NFHS Baseball Test Part 1

[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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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?

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.

[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."

[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.

[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

[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