2010 ASA Exam
 

I guess ASA hasnt posted it yet, not sure why. If you are interested in the 2010 Exam you can download it here:

http://www.umpassigner.com/downloads...UmpireExam.pdf

I'll change the link to ASA once they post the exam.

wade,

are you going to post a link to the answers for us?:D:)

Ron

Haha!

They'll be floating around soon enough anyway I'm sure.... :D

Is it appropriate to ask for an opinion on a question on the exam? If so, here is the question.

35. B1 has an altered bat that is detected by the plate umpire before B1 enters the batter's box. What is the ruling?


a) B1 is called out.
b) B1 is disqualified.
c) B1 is ejected.
d) The bat is removed from the game as a preventative measure. No other penalty.

Reference 2010 ASA Umpire Manual, Rule 7-6-B.

I think both a and c are correct answers to the question. Rule 7-6 says the batter is out. The effect on 7-6-B says the batter shall be ejected from the game, and if in a tournament, shall be ejected for the remainder of the tournament.

I think what they are looking for is c since it is defined in rule 7-6-B. This may cause some umpires to miss the question.

Let the fun begin!!!!

That is the rule, but you need to re-read it. The key is in the first 7 words of that particular section.

I'm not giving the answer, per se. You've already found it and announced it. It's up to you to come up with the correct interpretation.

Now...no one else ruin this teaching moment....please!

I gave everybody else a chance to chime in. What is your opinion on this part of the rule?

"or is discovered using an altered or non-approved bat"

Does "discovered using" also cover before you enter the better's box?

What say you?

Ding! Ding! Ding! There's your answer. :)

Since the batter hasn't stepped into the box yet, they haven't violated any rules that would subject them to an out, disqualification or ejection.

So that leaves us with...? :)

The 2010 ASA Exam is now posted on the ASA site.

Anyone have a problem with this question?
 

46. If a pitcher has started the pitch and the batter holds up a hand requesting “time” the umpire should:
a) Grant time and call a “no pitch.”
b) Grant time and call the pitch a “ball” or “strike” depending on the location of the pitch.
c) Grant time, come around the catcher and clean off home plate to allow the batter time to get re-set.
d) Not grant time and allow the batter to swing and take the result of that swing.

Given the choices above, the only logical reply can be "d", because it's the only choice that includes "not grant time".

However, I believe someone missed the word "Not" and it should be the start of reply "b". That would be the proper answer. Ref.: Umpire Manual, Chapter 5, E. General Responsibilities Both Slow Pitch and Fast Pitch; Time Out - Suspension of Play. [This is from my 2009 manual as I haven't received my 2010 yet. I don't recall seeing this documented as a change for 2010.]

Thanx.

I think you may be correct. However, D is not wrong, just not 100% inclusive.:D

2009 ASA Umpire Manual, Page 241 (page 243 in 2010) under "Time Out-Suspension of Play" it clearly states that if the pitcher has started the pitch, time out should NOT be called.

IOW, a classic test question. :rolleyes:

Intent............
 

strike4 - The bottom line here is "intent." What does the batter "intend" to do with the bat? - USE IT. That's good enough for me.

Yes, he intended to use it, but tell me... What rule did he actually break?

Entering the batter's box is not the same as entering the field of play.

If you can head this off at the pass, everyone's better for it.

When the surgeon enters the operating room, he's surrounded by any number of tools. Hopefully he's not intending to use them all. He might ask the attending nurse for a particular implement and receive the wrong one. If the surgeon or someone else notices before it's used, everyone's better for it.

There's a reason why "intent" was removed from so many of the interference scenarios. It's too difficult to determine. Yes, I can see where the 1st batter of the game might approach HP with an illegal/altered bat and we could surmise that it was his intent to use it. But the rule is not violated until s/he enters the batter's box. And that's the truth - you could look it up.

Where the hell did "intent" come from in this situation? Intent is NOT part of the rule.

Either the batter entered the BB or not with an altered or non-approved bat.

Thanks Mike. I really thought I missed something! :cool:

From a couple of posts back. My point is that we're not there to interpret a batter's intent when he approaches the BB w/ an altered/NA bat. If you see it before he steps in, remove the bat from the game.

If he steps into the BB, or manages to get on base, even on a base on balls, and someone points out the bat, he's gone.

I think we're in violent agreement.

My apologies for not properly citing the original post which introduced the thought:

IOW, I wasn't responding to you, Tru. :cool: :D

Rules, rules, rules............
 

Illegal bat - Rule 3.1
Altered bat - Rule 3.1.J.
I try to use as much "preventive umpiring" as I can. If I see a problem, I deal with it NOW, not later. In this case, I see him stepping in the batter's box with an illegal or altered bat, I'm ruling on it NOW, BEFORE any further action happens (which will only complicate matters).

Speaking ASA 2009 Rule Book

The word "illegal" does not appear in 3.1 and Altered Bat specifically directs the reader to Rule 7.6.B which is not in effect until the batter enters the box. Rule 7.6.C covers a player using an illegal bat and it, too, specifically requires the batter to enter the box.

If you see it before the batter comes to the plate, you do what I did at a Men's Major Church NC. You confiscate the bat, throw it over the backstop and ask another umpire or someone from the tournament committee to lock it up.

And "intent" isn't relevant at any time. ;)

Right, but... The question that was posed did not involve the batter stepping into the box. The bat was spotted before the batter did so. Since the batter had not yet stepped into the box, no rule was broken (other than having an illegal bat in the warm-up circle, but there's no out or ejection for that).

You've got a lot of nerve using logic to make a point! :cool:

Especially when it involves an umpire exam question! ;)

Yep, I've got much to learn about this here job. ;)