Foul tip

[Dakota]

If you expect umpire exams to follow logic, you'll never score 100%. Too may of the questions require you to get inside the test-writer's head and try to guess (yes, guess) which answer would be "counted" wrong (as opposed to actually BEING wrong).

My "speeding" statement is correct as written. It does not say "must be red" only that the speeding car is red. It is still a speeding car, even though it is red. Red cars have no exemption from the speed laws.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you expect umpire exams to follow logic, you'll never score 100%. Too may of the questions require you to get inside the test-writer's head and try to guess (yes, guess) which answer would be "counted" wrong (as opposed to actually BEING wrong).

My "speeding" statement is correct as written. It does not say "must be red" only that the speeding car is red. It is still a speeding car, even though it is red. Red cars have no exemption from the speed laws.

I agree with you that you have to get inside the test writers head.

However, your statement about your speeding example is wrong. Your statement says....

A car is speeding if it is exceeding the speed limit and it is red.

The "and" is combining two conditions. It is not simple modifying the car by designating its color. I'm a software engineer. If I wrote a program that gave out speeding tickets using your statement, only red cars going over the speed limit would get a ticket. Your statement has two conditions for a speeding vehicle: 1. it is going over the speed limit. 2. it is red.

Both have to be true.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

Both have to be true.

I also am a software engineer. If both are true, the car is speeding (even though the second condition is superfluous). I only asked if the question was correct. Not whether the question contained only necessary information. I also did not ask if the statment contained a list of conditions that must be true to determine if a car was speeding. It was not a boolian construct. It is not an IF-THEN-ELSE programming statement. I was an English-language statement.

Reverse the statement into a question: "If a car is exceeding the speed limit and it is red, is it speeding?"

Yes or no?

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I also am a software engineer. If both are true, the car is speeding (even though the second condition is superfluous). I only asked if the question was correct. Not whether the question contained only necessary information. I also did not ask if the statment contained a list of conditions that must be true to determine if a car was speeding. It was not a boolian construct. It is not an IF-THEN-ELSE programming statement. I was an English-language statement.

Reverse the statement into a question: "If a car is exceeding the speed limit and it is red, is it speeding?"

Yes or no?

Yes... the answer is in the question (if a car is exceeding the speed limit...is it speeding?) nothing else; such as the color, matters for we are told the car was exceeding the speed limit so the statement is true.

Now, speaking U-Trip why is an infield fly rule explained the way it is? Why not just say if a base runner is on 1st and a base runner is on 2nd with less than two outs, etc. since bases being loaded always includes a runner on 1st and 2nd and there's no rule that says if bases are loaded it voids an infield fly rule? ...Al

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Al

Yes... the answer is in the question (if a car is exceeding the speed limit...is it speeding?) nothing else; such as the color, matters for we are told the car was exceeding the speed limit so the statement is true.

Now, speaking U-Trip why is an infield fly rule explained the way it is? Why not just say if a base runner is on 1st and a base runner is on 2nd with less than two outs, etc. since bases being loaded always includes a runner on 1st and 2nd and there's no rule that says if bases are loaded it voids an infield fly rule? ...Al

Probably for the same reason ASA uses that wording....somewhere along the way some idiot coach argued that to be in infield fly there had to be runners on 1st & 2nd only because the rule didn't specifically state it was an infield fly with runners on 1st, 2nd & 3rd. And what probably got it into the book is some idiot umpire who didn't attend clinics or read the book every year figured that this guy caught onto something that had been overlooked for years and refused to rule it as an infield fly.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Al

Yes... the answer is in the question (if a car is exceeding the speed limit...is it speeding?) nothing else; such as the color, matters for we are told the car was exceeding the speed limit so the statement is true.

That was my point on the test question.

Anyway, regarding the IFR, why not have it stated dirt simple: fewer than 2 outs and a force at 3rd.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That was my point on the test question.

Anyway, regarding the IFR, why not have it stated dirt simple: fewer than 2 outs and a force at 3rd.

That would work for the limited number of people who actually know what a force out is. To too many, that would include a single runner on third who left early on the infield fly.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

That would work for the limited number of people who actually know what a force out is. To too many, that would include a single runner on third who left early on the uncaught infield fly.

Sad, but true...

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That was my point on the test question.

Anyway, regarding the IFR, why not have it stated dirt simple: fewer than 2 outs and a force at 3rd.

I perfectly understood the point you were making in the test question and agree completely. Just as it would be a true statement to say: He that believeth (and is baptized) shall be saved, even though salvation comes by faith alone, apart from baptism. Another example would be: If one applies for and is accepted into UCLA (and takes a room in the dorm) he or she will be a student. The statement is true even though one does not need to take a room in the dormitory to be a student at UCLA.

Your dirt simple IFR makes a lot of sense. I'd like to see it rewritten that way. ...Al

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Al

Your dirt simple IFR makes a lot of sense. I'd like to see it rewritten that way. ...Al

Well, now...that depends on whether you are a pre-, post-, or a-millennialist.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Here is the original question and answers copied from MyReferee quiz for softball:

1. B1 swings and contacts the ball that goes directly to F2’s glove.

a. That is a foul tip when caught if the ball never rises on its way from the bat to the catcher’s glove.
b. That is a foul tip when caught unless the ball rises above the batter’s head.
c. The ball is live if legally caught by F2.
d. The ball is dead on a foul tip.
e. Any fielder can legally catch a foul tip.

SOLUTIONS
1 — ASA FP and SP with stealing, NFHS FP, NCAA – a, c (ASA FP 1-Foul Tip, 7-4D; NFHS 2-25-2; NCAA 1-53); ASA SP without stealing, NFHS SP – a, d (ASA SP 1-Foul Tip, 7- 4D; NFHS 2-25-2); USSSA FP – a, b, c (4-2); USSSA SP – a, b, d (3-Foul Tip)


For ASA FP & SP w/stealing, "a" is incorrect because of the caveat of the ball never rising and the kicker is using the word "if". Change it to a "ball that never rises" and I have no problem with "a" being a correct answer.

Same with "b". Using the word "unless" creates a requirement of the ball's path for the batted ball to be a foul tip. Such a requirement does not exist.

[Tex]

A few years ago, I had a batted ball go sharply and directly to the catcher’s glove and bounce from the glove, go straight up higher than the batters head, and ultimately caught in the catcher’s glove as the ball came down. The catcher moved very little other than turning her glove upright. I ruled a foul tip since all definitions of the foul tip were met.

I was supported the following year at an ASA National Umpire Clinic, that this was the correct call. I had been following this discussion while remembering this play. The way the question is written, I believe “B” is false. A ball can rise above the batters head after contacting the glove and still be a foul tip.