Trick question?

greymule · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 13, 2003, 11:05pm

On the 2003 ASA test, #9 seems to be a trick question:

True or false:

The defensive team has been charged with a conference in each of the first three innings. In the fifth inning, the manager requests time to discuss defensive strategy with the infielders. The pitcher must be removed from the pitching position.

Well, I'll assume that by "manager," they mean "defensive manager," but by "requests time," do they mean "requests time and (1) a representative enters the playing field and talks with any defensive player, or (2) a defensive player approaches the dugout and receives instructions? A mere request for time would not qualify as a charged conference.

Compare ASA case book play 1.35:

The defensive team has been charged for a conference in each of the first three innings. In the fifth inning, the manager requests time and discusses defensive strategy with the infielders. [My emphasis] (Pitcher must be removed.)

[Edited by greymule on Mar 13th, 2003 at 10:20 PM]

Del-Blue · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 14, 2003, 08:13am

I can't seem to see where there is a problem. I read, and re-read, and re-read it again.

After three conferences, the manager requests time to discuss whatever with the defensive players>> Fourth conference. Pitcher must come out.

A mere request for time.......... That is correct, but after the request if there is a discussion with a player and coach, manager, or whatever you want to call an adult on the team, you have a charged conference.

By the way, the answer is true, if the manager does the talkingwith a player or players. If the manager just asks for time, and then the players discuss it among themselves, no conference.

CecilOne · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 14, 2003, 08:58am

I agree that is correct, but I can see that the question is not exactly the same as the case play ("to discuss" instead of "and discusses") However, I think the implication is clear that "the manager requests time to discuss defensive strategy with the infielders" means the the manager actually does have the discussion during the time out.
BUT, if the testers were actually trying to trick someone, that wording could also be read to imply that the time out request itself causes the pitcher's removal; which is not true. Especially if the umpire wisely withheld the time out to be sure the manager knew the penalty.

greymule · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 14, 2003, 09:29am

In the case book play, it is obvious that the umpire granted time. Nowhere in the test question does it say that time was granted. The umpire might well do as CecilOne says and caution the manager that he will have to remove the pitcher.

Just because the manager says, "Time out, Blue. I want to go out on the field and confer with my players," doesn't mean a defensive conference is to be charged.

I agree that ASA probably meant to duplicate the case book question but simply copied it incorrectly.

IRISHMAFIA · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 14, 2003, 01:29pm

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
In the case book play, it is obvious that the umpire granted time. Nowhere in the test question does it say that time was granted. The umpire might well do as CecilOne says and caution the manager that he will have to remove the pitcher.

Nope, that isn't going to happen. An umpire should alert the manager/coach/whatever of how many conferences they have exhausted after the conference as they are returning to the dugout (or coach's box if offensive). You do it on the way back to the dugout because they probably have other things on their mind if you tell them while entering the field and they may not hear you. It's their job to manage their conferences. However, that doesn't mean that I will not say to the coach, "okay, coach, you want to take that fourth (or whatever) conference now?" as a measure of preventive umpiring without coaching the manager.

Just because the manager says, "Time out, Blue. I want to go out on the field and confer with my players," doesn't mean a defensive conference is to be charged.

Well, unless s/he informs the umpire of a pitching change prior to crossing the base line, yeah it does. For that matter, it doesn't even have to be the coach and s/he doesn't even have to be outside of the dugout. If you check POE #11, you will note that if a defensive player calls time to approach and receive directions from the dugout, this is to be considered a charged conference.

I agree that ASA probably meant to duplicate the case book question but simply copied it incorrectly.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 14th, 2003 at 12:35 PM]

greymule · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 14, 2003, 01:51pm

Mike, I see your point about the manager having to be aware of how many conferences he has taken. I'll go along with the notion that it's not up to the ump to caution him. But according to the definition, a charged conference requires both a request for a time out and some actual consultation. For example:

If you check POE #11, you will note that if a defensive player calls time to approach and receive directions from the dugout, this is to be considered a charged conference.

POE #11 says: A defensive charged conference takes place when the defense requests a suspension of play for any reason, and a representative enters the playing field and confers with any defensive player. Should a defensive player approach the dugout and receive instructions, this is considered a defensive conference also.

Question 9 doesn't say that any conference took place. I guess I'll understand better if I know how you would call this play:

Manager (from the dugout): "Hey, Blue. Time out. I want to go talk to my infielders."

