2018 USA Umpire Exam

[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.

[RKBUmp]

Everything can't be in the rule book, NCAA tries has a monster rule book that is hundreds of pages and still has a case book as well as clarifications.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I get that everything can't be in the rule book. Just like all the things that umpires shouldn't do can't be in the Umpire Manual. (My favorite is the umpire that tells the pitcher all the details after a mid-inning pitching change. And points to every base where a runner is standing. )

But every test question typically has a reference attached on the answer sheet(s). I can't believe they would cite a Rules & Clarification reference from about 8 years ago. There has to be something more concrete than that. (And I think concrete would be ruled a foreign substance. )

[RKBUmp]

The rule reference on the test will probably be exactly the same as referenced in the clarification, 6-6A. The rule book is not the only source of information when taking the test, the case book, rule supplements and clarifications all give information on how the written rules are to be applied.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I get that everything can't be in the rule book. Just like all the things that umpires shouldn't do can't be in the Umpire Manual. (My favorite is the umpire that tells the pitcher all the details after a mid-inning pitching change. And points to every base where a runner is standing. )
. )

I believe a visual is required with the verbal outs and count so that also has to signaled with the hands as you tell them. Insert emoticon.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I believe a visual is required with the verbal outs and count so that also has to signaled with the hands as you tell them. Insert emoticon.

Roger that! If'n I knew how to post a picture, I'd put some up here.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I believe a visual is required with the verbal outs and count so that also has to signaled with the hands as you tell them. Insert emoticon.

What verbal outs?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What verbal outs?

The few dinosaurs I have seen that "brief the pitcher" gesture the outs and count as they tell the pitcher the same and then point to the runners at the bases as they tell them the same.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by umpjim

The few dinosaurs I have seen that "brief the pitcher" gesture the outs and count as they tell the pitcher the same and then point to the runners at the bases as they tell them the same.

This year in HS, I had the bases for my next to last game of the year, this was a middle school game with two decent teams, and during the plate conference, my partner - relatively new - decides to give a good 30-45 second lecture n how he's seen way too much obstruction this year, and on and on, while I am doing my best acting job, trying not to look shocked....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Not only is the rule poorly written, it is antiquated and poorly applied. The rule used to forbid applying a foreign substance to the ball, not the fingers or hands. It has been changed over the years, IMO, to make it easier to apply not better the game. Even if there is dirt on the pitcher's hand, unless it is adhered to the ball, there really shouldn't be a violation.

People forget these rules are decades old and came over from baseball. To affect the flight of a pitched softball, there would have to be an obvious patch of mud or whatever and that isn't going to happen with a pitcher licking his/her fingers or rubbing their hand in the dirt. JMHO

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...People forget these rules are decades old and came over from baseball. To affect the flight of a pitched softball, there would have to be an obvious patch of mud or whatever and that isn't going to happen with a pitcher licking his/her fingers or rubbing their hand in the dirt. JMHO

100% agree. The only difference 99.999% of the "foreign substances" makes to the flight of a fast pitch softball is how they effect the pitcher's grip.

Here's an in-game quiz ...

Quick, did she just lick her fingers or adjust her face mask?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am a retired Structural Engineer and as such took courses in Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engoneering: "Dirt" is what gets under your finger nails. Soil is a naturally occurring engineering material which can be used as the infield for Softball diamonds, 🤣!

Happy Holidays to everyone!

MRS, Sr.

[Tru_in_Blu]

This next question brings up the discussion about whether or not umpires should or shouldn't inform coaches at the plate conference to have their outfielders raise a hand if a batted ball becomes lodged in fencing, bounces through a hole in a fence, or passes a fence that does not extend all the way to DBT.

We had a situation during a slow-pitch playoff game where the field had the latter scenario where the outfield fence did not extend all the way to another fence demarking DBT. It was essentially a pass-thru area to allow people to get to the other side of the fence to retrieve HR balls.

So in our case, the umpires traditionally tell the coaches that if the ball enters this area, to have their outfielder raise his hand and the base umpire will go out to check the status of the ball. They usually tell the offensive team to keep running as after the fact the umpires can send runners back, but they can't send them forward. So in this case, the runners kept running. Some of the defensive players stopped playing because they saw the ball apparently go past the fence after hitting fair initially. However, before the BU had a chance to check the ball, the right fielder retrieved the ball and threw it in. At that point, the umpires decided that all runners would score. Defense obviously wasn't happy, but we tell the coaches that if you go after the ball, you own it and the results of the play will stand.

I know it's not something that's noted in the Umpire Manual, but what do some of you do in your games/areas?

12) With the score tied in the bottom of the 7th inning, R1 on first base and two outs, B4 hits a deep fly ball down the right-field line. Unable to
make the catch, the right-fielder watches as the ball lands fair and then rolls into foul territory beyond the right-field fence line. R1 scores the
apparent winning run, but the right-fielder informs the umpires the ball rolled beyond the fence line into dead ball territory. What action should
the umpires take?
a. Because the ball rolled into dead ball territory after passing a fielder, the run counts.
b. Because the ball rolled into dead ball territory untouched by the fielder the run counts.
c. This is the same as a blocked ball and R1 should score.
d. This is a two base award. R1 is awarded 3B and B4 is awarded 2B – no run scores.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Ted,

There is nothing in the rule that defines a player raising a hand making the ball in play or out of play. The reality is that a ball blocked or out of play is out and dead whether a player raises a hand or not, and a ball not blocked or out of play remains live even if a player raises a hand. Even if a player makes a play on a ball that the umpire knows is out of play, it is dead; the issue only exists if/when the umpire is unsure if the ball is in play or not.

Raising a hand is only a courtesy so the umpire knows to look and confirm; if the player keeps the umpire from knowing it was out of play, too bad, so sad, the offense gets everything they attain on the play.

Consider this third world example play. On a field with fence openings, the batter hits a fly ball clearly beyond the fence; a defensive player runs off the field, behind the fence, and catches the ball using the Willie Mays basket catch, so as to not raise a hand. Is this a catch on a live ball because the hand was never raised? Don't the rules make it uncatchable because the player is obviously established out of play, without any regard or reference to hand raised or not raised?

I wouldn't change the pregame reminder; I would just add clarification that the ball remains live and assumed playable until the umpire confirms the status as unplayable.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

the ball remains live and assumed playable until the umpire confirms the status as unplayable.

Umpires will understand this verbiage; most players and coaches won't. I dislike the need for the pregame conversation about putting hands up and not playing on a ball out of play, but like Cecil, I usually add the tidbit that a player putting their hands up doesn't kill the play. It only tells the officials, who may be 150+ feet away from dead-ball line, that a player thinks it went out.