As long as we're exalting the ASA test makers for their genius in constructing questions, let's examine #3SP:

True or False:

(SP only) A fair batted ball that is touched by a defensive player and clears the outfield fence will be declared a four base award and not count towards the home run total for that classification of play.

What's the <i>most accurate</i> answer?

How's this... "I don't call slowpitch." ;)

100% accurate! :cool:

PS: Hint for T/F questions... If the statement is not 100% true 100% of the time, the correct answer is "false."

The answer is true. However, I'm sure you're going to raise the issue that since it doesn't say "clears the outfield fence in fair territory, that there is no wrong answer.

Again, this is a question on an UMPIRE test. What am I to think of someone who has a hard time understanding it or refuses to just accept it at face value?

I will have a class of new umpires who will take this test on March 29th and I guarantee not one will score less than 80% of all questions, not just those game specific.

I warned everyone the questions were vague, and Tom is correct. These test were never meant to be a measuring stick, but a learning tool. Yet, I'm continually stunned that so many people love to take ASA to task for their questions, yet extol the merits of the test for NFHS.

When I read that question, the thing that pops into my mind is...

Why didn't they say, "A fair batted fly ball...", or, "...clears the outfield fence in flight..".

A one-hopper in the gap would be a fair batted ball. If this fair batted ball skipped off F8's glove, then cleared the fence, you certainly wouldn't have a four base award.

Using Tom's "T/F hint" the answer to this question would be "false"! But at first reading, my gut instinct was "true".

My reaction to the question was this:

Everybody knows that a fly ball that touches a fielder's glove and then goes directly over the fence fair is a 4-base award and does not count as a home run against the team's total. While I've had teams contend (in all seriousness) that it's not a four-base award if the ball would not have gone over without the fielder's help, that misconception is rare.

Not too long ago, ASA clarified that rule to include not just balls that hit the glove and then went over, but also balls that went past the top of the fence (went over) and <i>then</i> were touched and subsequently fell to the ground on the other side of the fence. Apparently in some tournament a team contested such a play as not meeting the strict definition of "hits the glove and then goes over," and technically they were right. So since ASA has dealt with the various possibilities in this play, I considered whether they were trying to emphasize the exceptions.

But I no longer care whether I get ASA test questions correct as long as I know what to call in a game, so this time I guessed that they had simply been sloppy in constructing the question.

It wouldn't take much effort to proofread the tests, but ASA apparently does not do that. In #39, they mislabeled a runner, and then there's #14:

R1 on 3B, and R2 on 1B. On a passed ball the on-deck batter interferes with the catcher's opportunity to throw out R2 at 3B. The umpire rules dead ball and returns R2 to 2B.

So I figure, well, interference with a possible out would have to result in an out, so the answer has to be false. But I had a hard time visualizing the play. This question would have been better as multiple choice, since it's R1 (closest to home), not R2 (being played on), who would be out.

And this gem: #9SP-- The batter hits a pitched ball that first strikes the plate over the fence . . .

And throw Momma from the train.

Given that R2 started on 1B, and the play is at 3B, our group realized that R1 scored long ago on this passed ball; and R2 is the the runner closest to home at the time of the interference.

True, R1 scored on that play. Good point!

Mike - the reason umpires are wary of ASA questions, and/or bothered by the vague wording, is that tests in the past were designed to be tricky, and required a very strict reading of the words in the question. Now, all of a sudden, you're telling us that the poor wording is just that - poor wording, and not attempts to make umpires miss questions due to poor reading. We're reading these questions, trying to think of EVERY eventuality revolving around them, trying to determine if the statement in a T/F question is true in ALL cases. In previous tests, a question like this one would be patently false. Now it's true because of poor wording and we should just live with it? Baloney.

This question is false. Forget the nitpicky "over the fence in foul ground" reason that it's false (which, incidentally, would have made the "right" answer false in previous years even if the 2nd part of this was not blatantly false)... the question does NOT state that this is a fly ball. This question is false for all GRD's subsequently touched by a fielder before it flew over the fence on a bounce, and for all balls that hit a glove or hand, then bounced and went over.

ASA has trained us to look for the nitpick on T/F questions. You can't just unring that bell, and then blame the test-taker.

I have not been keeping score, but since I have no axe to grind one way or the other, I suspect I am an equal opportunity caviller ;)

My T/F question rule comes from being trained in logic. But, it is ASA... I should have known better! :)

As with Q39, I have no complaint about the question writer leaving out details in this Q3 (SP), since the object here is to generate some interest in actually reading the rule book before taking the field. I do take issue, however, with the officially correct answer being "true" if the question's stated scenario includes situations where it is false.

As to the NFHS test, there are always (by my experience) questions that seem to be crafted to solicit the "obviously correct" (but wrong) answer. In the case of the NFHS, however, it is not due to vague wording that would cause the umpire to dive into the book, it is tricky wording with the apparent attempt to decieve. IOW, try to ensure no one gets 100%. I poke fun (in my caviler style) at this more out of bemusement than serious criticism.

And, there are always simple mistakes in both tests. As soon as you can find a perfect umpire, you have some hope of having a perfect test. But only if your perfect umpire writes this test by himself.

Then I guess I'm just ASA-stupid as I rarely had problems reading ASA's test. And if everyone on here is correct, I must have a serious problem because part of my job is reviewing RFPs for "holes" and I'm pretty good at it. Anyone in the business world can appreciate this as they would be familiar in the detailed and language-specific manner in which these documents are composed.

As I've noted before, the purpose of communication is to communicate in a manner which the person(s) being addressed understand.

Again, as noted a few times before, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS TEST ARE VAGUE! Do they make you think and open the book? The activity on this board demonstrates the obvious positive answer to that question.

As far as being "tricky", yeah, some can be. However, IMO, ASA has never even come close to the Fed's level in this field.

Allow me to be the first to say I dont like either test... I certainly dont hold one test in regard over the other...

I see it mikes way on this question though and I dont even do SP.. no need to fathom every possible possibility and look for some insignificant conceivability that would make the answer false.. to do so is to get the question wrong.. maybe get some debate fodder going.. but in this case, the question is straight forward on an easy to understand rule.

Tricky is fine. No problem - I'm used to it from almost all of the officiating organizations tests.

Makes me think? Great. Fantastic. This is the purpose of the test.

But vague and WRONG is a problem. The answer to this question is FALSE (see above). You may have to crack open the book to know it's false. You may have to think of all situations to which the question might refer. You may have to think. But the answer, after thinking is FALSE.

And who is insane enough to " extol the merits of the test for NFHS"?

The most accurate answer
 

True!

I have had this happen at a number of Nationals over the years. Get ready for an arguement, but then again, that is what the UIC is for.
Make the call, move on.

This happened and was argued at the Men's D in Auburndale FL a couple of years ago. I was one of the two umpires involved and Henry P was the UIC. We got it right and the team coaches, AS USUAL, were wrong.

The real reason we got it right is that in the pre-tournament umpire meeting, Henry brought this senario up.

Yes, that maeans that I actually paid attention instead of cutting up.