TASO Test

[ajcr55]

Took the TASO softball test today and there were two questions I felt were incorrectly graded.

10. When interference is called on a runner for interfering with a foul fly ball, the runner is out and a strike is called on the batter.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer should be false. According to rule 8-13-exception a foul ball is called, not a strike. Makes a difference if 2 strikes on the batter.

11. A dead ball is called if runner is tagged out after being obstructed.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer is false. Not always will a dead ball be called if the runner makes the base that the umpire feels they would have obtained.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ajcr55

Not a TASO umpire, but I'll give these a shot.

Took the TASO softball test today and there were two questions I felt were incorrectly graded.

10. When interference is called on a runner for interfering with a foul fly ball, the runner is out and a strike is called on the batter.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer should be false. According to rule 8-13-exception a foul ball is called, not a strike. Makes a difference if 2 strikes on the batter.

Since you say this ia a TASO test, not NFHS or someone else, I'll stick with the standard that there is probably a note in the rule book which probably states it is a strike if there were less than two in the FP game and a strike in SP (not knowing if SP is involved as it is still played at the HS level in some areas).

11. A dead ball is called if runner is tagged out after being obstructed.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer is false. Not always will a dead ball be called if the runner makes the base that the umpire feels they would have obtained.

This one is easy. If a runner who was previously obstructed reaches the base to which the umpire believed they would have attained had the obstruction not occured, they are no longer an "obstructed" runner, hence the question would not apply in such a situation.

Now, I have no doubt that you may have an issue with the wording of the question, but I bet that is what the testmakers were thinking d:-)

Good luck in the upcoming season.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by ajcr55
Took the TASO softball test today and there were two questions I felt were incorrectly graded.
10. When interference is called on a runner for interfering with a foul fly ball, the runner is out and a strike is called on the batter.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer should be false. According to rule 8-13-exception a foul ball is called, not a strike. Makes a difference if 2 strikes on the batter.
__________________________________________________ ___
ajcr55. The correct answer should be true. See Rule 8-13-
exception. If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly
ball, the runner is out, the ball is dead, a foul ball is called.
[not a foul ball if caught], the batter remains at bat. If this
was a bunt attempt with two strikes on the batter, the batter is
also out. Called foul because of interference, and batter remains
at bat unless the above occured.
__________________________________________________ _____
11. A dead ball is called if runner is tagged out after being obstructed.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer is false. Not always will a dead ball be called if the runner makes the base that the umpire feels they would have obtained.
__________________________________________________ ______
As Mike stated, simple. If the obstructed runner is tagged out
after being obstructed. The rule has always stated once the OBSTRD
runner is tagged out, the ball becomes dead. There are 5 exceptions to
where an OBSTRD runner may be put out. Four have always been there,
the fifth added this year. The key is IF the runner is tagged out.
Runner is either awarded the base or called out if in the UJ, she
went beyond protection.

[/B]

Welcome to the board and as Mike said "good luck".

[whiskers_ump]

Just reviewed ajcr55's profile, another Texan Mike.

ajcr55, were you in Houston on Saturday at the regional
meeting?
Curious, who is your UIC? Just wondering?

You will find NFHS test do have a lot of questions that ask
one thing and mean another.

Like this one:

Catcher unintentionally blocks the plate, which impedes a runners
attempt to score. Umpire rules "no violation" since it was not intentional.

This could go either way. If catcher had the ball she is allowed to
block, if she was not in possession of the ball, then there is a
violation.

One other: The DP may be sub'ed for by a legal sub. The DP will not
be considered as having left the game. This would be false. The
position, once used cannot be terminated. However, the player in
that position may leave the game.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by ajcr55
Took the TASO softball test today and there were two questions I felt were incorrectly graded.

10. When interference is called on a runner for interfering with a foul fly ball, the runner is out and a strike is called on the batter.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer should be false. According to rule 8-13-exception a foul ball is called, not a strike. Makes a difference if 2 strikes on the batter.

11. A dead ball is called if runner is tagged out after being obstructed.
TASO scored as true. I feel correct answer is false. Not always will a dead ball be called if the runner makes the base that the umpire feels they would have obtained.

True/false test writers should be required to demonstrate an understanding of logic. My answers here would have been the same as ajcr55's, based on the knowledge that T/F questions are frequently trickily worded making it necessary to read carefully.

wrt Mike's answer on #11... while it is true that once a runner's protection is dropped, she is no longer an "obstructed runner" - note the question does not use that term. It refers to a "runner ... after being obstructed." "After being obstructed" is still true after protection is dropped. I'm sure they meant "obstructed runner" but that is not what they said in the question.

Glen, wrt your test question on the catcher blocking the base, the answer is definitely false, since the question has nothing to do with what the catcher actually did. It has to do with the umpire's explanation. Intent has no bearing on obstruction, hence the answer is false.

And the second on DP is the classic trick question. You must read it carefully. The DP does NOT leave the game, since the lineup remains at 10.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Dakota

True/false test writers should be required to demonstrate an understanding of logic. My answers here would have been the same as ajcr55's, based on the knowledge that T/F questions are frequently trickily worded making it necessary to read carefully.

wrt Mike's answer on #11... while it is true that once a runner's protection is dropped, she is no longer an "obstructed runner" - note the question does not use that term. It refers to a "runner ... after being obstructed." "After being obstructed" is still true after protection is dropped. I'm sure they meant "obstructed runner" but that is not what they said in the question.

Glen, wrt your test question on the catcher blocking the base, the answer is definitely false, since the question has nothing to do with what the catcher actually did. It has to do with the umpire's explanation. Intent has no bearing on obstruction, hence the answer is false.

Tom, Agree. It just should be noted that if the catcher had the
ball, no problem. Without the ball - violation.


And the second on DP is the classic trick question. You must read it carefully. The DP does NOT leave the game, since the lineup remains at 10.

The answer sheet we received showed this to be false. Guess they
were caught in their own trickery.

[/B]

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Just reviewed ajcr55's profile, another Texan Mike.

Well, yes Glen, TASO is, after all, the TEXAS Association of Sports Officials.

You will find NFHS test do have a lot of questions that ask one thing and mean another.

Like this one:

Catcher unintentionally blocks the plate, which impedes a runners attempt to score. Umpire rules "no violation" since it was not intentional.

This could go either way. If catcher had the ball she is allowed to block, if she was not in possession of the ball, then there is a violation.

I don't necessarily agree with you on this one being able to go both ways, since I see this as asking about the necessity of "intent." Intent is not necessary to fulfill the obstruction rule.

[Skahtboi]

Had I read on before posting, I would have seen that Tom already beat me to the punch on the OBS question.

[whiskers_ump]

The notice of another TEXAN was for Mike's benefit.

You just had to add insult to injury huh.

Scott, check your e-mail.

[ajcr55]

yes...at the clinic on Saturday in Houston.
Thanks for replys.