The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
The main thing about tests is that passing is not 100.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 25, 2012, 06:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 25, 2012, 08:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 08:44pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2012, 02:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
C and D are both correct, and it was stated as such when we took our tests this weekend.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2012, 06:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
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
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Test Question Pirate Basketball 6 Sun Nov 01, 2009 01:20pm
Test question help zac Basketball 16 Sat Oct 31, 2009 08:35am
Test Question #40 golfdesigner Basketball 24 Wed Oct 20, 2004 07:47am
test question 25 zac Basketball 21 Mon Oct 11, 2004 03:26pm
Test Question #29 garote Basketball 1 Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:06pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1