NFHS Baseball Test Part 1

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

I am curious to know when citing rules, or clarifications of rules, whether or not you cite these unofficial references to HS managers.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

The NCAA changed the checked swing mechanic this year. Fed saw their efforts and followed suit. The hands in front of the body mechanic is...how shal we put it...archaic.

In Illinois, we don't teach that the PU handles 3B when bases are empty. We utilize a PowerPoint presentation and make it available to all IHSA officials to reinforce proper, contemporary mechanics. For what it's worth though, I have no problem covering 3B on a shot down the right field line or a trouble ball when my BU is going out to cover them. I suggest that most other umpires are willing to do the same. Then again, I follow current mechanic guidelines.

If the question regarding the check swing was not important, why did the Fed spend two pages covering it in the current supplement? I would love to be the evaluator when I overhear an umpire say, "Strike - his hands were in front of his body."

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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

Andrew, these are the current guidelines for helping us determine whether a batter has struck at the pitch or not. There are not two criteria. we judge on whether an attempt to strike the pitch was made and we utilize a couple of landmarks to assist us in that determination.

One of the reasons why this is being addressed is that the NCAA took the lead. NCAA 2-18 defines it now as a half swing, which equates to a full strike. It shouldn't be long before Fed adopts the new wording.

Before I came back to the States, I worked with a number of umpires who would say, "Don't ask me for help if I am in the inside of the diamond." They claimed coaches would whine that they couldn't see the angle. Fed now makes it easier to sell. As Jim Evans likes to say, ask for help...they won't believe the call anyway.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

In Illinois, we don't teach that the PU handles 3B when bases are empty.

I can understand the FED wanting a defined mechanic, it is so very corporate of them. I work with umpires in the EU countries where there is a lot of young-old partners and a shortage of officials. My opinion is, and remains after many years, this should be left to the umpires in their pregame. There are many umpires, perhaps some on this forum who couldn't make it from A to C on an overthrow past F1 to cover third.

One of the things I suggest to relieve this problem is to have BU start in B.

Mechanics are only as good as the individual health and mobility of the officials anyway.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The NCAA changed the checked swing mechanic this year. Fed saw their efforts and followed suit. The hands in front of the body mechanic is...how shal we put it...archaic.

You seem to be using "mechanic" to refer to the motion that a player makes. That is not the usual meaning, in my experience.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

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.

I do not have a deep knowledge of Fed rules, so I'm basing this on the discussion at hand and my understanding of the meaning of "both".

But here's my problem with the question. I can imagine some circumstances where the barrel of the bat crosses the batter's body that I would not judge a strike. I can't think of any circumstances where the batter struck at the ball that I wouldn't judge, well, a strike. So, A and C are not both equally correct.

Judging purely from the outside, I can see what Fed was trying to do, but this is a horribly worded question. Some folks with thousands of posts on this forum, that I, at least, have some respect for, see the same flaw.

[MikeStrybel]

The hands in front of the body 'definition' sound any better?

I urge you to read the NFHS supplement. It cannot be spelled out any clearer. The cite the two things that umpires should use to consider if a batter struck at the ball. It is their words, not mine.

I have been around on this forum as long as many with thousands of posts. You can find a few of my posts from back in 2004. I write the same way as back then and sometimes make mistakes finding the proper word. I'm glad you pointed it out and will do my best to write clearer. Please don't think that living on multiple chat rooms makes you an authority. I prefer to earn my stripes in the field. While I would like to have all of my interactions be genial, ego gets in the way far too often here. I would never talk to a fellow official face to face the way some of the guys behave here - the internet provides safety. I write what I would say to another's face. That is how I will continue to post - as cordial as is deserved and with the intent to help.

If you are already working games, have a great season. If not, may they be enjoyable when they happen. Best of luck.

Mike

[ODJ]

FYI, the IHSA Part 1 test was "lifted" from Michigan, MHSAA. Two states have the answer as D.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ODJ

FYI, the IHSA Part 1 test was "lifted" from Michigan, MHSAA. Two states have the answer as D.

Any idea how many states have the answer that is supported by the rule?

[UmpJM]

MrUmpire,

What do you make of the 10.1.3 case play language as it pertains to the test question?

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

According to the 2011 NHFS Baseball supplement that is not the case. The IHSA does not publish that material, they just distribute it for us to read and learn. No spin required.

Enjoy your season.

From the much ballyhooed Supplement:

"The umpire's decision on a checked swing should be based entirely on his judgement as to whether or not the batter struck at the pitch."

What part of "entirely" is so difficult to understand?

[MikeStrybel]

None. When calling a strike on a batter when he checks his swing the Fed wants you to consider whether he struck at the ball. In order to determine whether he did, you must consider the two things mentioned - did the barrel pass the front edge of the plate or his front hip? If so, call the strike.

I can appreciate your passion for calling this a poorly worded question but it came almost verbatim from the supplement supllied by the test generating association. Accusing me of being the one who can't understand it is misplaced. I have no ownership of the question or definition. I merely provided the answer.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

None. When calling a strike on a batter when he checks his swing the Fed wants you to consider whether he struck at the ball. In order to determine whether he did, you must consider the two things mentioned - did the barrel pass the front edge of the plate or his front hip? If so, call the strike.

Since I promised there was one, at least in my opinion.

Situation. On a high, inside pitch, batter checks his swing (in the judgement of PU) and falls backwards to avoid the pitch. As he falls, the barrel of the bat passes in front of his hip and over the front edge of the plate.

I'm not a Fed umpire, so I don't know. Does their code require this be called a strike?

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

Since I promised there was one, at least in my opinion.

Situation. On a high, inside pitch, batter checks his swing (in the judgement of PU) and falls backwards to avoid the pitch. As he falls, the barrel of the bat passes in front of his hip and over the front edge of the plate.

I'm not a Fed umpire, so I don't know. Does their code require this be called a strike?

By definition, if he has checked his swing, he has checked his swing.

[biggravy]

I guess there are several different versions of the test circulating. My #52 is not the same as q52 being debated here. I'm in KS and we are mailed a paper copy of the questions, 1-100, and then type our answers into a page on the state site.

I too really enjoy taking the test and looking up every answer. This test was very poorly done, imo. Basketball this year I was able to find a direct citation in the rule book or case book for every single question. On this baseball test, there were about 10 questions that were worded in such a way there was no direct answer correlated in the book. Seemed like a very poorly done test.