R1 is on 2B. B2 singles to right firld. R1 reounds 3B attempting to score and runs into the plate umpire. R1 is lying on the ground when he is tagged by F5. Which is Correct ruling?

a. Umpire interference is ruled and R1 is returned to 3B.
b. Umpire interference is ruled and R1 is returned to 2B.
c. Umpire interference is ruled and R1 is awarded home.
d. R1 is ruled out.

would that answer be C.

I try to find this in the 2004 offical rules handbook. Help.

thanks

Welcome to the wonderful world of ASA test taking, the one umpire test that actually requires a person to really think.

Okay, Buddha, look in your rule book index under "umpires" and then "interference" and "interference (plate umpire)." Look up the referenced rules and then ask yourself this question, "when, according to these rules can umpire interference be called?" I think once you read through that, you will come up with the only answer available to you.

[Edited by Skahtboi on Mar 1st, 2004 at 05:43 PM]

Scott, Great answer. Give a fish to a hungry man, tomorrow he is hungry again. Show him how to fish, tomorrow he try to help himself.
.
Buddah..the first time you take these tests they are tricky.
You have to know how to really dig for those answers & definitions. Interpretation also comes into play. That is why this forum is such a big help. Take some time to read the old subjects we have discussed.

Good answer. When I first started, I tried to read too much into the questions. Don't do that. As far as 50 goes, Scott's answer is as good as you're gonna get from anyone. You'll learn it and remember it if you look it up. I took the time to look up all 100 answers and write the rule(s) down that pertained to my answer. This is a good refresher course for the rules. You read a lot more than just the rule for the answer this way. You just need a lot of time to burn.

Beware of taking the rule book literally, Buddha, and don't expect crystal-clear writing.

If you want to see a classic example of ASA ambiguity, check out the post labeled "What is ASA referring to?" which deals with a sentence added to the rule book this year. The sentence contains two errors in syntax, one punctuation error, and one minor error in parallelism. (Amazingly, it does not contain a grammatical error.)

I would recommend the ASA casebook. It isn't written any better, but it does cover many specific examples that might be hard to determine strictly from the rule book. ASA doesn't advertise it, but it is available if you call them.

I completely disagree. An umpire shouldn't even consider a case book until they are finished their first year of umpiring. I have seen too many attempt to use it as a short cut and that presents more questions than answers.

As far as ASA's rulebook is concerned, it is one of the easiest to read and comprehend. The order in which it is organized is sensible and relative to the game itself.

As far as any errors, it is written for people to read. Many of the people in this country would strain to comprehend many of the rules if presented in 100% error-free.

<b> As far as any errors, it is written for people to read. Many of the people in this country would strain to comprehend many of the rules if presented in 100% error-free.
__________________________________________________ _______
</b>

Yeah, but, Mike, I'd sure like to give it a try just once. Maybe I could prove your point, maybe not. But I just gotta think I'm as intelligent as whoever writes the rules, so I could probably understand what they write. Surely you're not suggesting it's written that to protect the players and umpires of the game are you?

I don't mean to hint that any other organization is better with their rule book. Heck, PONY has a "vase" on their infield, instead of a "base". For about 6 years now. Think they're gonna change that? Not yet.

I do that with all the associations I work for. I also print
any associations rules that are current and on-line and keep them
in a loose leaf notebook. ASA is going to give us theirs one of these
days....Right Mike? J/K......:D

It wouldn't be bad. I believe that not everything fits perfectly into a particular context, especially when it comes to specifics involving rules to a ball game.

Please note that ASA spent years trying to get the book to a manageable size. The book has a purpose and that does not include placing high on a best seller list.

Mike,

The ink was still wet on the post when you answered that
one...

The rules could be written free of errors; free of ambiguity; in plain, precise, and accurate English; and in <i>fewer</i> words.

The rule book does not need a William Faulkner to rewrite it so that it wins literary prizes. It simply needs careful revision and editing. I'm not singling out ASA either. The Fed and NSA books are no better.

Naturally, an umpire should not expect to use the case book as a shortcut through or substitute for the rule book.

Buddha, the index in this year's sensibly organized rule book tells you to look in Rule 8, Section 7 for umpire interference (FP). You won't find it there, but you will find it in Rule 8, Section 6. Last year's book cited 8-7-F, but it was in 8-6-F. You will find that it's hit and miss with the index and Rule 8.

