NFHS Baseball Test Part 1

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

And clearly C is the correct answer regardless of the spin the IHSA wishes to put on it.

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.

[UmpJM]

Ultimately, it was the 10.1.3 case play language that persuaded me that "D" was the answer they were looking for on the test.

JM

[jicecone]

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 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!!!!!!!!!!

[MrUmpire]

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.

[Rich]

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.

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.

[yawetag]

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.

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

[MikeStrybel]

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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

I know how to handle a check swing without being told how to by the NFHS.

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

[Rich]

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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The arrogance of that response is misplaced.



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.

Mike

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Except I did.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Except I did.

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.

My guess is that you know why it was deleted.

I'd leave it at that.

[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.