NFHS Baseball Test Part 1
 

Our high school association went through the test last night. In my 30 years of high school officiating, I have never seen such a poorly written exam. After years of true/false question, ambiguous multiple choice questions were the norm.

I think they should just try to see if you know the rules, not spend the whole time seeing if they can trick you by word play.

OTOH, if they can trick you maybe you don't know all the little ins and outs as well as one should.

My state threw 5 of the questions out. 1 of the questions was, quite simply, a train wreck, but the other four tested what I consider to be important concepts, such as:

-- F1 can legally throw to F6 in position on a pickoff play to second
-- The proper award for obstruction on a pickoff play at first where F3 obstructs is second base
-- A pitcher can legally turn his shoulders in the set position prior to coming set
-- I can't think of the fourth one

We've dumbed down the process of teaching and requiring people to know things so much that the process of taking the test is relatively worthless for experienced umpires, IMO.

I found it asinine that you have to answer a question wrong in order to get it right! The answer key was such a mess that we made up an answer sheet to guide people through the wrong answers correctly. The FED really blew this year's test right out the window!

Which ones? Send me a PM if you'd like. I'm curious -- I have the test here and really didn't see a whole lot wrong with it, with the exception of the FED screwing up its own definition of runner (versus "retired runner") in one of the answers.

In my opinion, I really like this test. It forces you to look up the rules, especially on the multiple choice ones. I saw several officials think they could just take the test and do well, and that's simply not the case...the test is supposed to get you to open the book which is probably a good thing. If you looked up each question in the book, the test wasn't that hard. Time consuming...yes. Worth the time, every second.

I like the general format of the test.

Two questions that had the wrong answers, IMO:

Who can agree to shorten a game that's 22-1 in the third inning?

What does BU use to determine a checked swing?

I can't find these two on the NFHS test. Can anyone help me with numbers?

I don't remember those two either.

I'm getting the impression that different states had different "formats" for this years's test.

In Illinois, there was a "pool" of 54 (multiple choice, single answer) questions that you could download as a PDF prior to officially taking the test.

Then, when you took the test online, you were presented with a random subset of 25 of those questions for your "official" test.

On the Illinois test, the 2 questions Bob J. referenced were #22 and #52.

and

JM

That's correct. IL is not a FED state anymore (at least for testing purposes), so we don't use the FED test. I got confused over which test the questions were on (I saw them both).

I agree with Rich on the FED test.

Sorry for the confusion.

Let me guess, for 52 the "correct" answer was D?

Welpe,

Give that man a cigar!

That was, in fact, the "test correct" answer. :rolleyes:

On the field, of course, one would go with "C".

JM

Figures. Where did they get that from? So perpetuates the myth. :rolleyes:

The rule book, actually.

10-1-4a "As an aid in deciding, the umpire may note whether the swing carried the barrel of the bat past the body of the batter, but [the] final decision is based on whether the batter actually struck at the ball."

For Fed, D is definitely the right answer.

Exactly my point, C is the correct answer so where did they get D may be used as "an aid" is not the same thing as "Base his decision as to whether the swing carried the barrel of the bat past the body of the batter."

John,
I had this question brought up at one of my clinics and again by ODJ. The correct answer is D. It is clearly stated as such in the 2011 Preseason Guide sent along with the Rule and Case books.

On page 5 of that supplement:

On the field, you would use both criteria. For less experienced umpires this will be easier to entertain. Some of us grew up with the 'front edge/broke his wrists' rules of thumb.

The NFHS wants us to read everything and they took that question straight from there. Illinois uses questions from the Michigan test currently but next year we will utilize a unique one.

The NCAA does the same thing. A number of questions came directly from the NCAA 2011 Baseball supplement.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Mike

Sorry, fixed my post but not fast enough. D is definitely correct as, by rule, you are to consider A.

Mike, the funny thing is that the first sentence you quote from the supplement seems to match answer C perfectly.

Incidently, I had heard the "bat crosses over the plate" as criteria by the casual fan or coach but once I started umpiring, I was trained to NOT use those things as criteria but to simply judge, did the batter offer or did he not?

Admittedly, I did not realize the Fed had weakly codified the myth.

I admit to being a little confused, I should have assumed you meant D but it fit my point better the other way. ;)

Eastshire,

Would you consider "A" determinate on whether the batter "offered" on a bunt? :rolleyes:

JM

Don't roll your eyes at me; I didn't write the rule. I agree that it's not a good way to look at it; but when you take a Fed rules test, you answer according to Fed rules.

Do I in practice care about the end of the barrel? No. That doesn't change how I answer the test question though.

Pull out the supplement and read what they write about a bunt attempt.

It is important to note that they say touch and not strike at the pitch when considering a bunt.

Basketball Exam?
 

Should? Could? Would? Shall? Might? May?

Blech!

My attitude is this: I don't care as long as I can score above the minimum required to stay at my current umpiring level. I have to send in 7 NFHS exams yearly and I just got Part II in the mail today, so I have yet another exam to complete and send in.

My curiosity was satisfied when the two questions Bob mentioned were posted. And as usual, I agree with Bob.

The important parts of 10-1-4a are in bold.

No change in rule or practice.

And clearly C is the correct answer regardless of the spin the IHSA wishes to put on it. The bat coming in front of the plate is a "may" and therefore A is too strongly worded. Not that I care. Even if I had this question and the NFHS marked it wrong, it just drops me from a 100 to a 99 and life goes on.

Yes, their is shallow genius behind the ingrained madness. :D

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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 :eek: 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.

I do not think that word means what you think it means (Part I)
 

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

I do not think that word means what you think it means (Part II)
 

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.

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

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

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

MrUmpire,

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

JM

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?

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.

My example where A. might not be "correct"
 

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.

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.

biggravy,

Would you be willing to provide an example or two of the questions on the baseball test for which you couldn't find a direct cite?

JM

Yep. Soon as I get back home to my book. I will say that on most I "knew" the answer but not being able to find it directly bugged me.