ASA Question #39

[Dakota]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Yet, I think it is a very poor question because it leaves too many things unclear to the test taker. That is the essence of a bad question - lack of clarity.

A good question should neither be a test in testmanship nor require the test taker to parse words and discern their hidden meaning. It should only test the understanding of the pertinent point.

OK, David. Which points of hidden meaning, exactly, would have changed the ruling on this play? What is the pertinent point being tested, in your view, that is compromised by the "lack of clarity?" Remember, this was an ASA test - ASA rules only, please.

No matter how you flesh out this scenario, the ruling is the same. You may not like the ruling, or you may think it is unfair under some "fleshed out" scenarios, but the ruling itself is clear and unaffected.

Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.

If fact, as a test question, it is quite good, because it requires the test taker to consider various possibilities, due to the unstated details, but to always end up with the same ruling.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Dakota

OK, David. Which points of hidden meaning, exactly, would have changed the ruling on this play? What is the pertinent point being tested, in your view, that is compromised by the "lack of clarity?" Remember, this was an ASA test - ASA rules only, please.

No matter how you flesh out this scenario, the ruling is the same. You may not like the ruling, or you may think it is unfair under some "fleshed out" scenarios, but the ruling itself is clear and unaffected.

Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.

If fact, as a test question, it is quite good, because it requires the test taker to consider various possibilities, due to the unstated details, but to always end up with the same ruling.

I made no comment regarding an opinion of the ruling, bad or good. Others have. My OPINION is simply that the "pertinent point" could have been tested in a less convoluted manner. It strikes me as one of those questions you could get RIGHT for the WRONG reason.

Let me ask you this: WHY is the BR out? Because the ball was caught? Because it was an Infield Fly? Or, because he interfered?

You might say, "What difference does it make?" That's a good point if you are only concerned about whether the test taker gets the answer correct. But, since EVERY answer has the BR out and the ball dead, there is no opportunity to ferret out any misconceptions on the part of the test taker.

It *is* possible to get things right for the wrong reason. Is that what we want when creating a test?

I think WHAT the question is attempting to test is excellent! I just think they could have tested the same point in a less convoluted manner. Just an opinion. You're free to have yours. It's not something worth arguing about.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 26th, 2006 at 10:40 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

No, baseball is not another set of rules, it's another game.

However, since you have proven your unwillingness to accept that over time, so I doubt it will ever sink in.

[greymule]

PLAY: Abel on 1B takes off on Baker's long drive to right center. Abel is on his way to 3B when F9 makes a diving catch. Abel, returning to 1B, misses 2B on his way back. As Abel slides into 1B, the relay throw gets away from F3. After tagging 1B, Abel runs to 2B and stands on the bag. The defense appeals Abel's miss of 2B on the return.

PLAY: Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles gets a hit down the RF line. Abel scores. Baker misses 2B on his way to 3B, and Charles is thrown out at 2B for the second out. The defense appeals Baker's miss at 2B.

PLAY: Abel on 1B. Baker hits a hard fair line drive that hits Abel as Abel is still in contact with 1B. Abel could not avoid being hit.

Which game did these plays occur in, baseball or softball?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Let me ask you this: WHY is the BR out? Because the ball was caught? Because it was an Infield Fly? Or, because he interfered?

You might say, "What difference does it make?" That's a good point if you are only concerned about whether the test taker gets the answer correct. But, since EVERY answer has the BR out and the ball dead, there is no opportunity to ferret out any misconceptions on the part of the test taker.

It *is* possible to get things right for the wrong reason. Is that what we want when creating a test?

What is the point of an umpire test? Is it to...

1) Qualify / disqualify umpires based on rules knowledge, as, for example, a driver's test?

or is it to...

2) Renew the knowledge of umpires by causing them to consider which rule applies, search the book, think through the situation, and come to a decision?

The answer can vary with the local association, but I submit it is more #2 than #1.

If the purpose is considerably more than grading, then the question is excellent, because it raises just the questions you asked, and causes the umpire to look at the rules that pertain to how the answers go.

So, no I do not say, "What difference does it make?" in the casual, "the answer is the same" way that you imply. But I say, "Whatever way you flesh out the scenario, when you come to the rule(s) that apply, you will discover the call is the same, hence all alternatives have the same answer for this question." That implies the test taker had to do some thinking and considering... just what the test designers had in mind, I would guess.

From my perspective, the writer of this question deserves a "well done!"

[booker227]

That's a very vague question and is open to different intrepretaions.
My call is, " Infield Fly, Out If Fair!" The base runners can advance, but at their own risk. The runner who has crossed home better get basck to third before the appeal. If the runner runs into the fielder after my call, then I could have malicious contact, expecially if the fielder is in foul territory

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by booker227
That's a very vague question and is open to different intrepretaions.
My call is, " Infield Fly, Out If Fair!" The base runners can advance, but at their own risk. The runner who has crossed home better get basck to third before the appeal. If the runner runs into the fielder after my call, then I could have malicious contact, expecially if the fielder is in foul territory

What if F3 caught the ball while standing in the running lane - which is foul territory. In this case you would "expecially" be more inclined to rule malicious contact?

