NFHS Baseball Test Part 1

[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.

[yawetag]

[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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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?

[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.

[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

[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.