Look through the section on SP pitching regulations, too. Section 1 tells you to call a dead ball if the pitcher's foot loses contact with the pitcher's plate during the delivery. You are also to rule an illegal pitch and warn the pitcher. Then Section 7 tells you that any violation of Sections 1 through 7 is an illegal pitch, and if the batter swings at it or contacts it, the illegal pitch is nullified and all play stands. So a batter can apparently hit a pitch after you've called the ball dead. But now read the case book, and you'll find, in one example, a rather casual mention concerning the pitcher delivering an illegal pitch before the umpire is able to stop play.

Eventually, and certainly with the help of this board, you'll learn what to do in these situations. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of experience and consultation to fill in the "holes" in the book.

Again, I am not singling out ASA. The MLB rule book, for example, requires several additional books of interpretation.

I am still waiting to see what Buddha has learned.

A

I completely disagree with your complete disagreement! :D Actually, I don't completely disagree, I just liked the sound of saying that! What I do say is that this is entirely individual. Some people need the specific examples of the case book to put the rules into context, to help them visualize the application, and to learn it. This is pretty close to the advice given in the Umpire Manual, <font color=blue>"To know the rules thoroughly requires constand and analytical study. It does not suffice to only read the rules. They must be studied so that mental pictures of plays and situations result."</font> The case book can be a big help in putting the rules to work in real situations. My advice to a new umpire would be to read the rule book cover to cover. Then go back and study it thoroughly. Then, when you think you are ready, use the case book as a test. Cover the ruling of each case play, read the play, give your ruling (looking up the rules if you need to), and then uncover the ruling to read the official answer. Very effective learning technique, IMO.Damning with faint praise. True, as evidenced by NFHS rewriting certain rules to, as they say, put it in a more sensible order, and what do you know - it is organized like ASA.

True, but that does not mean errors help. Also, but that does not excuse poor syntax that actually contributes to misunderstanding, or poor choice of words that must be explained extensively in POEs and still results in inconsistent understanding, etc. The ASA rule book could benefit greatly by being gone over by a good umpire who is also an English teacher. Do you know any? ;)

How did you reach that conclusion, Buddha? When, according to the rulebook, are the only times that umpire interference may be called?

Are you saying you answered "A"?

You might want to go back and read what situations may result in an umpire interference call.

Another learning exercise on this question: look up the definitions of "interference" and "obstruction."

DDDDDDD

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung.../Fool/appl.gif

BTW, since I joined this thread late, let me also say,

Welcome to the board! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-049.gif

BTW #2, A-C on that question were wrong, as I hinted, on two levels: the situation presented is not the ONE situation where umpire interference can be called, and even if there was a rule for that situation, it would be Umpire OBSTRUCTION!

Any possibility in any code of rectifying a problem if it is clearly the umpire's fault (Rule 10 or whatever)?

Thanks,

Like I said in the early part of my thread. It is tricky!!! I did not know that you (guys and gals) had it like that. It is really going to open my eyes now.

thanks for the help guys,


you know I will be asking alot of question for this year. until I get my feet wet. lol

Okay, I understand it's use as a tool, but I still have a problem with people possibly using it as a replacement to the learning the rules, sort of putting the cart before the horse thing.



True, but that does not mean errors help. Also, but that does not excuse poor syntax that actually contributes to misunderstanding, or poor choice of words that must be explained extensively in POEs and still results in inconsistent understanding, etc. The ASA rule book could benefit greatly by being gone over by a good umpire who is also an English teacher. Do you know any? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Any idea why people don't read some of the old classics? The people I know consider many Dickens and Shakespeare workds to be to difficult to comprehend. There are concentrating so hard on understanding the words, they cannot visualize the scene. Granted, they are younger folks, but like it or not, they are the next generation of umpires and coaches.

Anyone study ASL (American Sign Language)? If you have, you are well aware that proper syntax and grammar are extremely overrated in the art of communication.

I agree that actual contradictions should be corrected, but not by someone who is going parse each phrase and then grade the work because it that is what works for them.
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/deal.gif

Someone can author anything from poetry to instructions for using a belt buckle. It can be perfectly composed, yet it isn't worth an out-of-play foul ball with two strikes in a FP game if the people to whom it is directed have a difficult time understanding it. After all, is that not why some writers opt for prose in lieu of poetry?

Anyone here ever start putting a model together by throwing out the instructions? With the exception of Roger, how many on this board can leisurely read most legal notices or writ? Before PlugNPlay, how many have tried to install hardware/software on a computer using strictly the written set of instructions? Ever try reading a dictionary?

