ASA Test Question 35 - 2011
 

ASA test Question Number 35 - 2011...

B1 hits a ground ball to F6, an unreported substitute, who fields the ball and throws B1 out at first base. Before a pitch to B2, the offensive team protests that F6 is an illegal player. The umpire should rule:

a. No penalty, simply recordF6 as in the game and continue play.

b. The offensive coach has the option of taking the result of the play or
having B1 bat again and assume the ball and strike count. F6 is officially
in the game.

c. B1 is out and F6 is ejected and replaced with a legal substitute.

d. B1 has the option of batting again with F6 being ejected and replaced with
a legal substitute.

I know the answer to the question as listed on the test.

Does anyone see anything wrong with the wording of the question?

You mean the difference between Unreported Sub and Illegal Player?

I noticed that, too...

I wonder if it was a T/F question that got turned into multiple choice.

Yes that is it.

Does it affect the answer which is which is "B" Rule 4, section 6C[8] on the test?

No.
An unreported sub is just that, not illegal unless they are illegal for another reason.


I did not get that from Yogi. :)

No, ignore the "illegal player" reference as something the coach requested, not the actual violation.

QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;740830]No, ignore the "illegal player" reference as something the coach requested, not the actual violation.[/QUOTE]

This Question is a lot deeper than it seems on the surface.

Especially for newer and a few older umpires.

Mike how about listing some finer points of the ins and outs of this question which I can use to teach new and old umpires.

And thank you for your input in advance.

I don't believe there is anything suspect or sinister to be read into the question or its wording.

Even a rookie should know that if a runner is OBS and a coach comes out and demands you call INT, that you ignore the coach and apply the correct effect.

Want a lesson? :rolleyes: Know more than the coach so you are not lead into a protest.:D

Funny, in taking the test, I just thought of it as an unreported sub. Just shows you how much I listen to coaches.....

:D

Absolutely. We can hardly expect coaches to use proper wording when telling us they believe there has been violation, when a huge portion of umpires don't even get the wording right.

If a coach is appealing/protesting a supposed violation, rule on the play as if he/she used the correct verbiage. He/she made it clear enough that there was an issue, it is OUR job to know the violation and correct ruling at that point.

They say illegal bat; we know it is nonapproved. They say illegal sub, we know it is simply an unreported sub. They say interference, we know it is obstruction. They list a DH on the lineup, we know it is a DP. Whatever, make the appropriate ruling for what occurred; that is our job. If you want to add the correct wording (and should do so when making the ruling), feel free to try to educate along the way.

But rule on the violation/infraction/occurrence, no matter how badly they describe what they want. "Coach, are you appealing ......?" "Coach, are you trying to ask .........?" In that case, the ruling is ......