Fed Test

anpump · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 10, 2003, 08:22am

I'm just curious to what all the difficulty is with the FED test for this year. (Excluding if English is not your native language that is)

I just took it yesterday and only missed one question on the entire test (closed book) I thought the writing was much better than softball tests that I had taken 5-6 years ago.

Maybe I over prepared (25 hours between classes, rule and casebooks) but most of the scores in my group where in the 80s with 4 people failing completely.

What do other first year umpires get for scores in your associations?

Tim C · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 10, 2003, 10:16am

First and second year umpires in our group are not allowed to take the certification test.

ONLY varsity level umpires are allowed to take the test.

Did you take the 100 question exam and was it a protered closed book version?

Tee

anpump · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 10, 2003, 10:54am

Yes, the test was proctored and closed book. It was Part 1 of the 2003 exam which our association requires all new umpires to take.

If you don't take the test to umpire NFHS games, how do you certify first and 2nd year umpires to officate games played under that ruleset?

Tim C · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 10, 2003, 11:33am

In our association Test #1 is considered a "practice test" and it is NOTHING like the 100 question test. They are quite different. We have the Test #1 as a take home study guide.

First and Second year umpires cannot qualify to work varsity games. In Oregon only people that pass Test #2 (a 75% score is required) are allowed to work varsity baseball games (and you must score 90% to qualify to work playoff games as assigned by the OSAA).

The first and second year umpires are required to attend Training meetings and those are held concurrent to the general meetings. The do not attend a regular member meeting until the LAST meeting of the year when we vote for our next year's officers.

They "learn" the rules over the year . . . each one of them has a mentor . . . they are tested each week on a single section of the rules, that is used "in-house" only.

Our association is known thoughout Oregon as one of the leading trainers of new officials. By the time an umpire can take Test #2 by our by-laws they have a pretty good understanding of the FEDlandia way to rule the game.

Tee

4 Sport Official · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 10, 2003, 06:38pm

Quote:

Originally posted by anpump
I just took it yesterday and only missed one question on the entire test (closed book

Did you miss the only one that I missed (#80)? I have not been able to find any specific documentation for that one in the rule or case books, other that the blanket 8-4-2k. They only address a runner on base being touched by an infield fly. Frankly, I think it stinks.

2003 Fed test part I - Section T. - A runner is out when he:

80. With the shortstop behind him and in a position to catch the ball, is hit by a line drive while standing on second base.

According to the NF answer key, this is a true statement.

bob jenkins · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 08:57am

Quote:

Originally posted by 4 Sport Official

Quote:

Originally posted by anpump
I just took it yesterday and only missed one question on the entire test (closed book

Did you miss the only one that I missed (#80)? I have not been able to find any specific documentation for that one in the rule or case books, other that the blanket 8-4-2k. They only address a runner on base being touched by an infield fly. Frankly, I think it stinks.

2003 Fed test part I - Section T. - A runner is out when he:

80. With the shortstop behind him and in a position to catch the ball, is hit by a line drive while standing on second base.

According to the NF answer key, this is a true statement.

Why does this question "stink?" It's testing the myth that "the base is a safe haven."

The rule is (at least in the instances where we're not trying to determine the meaning of (various forms of) the word "passes") clear -- a runner is out when hit by a batted ball. Exception: If the runner is on the base AND it's an infield fly, the runner is not out.

greymule · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 09:58am

Question 80 derives directly from 2002 case play situation #13 published last year on Fed's web site. The ruling caused a lot of debate here, not because it said that a runner who is hit by a batted ball is out, but because, by saying "with the shortstop . . . in position to make a catch," it implied that if the fielder were not in a position to make a play, the runner would not be out. In fact, the rest of the ruling said, "If no infielder had been in a position to make a play, the ball would remain live, provided the runner did not intentionally allow himself to be hit by the batted ball."

In other words, an undeflected ball, without passing a fielder, hits a runner, and the runner is not out! This seemed a blithe contradiction to a rule that everybody knows. I don't know that we ever resolved the controversy.

The thread is on this site: I began it on March 5, 2002, and it is entitled "NFHS Situation 13."

[Edited by greymule on Mar 11th, 2003 at 09:04 AM]

Rich · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 09:59am

It is an excellent question. The only time a base is a "safe haven" is on an infield fly when the touching of the ball is not intentional.

A line drive is not an infield fly, by definition, regardless of the baserunner situation.

Rich

DownTownTonyBrown · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 11:11am

And obviously the runner is not out because the batter-runner is out (infield fly) and there is no reason for the runner to vacate his base - he is not being forced to leave by the advancement of the batter-runner. Makes perfect sense to me.