I am not saying imperfections should be ignored, but there should definitely be allowances made for a succinct compilation of related rules without fear of the grammar police.

JMHO,

<b>The ASA rule book could benefit greatly by being gone over by a good umpire who is also an English teacher.</b>

Glad to hear somebody say that. An expert in writing methods and procedures would be the ideal candidate. Somebody who writes instructions for how Bristol-Myers Squibb or GlaxoSmithKline employees should operate the machines that manufacture drugs cannot leave anything open to interpretation.

I have toyed with the idea of rewriting the ASA book from beginning to end, keeping the good, recasting the bad, marking the areas of ambiguity as items to resolve, and then submitting it to ASA as a fait accompli. If they were presented with a document they judged to be an improvement, they might accept it.

Cleaning up the index, which has long contained mis-references, wouldn't take more than a few hours. Mike is right that the overall <i>organization</i> of the book is fine.

I did teach high school English in the early 1970s, but that in itself is not really a qualification to write M&Ps. By coincidence, our principal was Robert F. Kanaby, who is now the executive director of NFHS. A few years ago, I was going to approach him about polishing the Fed book, but then I stopped doing Fed.

I think rewriting the book might be fun if I could submit sections to our "committee" of posters for review and criticism. Would anyone agree to serve on the board of contributing editors? With the combined brainpower and experience of this board, we could produce a masterpiece.

As an engineer, I had the unique (or at least rare) situation of having my freshman English professor try to talk me into changing majors to English. The use of language has always been a side interest of mine, and I have written more than a few technical documents, including a few instruction manuals.

However, I can't imagine we would get the official assignment from ASA to do this, so I fear it would be a big waste of time.

Mike, I'm not talking about verbosity or grammar or dangling participles or the correct use of who vs whom. I'm talking about unclear wording, seeming contradictions, and just plain mysterious wording. The ASA book is NOT rife with these, but it could benefit from some professional clean-up. However, it would need to be done by someone who already understands what the rule / POE means, or things could get really hosed.

In a heartbeat! I would even be willing to take a section or two myself and do the rewriting.

That is an important point. However, I equate English teachers with pompous chefs who adapt and serve dishes to their personal liking and damn the customer. Many adjust, other just lose interest.

But then again, I'm talking about my teachers who would just as well correct your grammar while calling for help after being run over.
http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/co...ossumhump3.gif

<b>Someone can author anything from poetry to instructions for using a belt buckle. It can be perfectly composed, yet it isn't worth an out-of-play foul ball with two strikes in a FP game if the people to whom it is directed have a difficult time understanding it. After all, is that not why some writers opt for prose in lieu of poetry?</b>

There's a common misconception that good writing must be fancy, convoluted, and hard to understand. Our teachers told us that Shakespeare was great, and because the words and structure of Elizabethan English are unfamiliar to modern-day readers, we associate great writing with difficulty in comprehension. Shakespeare was not difficult for his audiences. Dickens and Poe crafted long and complicated sentences. Therefore, people assume, good writing must involve long and complicated sentences.

This idea has been reinforced by the schools. Remember when some major project was due and everyone was asking, "How long is your paper?" The smart kids turned in a lot of pages and got a good grade, right? They also wrote long, complicated sentences.

The teacher loved it when we used "better" words in our writing, too. Doesn't <i>demonstrate</i> indicate more intelligence than <i>show?</i> Why use <i>if</i> when <i>in the event that</i> sounds more impressive and helps fill up the page? Weren't <i>salubrious</i> and <i>desuetude</i> on the list of vocabulary words? Hey, let's fit them in somehow.

These unfortunate "lessons" are the root of much of the poor business and professional writing we see today. But anybody can write impressive sounding gobbledygook. (Legal writing often cannot be put into language the average person can grasp easily. A statute can't say simply "if anyone has a claim on this property," because "claim" might not include warrants, mortgages, liens, etc. Also, "anyone" might fail to cover non-human legal entities.)

Anyway, the idea is not to create a literary classic out of the rule book. The point is to use clear, precise, accurate, unambiguous language. That's not as easy as it sounds. It's an art, too, except that the rule book has nothing to say about life, death, man's inhumanity to man, love, God, sin, ambition, etc. Nobody's expecting phrases so striking that they will become part of everyday language (though you could make a case for "travesty of the game"). The rule book will not have a profound effect on anyone; it contains no revelations; it is not improved by being translated into great poetry.

