ASA test question

[CecilOne]

The main thing about tests is that passing is not 100.

[EsqUmp]

The test question is poorly written. With that said, the ONLY interference that doesn't result in an immediate dead ball is when the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire a runner after a pitched ball. For those of you who keep referring to the need for interference to be "intentional" you may want to consult the rule book. It has been at least four years since ASA removed the word "intentional" from almost all forms of inference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The test question is poorly written. With that said, the ONLY interference that doesn't result in an immediate dead ball is when the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire a runner after a pitched ball. For those of you who keep referring to the need for interference to be "intentional" you may want to consult the rule book. It has been at least four years since ASA removed the word "intentional" from almost all forms of inference.

Yes, they removed the word, but not the meaning. The NUS was quick to point out that the manner in which umpires ruled on most plays was not to change.

Personally, I understood the question when I first read it a couple weeks ago, probably because of what I expect from ASA tests. It isn't saying "IF" it was interference, but that it IS interference and the ball is dead. The point of the question is to show that runner assistance is not interference and the ball is not dead.

This rule was once considered and noted as interference (last century), but was changed as it doesn't meet the definition or interpretation of interference.

[EsqUmp]

I would like to see something in writing that says "the manner in which umpires ruled on most plays was not to change." I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw anything like that. Additionally, that would be inconsistent with "comment" to the rule changes, which reads, "Removes 'intentionally' from the rule and allows the umpire to judge interference and not intent." As so many on this forum point out, the language in the book is clear so how could we enforce the rule differently? Thoughts?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I would like to see something in writing that says "the manner in which umpires ruled on most plays was not to change." I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw anything like that. Additionally, that would be inconsistent with "comment" to the rule changes, which reads, "Removes 'intentionally' from the rule and allows the umpire to judge interference and not intent." As so many on this forum point out, the language in the book is clear so how could we enforce the rule differently? Thoughts?

Which is exactly what they wanted. From March 2007 Rules Clarifications:

Tips for Judging Interference

In an effort to help umpires become more uniform in judging interference throughout the country, the ASA has addressed several rules relating to interference that contained the word “intentional”. Specifically, the word “intentional” has been removed from Rule 7, Section 7 Q; Rule 8, Section 2 F [3]; Rule 8, Section 7 J [3]; and, Rule 8, Section 7 P. Umpires now need only to base their decision on whether interference occurred or did not occur, and not the intentions of the offensive player. Moreover, removing the word “intentional” from these sections aligns these rules with the definition of INTERFERENCE in Rule 1.

All the "intent" part previous to this was differentiating whether the player committed an act of interference. However, there was the constant "I can't read his mind" excuse when umpires refused to make a decision. Now, instead of umpires saying, "well, the runner intentionally ran toward 2nd base and got hit with the throw, so it must be interference. Did it make umpire think a little more? Yeah, and I don't see a problem with it, I do the best I can to pass that along to other umpires. Just as every UIC should have passed this on to the umpires in their respective area.

When it comes down to it, seeing "intent" is the same as seeing an "act" of interference and all the rule did was attempt to standardize it so everyone is supposed to be looking at it in the same manner. It wasn't a manner of changing interference, just the manner in which it was presented in the rule book.

However, there was the argument that removing the wording "intent" part of the rule would cause to create more confusion and consternation among some umpires and that the change was not necessary. It was raised in at least four committee meetings. This discussion was so wide throughout the council meeting in Colorado Springs it even continued into the hotel parking lot during an evacuation because of a fire alarm. It wasn't that I didn't understand, I just didn't believe it was necessary and would be difficult to get across to some umpires.

[MD Longhorn]

C and D are both correct, and it was stated as such when we took our tests this weekend.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

C and D are both correct, and it was stated as such when we took our tests this weekend.

No, it that were true they would all be correct under certain circumstances.

The ONLY definitely correct answer is D and I've got the answer sheet to prove it