As for the other question (line drive)... Once the ball is hit, the defense must be given opportunity to field the ball and make their own plays/outs. This is why the offense is called out for interference (runner hit by ball) when the defense has an opportunity to make a play. And, if the defense has no possibility of making a play (defense not in position), then the runner is not out and play continues.

So... R2 (on 2nd), hit by line drive with the shortstop in position to make a play/out (perhaps F6 could make more than one out)... Dead Ball, R2 is out even if standing on the base, no one advances, next batter.

I have found it extremely valuable to learn the reason why a rule is enforced rather than memorizing the letter of the law and trying to make reasonable enforcements. Knowing "Why" leads to much less confusion and, in the end, proper application of the rules. JMHO

Rich · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 12:18pm

The runner is not required to vacate the base when it is R2 only (not an IFR situation) but if he's hit with a popup, he's out.

The reason for the IFR safe haven, I suspect, has more to do with the batter already being out on the IF.

Rich

Whowefoolin · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 12:35pm

#33. A coach, legally in the coach's box, prevents the third baseman from catching a foul fly ball...the batter is out. T/F?

I put False. The answer was True. They quote 7-4-1F. So there is no incidental contact? Any contact with a coach in the box is interference? Even if he is trying to get out of the way? Hmmmm. I need to look closer at these FED rules.

greymule · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 01:02pm

And, if the defense has no possibility of making a play (defense not in position), then the runner is not out and play continues.

So... R2 (on 2nd), hit by line drive with the shortstop in position to make a play/out (perhaps F6 could make more than one out)... Dead Ball, R2 is out even if standing on the base, no one advances, next batter.

Is the Fed rule now that if a runner is hit with a line drive, either on or off the base, he is not out unless a fielder was in position to make a play?

Abel on 2B. F6 shading toward the hole, F4 deep and cheating toward 1B a little. Baker hits a smash that neither F6 nor F4 has any chance to field. The ball hits Abel (whether on or off 2B) and continues to center field. Is anybody claiming that, because nobody was in position to field the ball, Abel is not out and the ball is live?

greymule · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Whowefoolin
#33. A coach, legally in the coach's box, prevents the third baseman from catching a foul fly ball...the batter is out. T/F?

I put False. The answer was True. They quote 7-4-1F. So there is no incidental contact? Any contact with a coach in the box is interference? Even if he is trying to get out of the way? Hmmmm. I need to look closer at these FED rules.

The coach "must vacate." It's interference even if he's trying to get out of the way. This is not just a Fed rule. It applies in all baseball and softball.

DownTownTonyBrown · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 11, 2003, 03:04pm

Perhaps I oversimplified. The Fed rule states, 5-1-1f:

Ball becomes dead immediately when:
1. a fair batted ball touches a runner or an umpire before touching any fielder and before passing any fielder other than the pitcher.
2. touches a runner after passing through or by an infielder and another infielder could have made a play on the ball.

Admittedly, Grey, I would call a dead ball and the runner out on the play you have layed out. Assuredly the defensive coach is going to be screaming for an out but at the same time I'm going to be wrestling with the idea that the defense could NOT have made a play, coach.

However, the play you have layed out meets the requirements of the first part of the rule, 5-1-1-f1. Runner must be called out.

BUT... examining the Table in Chapter 5 item #13: this statement of the rule combines the two parts of 5-1-1f and doesn't state them as specifically.

#13. Fair ball touches runner before it touches an infielder or after it passes any fielder except the pitcher and another fielder has a play... hit runner is out...

Rule 8-4-2k is very similar: Any runner is out when he: is contacted by a fair batted ball before it touches an infielder, or after it passes any infielder, except the pitcher, and the umpire is convinced that another infielder has a play.

These two simplified statements of 5-1-1f could readily be interpretted to mean the defense must be capable of making a play and that the offense must have interfered with the defense's opportunity.

So for the sake of this line of discussion (which I am going to recant from in the end), I feel it really comes down to the definition of passes or "passing."

Does 'passes' mean that the ball is at a distance farther from home plate than the infielder? Or does 'passes' mean the ball is beyond a location that the infielder could have made a play?

In your play, Grey, the ball is likely not beyond the distance of the shortstop or the second baseman (distance from home plate). However the ball is not in a location where either infielder could make a play. Should the ball remain live? With the words of item #13 and 8-4-2k I think I could make a case that the ball should stay live. However with the added direction of 5-1-1f...

Personnally, I'm going to call this dead and R2 out. I don't think of it as a credit to great defense but rather as a runner's error.

Anyone else got comments?