2018 USA Umpire Exam

[Andy]

I just took a quick look at the 2017 manual...two umpire system, in either game, there is no option for the base umpire with no runners on base.

FP starts on the line, SP starts behind F4.

I don't know if there was discussion about presenting an option at the council meeting, but I can check with some of my sources to see what I can find out.

There has been talk for the last few years about moving the SP base umpire back to the line with no runners on, but it has not been implemented. I also remember about 10 - 15 years ago, a former NUS member was advocating giving the FP base umpire the option to start behind F4 with no runners, but was never able to get much support.

[DaveASA/FED]

There was no change to the mechanics in this area.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Next one up for discussion:

41) In a Fast Pitch game, the pitcher reaches down and places her fingers/hand in the dirt around the pitching plate and does not wipe the fingers/hand off before bringing them in contact with the ball. U3 calls an illegal pitch and explains to the pitcher and their coach that it is illegal to
place a foreign substance on the ball. The offensive coach protests that this is a misapplication of the rule as dirt is not a foreign substance.
What is the proper ruling?
a. Dirt is a foreign substance, so the illegal pitch is upheld.
b. The pitcher is warned if they apply a foreign substance to the ball again they will be ejected.
c. The illegal pitch call is reversed, as dirt is not considered a foreign substance.
d. Both a. and b. are correct.

I know the answer to this question, but cannot find the specific reference in the rules book. It was addressed in the March, 2010 Rules & Clarifications.

Any tips?

[RKBUmp]

It's not addressed in the rule book because dirt is not a foreign substance to the ball. I believe that is what the clarification points out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

It's not addressed in the rule book because dirt is not a foreign substance to the ball. I believe that is what the clarification points out.

You ever seen a ball manufactured with dirt on it? I haven't. Dirt is a foreign substance. Just not one they want treated as such. The clarification made that clear. But if you haven't seen the clarification your reasoning isn't a safe way to get there.

[RKBUmp]

If you want to take that approach then absolutely anything not involved in the manufacturing process is foreign to the ball. Rain, dew, dirt, chalk, sweat etc etc etc.

There is no need for it to be addressed in the rule book, dirt is not considered to be a foreign substance by any rule set and does not require the hand to be wiped after touching it. NCAA is the only exception.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If you want to take that approach then absolutely anything not involved in the manufacturing process is foreign to the ball. Rain, dew, dirt, chalk, sweat etc etc etc.

There is no need for it to be addressed in the rule book, dirt is not considered to be a foreign substance by any rule set and does not require the hand to be wiped after touching it. NCAA is the only exception.

Yes, intentionally applying any of those things violates the written rule. You know how it's meant to be applied so you're ignoring the fact that the rule is poorly written. Somebody just learning is likely to make this mistake. That's why it's on the test and there's a clarification. But wouldn't it be better just to put it in the rule.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

There is no need for it to be addressed in the rule book, dirt is not considered to be a foreign substance by any rule set and does not require the hand to be wiped after touching it. NCAA is the only exception.

Well I will disagree - I think it does need to be addressed specifically in the rule. "Dirt" should be listed as the exception.

I think our rules and mechanics should be clear enough to be able to take the exam using only those 2 books (soon to be 1 book and a PDF). If we need Rules & Clarifications and/or case plays to glean answers to the exam, it seems like the actual rules and mechanics aren't clear enough.

That's not to say that these items aren't helpful. I have most of the R&Cs in a large file going back several years. And case plays are important to help folks understand the application of a rule given examples. Short of seeing a play live or on video, case plays are a great learning tool.