Umpire: "OK. Time!"

Manager (still in the dugout): "Oops, never mind, Blue. That would be my fourth conference."

Do we charge a conference anyway?

IRISHMAFIA · #7 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 15, 2003, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule

Question 9 doesn't say that any conference took place. I guess I'll understand better if I know how you would call this play:

Manager (from the dugout): "Hey, Blue. Time out. I want to go talk to my infielders."

Umpire: "OK. Time!"

Manager (still in the dugout): "Oops, never mind, Blue. That would be my fourth conference."

Do we charge a conference anyway?

ASA 2003 Umpire Exam

Part 1 (True of False)

Question:

9. The defensive team has been charged with a conference in each of the first three innings. In the fifth inning, the manager requests time to discuss defensive strategy with the infielders. The pitcher must be removed from the pitching position.

Answer:

9l (T) CB 1-35 Rule 1 - Charged Confer-B

This is a true/false question. Statements made within the question are to be considered factual. I learned this more than 33 years ago in high school. They are the parameters upon which the answer will be based and are irrefutable (is that a word?).

Grey, this isn't a Fed test. I didn't hesitate on this question as I did on a couple of others like #50. If you insist on reading into the questions, keep to the obvious, not the abstract. Only the resolution of a situation based on the prior statements should be questioned.

Thanks,

greymule · #8 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 15, 2003, 11:35am

Mike: I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by "statements made within the question are to be considered factual." The question still doesn't supply the fact that a conference ever took place. If the question had said "and discusses" instead of "to discuss," there would have been no ambiguity. But I will accept that no one at Fed is devious enough to change the case play wording deliberately so as to alter the meaning of the question.

And yes, irrefutable is a word. But on which syllable does the accent fall?

ronald · #9 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 15, 2003, 03:06pm

I'll take your word as to say they mean time was asked and granted but the word request does not imply nor can we infer from a logical point that a conference was granted. It is poorly written and a test maker would be required to not score this question if it was challenged and one was taking a test that meant more. The question needs to have the word granted for it to be actually true. The test maker is asking people to read something into the question and that is a poorly designed question. People who write these questions should really take a look as to what the words mean and whether they are communicating what they want.

I have heard players and coaches yell "I called time" and blues and officials respond "You requested time but I grant it".

Request per Webster's means to ask for. So the coach asked for time. Until the blue grants it, you really have nothing except we now know that when taking a ASA (that was the test, right?) test, request means ask for and granted.

IRISHMAFIA · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 05:12pm

Okay, if you insist on demanding specifics, tell me where in the question it says the umpire didn't permit the request. Show me that the manager didn't talk to his players in the field?

Obviously, these are rhetorical questions as you cannot prove the negative. If you read every occurance on the field and attempt to analyze it they way you do these questions, you will end up second-guessing yourself and that will not help make you a better umpire.

I know of umpires who have worked Nationals and did a fine job, but not get a game on the final day for one reason - according to the UIC(s), they went looking for trouble.

You know, like when the rule book says the pitcher (SP) shall hold the ball in front of the body and the body must be facing the batter. Does that mean you do not let them pitch if the body is slightly angled and the ball is just behind the plane of the player's hips. No, it means that everything is legal as long as the pitcher is not facing away from the batter and the ball is not behind the pitcher's body, or leg. I threw that in there because I anticipate the argument that the leg isn't part of the body.

ronald · #11 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 06:26pm

Actually, Mike you bring up a good point and it reveals one of the problems with teaching and learning true false questions in school. We are not given the option of does not say or not enough information is provided.

I trained military linguists who had a test where the answer to a question based on information in a paragraph or from a tape was True, false or doesn't say. The correct answer for the military people for the ASA question would be doesn't say. Some of them had the darndest time with those questions. They eventually did away with that section of the test. Not enough logical thinkers.

For example, say you have a group of people in a room and Johnny goes into the room, scans the people, comes out and says: Some of the people are men. Many people would say that it is true that some of the people (meaning the other some) are women. It's indeterminate. We have no way of knowing whether they are or are not women until we take a look. Same thing goes with Coach requested time. Did he get it or not? Until you tell me, I have no way of knowing and some people realize this and have a hard time with this type of question.

I know that in basketball if a coach requests time he is going to be granted a time out even if I know he has zero left. So, in this case, I can see how the request will be followed by the granting. I would hesistate just a little and realize what is being tested on that question. I just do not like the wording but I can live with it.