As far as the grammar police go, nobody really cares about minor technical violations in a rule book. But usually correcting the grammar aids in understanding.

As for faulty syntax:

ASA book: "In the Slow Pitch game, any fair fly ball touched by a defensive player on either side of the fence that clears or has cleared the fence in fair territory, should be declared a four-base award and shall not be included in the total of over-the-fence home runs."

Revision: "In the Slow Pitch game, any fair fly ball that is touched, on either side of the fence, by a defensive player and that clears or has cleared the fence in fair territory shall be declared a four-base award and shall not be included in the total of over-the-fence home runs."

buddha69, keep on researching the question. If "A" was just a guess, quote the rule for us, that you used to come up with your next answer. Heck, by the time you finish with this one, you'll never forget the answer, once you find it http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/up.gif

<b>I equate English teachers with pompous chefs who adapt and serve dishes to their personal liking and damn the customer.</b>

There are certainly people who like to feel superior to others by correcting their grammar and word usage. Many people, for example, view President Bush with contempt and condescension because his sentences sometimes don't hang together and he sometimes mispronounces words (like <i>nuclear</i>). It is entertaining to hear the pseudo-sophisticates talk, though. They are constantly using <i>whom</i> where <i>who</i> belongs, uttering erudite phrases like "just between she and I," and mispronouncing fancy words whose meaning they don't really know. But it makes them sound intelligent (they think).

Remember when the teacher asked you what you did over the weekend, and you answered, "Me and Peter went to the circus"? The teacher then told you not to say "me and Peter" but instead to say "Peter and I." So now business executives write sentences like "please send the information to Peter and I." There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of common errors that stem from faulty explanations in school.

So, GreyMule, how do you really feel about the English teachers of today. I tell you what, after reading yours, Mike's and several others, I'm just glad I got out of English and have a passable understanding of the language. I feel fortunate.

By the way, how did all your posts get in ahead of mine? When I sent my previous post, buddha69 hadn't even given the answer ( the correct one ) yet.

Says whom? or who? or SAY WHAT!?!? Fuggitaboutit!

Remember, if we learned nothing else from the original Smokey and the Bandit, how smart you are all depends on where you are standing at the time. That includes pronunciations of certain words.

Copy from eteamz...
 

Here is just one example of where editing is required (or at least would help.)

All this needs to say is...

<font color=blue>...when first base is unoccupied or when there are two outs.</font>

It doesn't need the 1. and the 2. with the logical hole between them!

Re: Copy from eteamz...
 

I agree. However, unless you've been through the process, it is not that easy to understand. It is unbelieveable the number of people that have a certain thought or belief inside their head that have problems with logical assesment of a statement to the point they will accept it.

When I had my two proposed changes last year, many of the people I spoke to individually addressed understood what I was trying to do. However, there were so many that are so afraid of change or have a difficult time understanding the rules, they just opt to kill anything that they cannot grasp.

Another thing you need to remember is that many rules are also pieced together and develop over the years due to advanced equipment or ability to find and exploit certain loopholes.

Or you have people that just believe if you do everything one step at a time, all will fall into place. That seems to be the problem with this particular rule. Whoever put it together was so bent on covering the exceptions with two outs, they developed a rule overlooked the obvious.

Great catch, Dakota! I had never actually read that rule, since I knew that ASA simply followed the baseball rule. But if those are the 2 circumstances in which the batter is <i>not</i> out, then with 2 outs and 1B unoccupied, he <i>is</i> out! Neither criterion is met.

Your revision is clearer and more concise. Should we keep "at the time of the pitch," or is that phrase superfluous?

Actually, a coach on eteamz noticed this - I just blatently stole it.A good example of why editors (plural) would be required - I didn't leave it out intentionally, and it helps (IMO) clarify the steal scenario.

Mike,

I understand the rules evolve rather than are written all at once, and that leads to some odd phraseology, some seeming contradictions, and (as in this case) some logical holes or inconsistencies.

Apart from a formal rule change (where the meaning of the rule is changed, or a new rule is added or an old one deleted), is there no provision in the way the rule book is handled under the by-laws or whatever for editorial clarifications (no change in meaning)?

It seems that it would be good if the person or committee in charge of the rule book would have the authority to re-write for clarity or simplicity or aid in understanding without requiring a vote by all the delegates.

But, maybe that is what POEs and case plays are for.