary? I find it amusing that Mike talks about "modern mechanics" and yet the NFHS mechanics are about as archaic as they come.

The only supplemental materials I keep with me are the BRD, the Evans, the PBUC manual, and the J/R manual. The BRD usually handles (quite well) all the gratuitous differences between the NFHS and normal baseball rules and Evans typically covers everything the PBUC manual does not.

The NCAA has used the bat in front of the body criteria for years now (unless they've changed -- I decided spending 10+ hours of my day umpiring 18 innings for $185 was a poor use of my weekends). It's merely a criteria that gets us back to the rulebook language of "did he make an attempt." I think I can handle that without being told I have to look for a bat crossing the body. I guess that's arrogance. Sigh.