Since the circumstances of the question strongly suggest that an infield fly situation is involved (yet no mention of it), it calls into question whether F3 is considerably in foul territory.

Can R1 score on a ball that is NOT caught in foul territory, despite interference by the BR?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

As long as it is a fly ball, it is a live ball.

If the runner interferes and prevents the ball from being caught, the ball is dead immediately upon the interference. Where the ball then lands is moot. A dead ball cannot become foul.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Dakota
As long as it is a fly ball, it is a live ball.

If the runner interferes and prevents the ball from being caught, the ball is dead immediately upon the interference. Where the ball then lands is moot. A dead ball cannot become foul.

Then along those lines, can a groundball, in foul territory, still rolling, be only a DEAD ball (neither fair nor foul), should the BR interfere with F3's attempt to make a play on the ball? Is there a special provision for FLY BALLS?

Just curious.

Play: Same situatiion, bases loaded. R1 (on 3rd) breaks for the plate on a suicide squeeze. Batter squares to bunt and sends the ball rolling up the first baseline, but clearly in foul territory. As F3 comes in to field the ball (perhaps to KEEP it foul), BR crashes into the fielder preventing F3 from fielding the ball. R1 crosses the plate prior to the interference.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[greymule]

then I could have malicious contact

Remember, this is ASA, which unlike Fed (OR OBR!!) does not recognize malicious contact as such. However, ASA does recognize both USC and a deliberate attempt to break up a double play.

A couple of years ago, there was an ASA test question in which Abel is on 3B with one out and Baker hits a long fly to left. Baker, thinking the ball will be caught, throws his bat in anger. However, the ball goes over the fence. The ruling is that Baker is out for USC and Abel stays at 3B. However, I don't believe the test question stated whether Abel had or had not crossed the plate before the USC. If he had crossed the plate, I guess that run would score, too.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Is there a special provision for FLY BALLS?

Just curious.

When does a batted ball in or over foul territory between home and 1st become foul?

I don't know if I would call it "special provision"... more like definitional.

A fly ball is NEVER a foul ball until it exits the ball park.

If a fly ball is first touched over foul territory, and is uncaught, then it is foul, but uncaught means it has hit the ground or other obstacle (e.g. fence). So long as it is in the air being juggled, etc., by the defender it is not YET uncaught and not YET a foul ball.

Leaving aside IFR for the moment...

In the scenario described, either the ball was caught or it wasn't.

If it was caught, BR out, dead ball at the point of interference, R2 out for BR's interference with intent to prevent a DP, and R1 scores, subject to being ruled out on appeal (not part of the question).

If it was not yet caught, dead ball a the point of interference, BR and R2 out on the interference ruling, R1 scores with no appeal possible (and, again, the possible appeal is not part of the question).

In the scenario presented in the question, there is no possiblity of a foul ball.

[mcrowder]

So if a fly ball is nearing the dugout (ie 15 feet away from the plane of the baseline, over foul ground) when all this action happens, you're scoring the run?

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by mcrowder
So if a fly ball is nearing the dugout (ie 15 feet away from the plane of the baseline, over foul ground) when all this action happens, you're scoring the run?

What is the BR doing "15 feet away from the plane of the baseline"?

[mcrowder]

I believe what he is doing is tackling F3 so that he cannot make the catch. Isn't that what we're talking about?

I'll spell it out again, since there have been several side-what-ifs, this one included.

Bases loaded, no outs. R1 is sprinting home and crosses the plate while the ball is sky high. R2 is rounding third. F3 is camped under the ball, near the dugout. BR, seeing that there will be an easy double or even triple play if the ball is caught, tackles F3.

Ruling (by rule): R1 scores, R2 out, BR out.

So, simply because the wordsmiths around here refuse to acknowledge that the ball is in fact foul (yes, I know, it's not yet technically foul - it's nothing while still in the air and in the ballpark), R1 is allowed to score?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I believe what he is doing is tackling F3 so that he cannot make the catch. Isn't that what we're talking about?

I'll spell it out again, since there have been several side-what-ifs, this one included.

Bases loaded, no outs. R1 is sprinting home and crosses the plate while the ball is sky high. R2 is rounding third. F3 is camped under the ball, near the dugout. BR, seeing that there will be an easy double or even triple play if the ball is caught, tackles F3.

Ruling (by rule): R1 scores, R2 out, BR out.

So, simply because the wordsmiths around here refuse to acknowledge that the ball is in fact foul (yes, I know, it's not yet technically foul - it's nothing while still in the air and in the ballpark), R1 is allowed to score?

First, while I did engage some of the what ifs earlier in this thread, my recent postings in this thread have to do with the scenario as presented in the question. Your scenario is not a possibility within what we are told in the question.

Second, it is most definitely NOT a wordsmithing issue about the fair status of the ball. It is a sequence of events issue. If the ball goes dead BEFORE the batted ball can become foul, what happens to it after that is moot. It is neither fair nor foul - it is dead because of interference. But, up until it became dead due to interference, it was a live ball and runners could advance subject to yadda yadda. Since the dead ball happened AFTER R1 crosed home and BEFORE the ball may or may not have become foul, then R1 is not required to return due to a foul ball.

Now, in your scenario, if you wanted to apply the flagrant misconduct case play, I would have no objection.