xtreamump

[MD Longhorn]

I believe that when reading a question like this, we must assume that things that happen before the supposed play were ruled upon correctly. So the 8-run thing being not invoked implies that there was a proper reason for it not to be invoked.

Using that as a given, I have TRUE as the answer to this question. (And a FAIL for the coach, who could have simply told her to sit on the base until they reset for the next pitch, and then step (or fall) off before the pitch, letting her be called out.

(I played a game once in my youth where our pitcher BROKE HIS LEG while swinging the bat ... and then played an inning in right field --- and threw out a player at the plate when a hit rolled right to him.)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I believe that when reading a question like this, we must assume...

And that's why I miss questions on these tests. My assumptions are almost always wrong.

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I believe that when reading a question like this, we must assume that things that happen before the supposed play were ruled upon correctly. So the 8-run thing being not invoked implies that there was a proper reason for it not to be invoked.

Using that as a given, I have TRUE as the answer to this question. (And a FAIL for the coach, who could have simply told her to sit on the base until they reset for the next pitch, and then step (or fall) off before the pitch, letting her be called out.

(I played a game once in my youth where our pitcher BROKE HIS LEG while swinging the bat ... and then played an inning in right field --- and threw out a player at the plate when a hit rolled right to him.)

Mike,

You are the second person to say the same thing. I did not listen to the other person. I am wondering now if what they wanted is me to assume ??? Thanks

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I believe that when reading a question like this, we must assume that things that happen before the supposed play were ruled upon correctly. So the 8-run thing being not invoked implies that there was a proper reason for it not to be invoked.

Using that as a given, I have TRUE as the answer to this question. (And a FAIL for the coach, who could have simply told her to sit on the base until they reset for the next pitch, and then step (or fall) off before the pitch, letting her be called out.

(I played a game once in my youth where our pitcher BROKE HIS LEG while swinging the bat ... and then played an inning in right field --- and threw out a player at the plate when a hit rolled right to him.)

I see your point, and I'd have to say that generally when we get together as a study group (4-7 umps) for our pre-season rules test review it's probably a 5 to 2 split in opinion on questions written in this manner.
The majority share your view Mike as to how to look at what the question is asking. I always seem to be advocating the other point of view, as I am here.

Where I'm going to disagree with you is on the part that I bolded.

What (and the OP was talking an NCAA game) could have been a proper reason for the umpires not invoking the Eight Run Rule (6.13)?

I can come up with an improper reason.....

Let's assume that the umpires and the HC all had collective 'brain lock' at the point after five or more equal innings that Team A went ahead by 8 runs. Now the sitch posted in the OP occurs and the umpires are going to call the game as per 6.19.1.7 and award a 7-0 win by forfeit to Team B.

They now have made, by rule, two mistakes. To me, that makes the answer FALSE.

To support my conviction, (and in the way of full disclosure), I took the test on which this specific question appeared.....well you know what I put down for an answer.

BTW, there were one or two (IMO) other questions on that test written in the same manner which resulted in a spirited discussion and inevitable disagreement as to the intent of the question. Which when you think about it,
is not a bad thing.

[x-tremeump]

I had 4 questions on the Test that I went back and forth with in the rule book. I guess that I will never know what was ment on that question. I agree that good Umpire discussion to see all sides of one question helps me learn. Thanks

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by xtreamump

I had 4 questions on the Test that I went back and forth with in the rule book. I guess that I will never know what was ment on that question. I agree that good Umpire discussion to see all sides of one question helps me learn. Thanks

Check your PM's.

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Check your PM's.

Good Copy, Check Yours

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

What (and the OP was talking an NCAA game) could have been a proper reason for the umpires not invoking the Eight Run Rule (6.13)?

I don't know, but we don't have to know. Assume that the event or whatever has specified that rule will not be used. (More likely, the test writer just put a random score in there, not realizing the spread of the score would cause issues).

The questions are written like this:
X happens.
Y happens.
Z happens.
Now, True or False: when Blahblah happens, the ruling is Blahblahblah.

You have to assume X, Y, and Z already happened. If you can't assume that, then NONE of the questions (even the ones where X, Y, and Z are completely normal) make any sense.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I don't know, but we don't have to know. Assume that the event or whatever has specified that rule will not be used. (More likely, the test writer just put a random score in there, not realizing the spread of the score would cause issues).

The questions are written like this:
X happens.
Y happens.
Z happens.
Now, True or False: when Blahblah happens, the ruling is Blahblahblah.

You have to assume X, Y, and Z already happened. If you can't assume that, then NONE of the questions (even the ones where X, Y, and Z are completely normal) make any sense.

That may be but if the score is 10-1 in the bottom of the sixth inning and the pitcher throws a pitch which travels untouched through the strike zone and the umpire rules strike he's missed the ruling because the correct ruling for that play is the game was over before the pitch. And if the ball is hit over the fence and he rules home run he's wrong because the correct ruling for that play is the game was over before the pitch. Why is the score even in the question if that's not the point?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The questions are written like this:
X happens.
Y happens.
Z happens.
Now, True or False: when Blahblah happens, the ruling is Blahblahblah.

You have to assume X, Y, and Z already happened. If you can't assume that, then NONE of the questions (even the ones where X, Y, and Z are completely normal) make any sense.

I'm not tracking with your last statement, Mike. If X, Y, and Z are completely normal situations provided in a test question, there's no reason to make any assumptions. It's when X, Y, and Z don't make sense that you have to decide whether or not these were mere oversights by the people writing the questions, or they were intentionally thrown in there to see if the test-takers are paying attention.

I have found in past tests that I've taken that the latter is usually the case.

[MD Longhorn]

OK... so what was the "right" answer on the test then?

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

OK... so what was the "right" answer on the test then?

???????/We do not have the answers just the questions. We will find out 3/1/13

[x-tremeump]

I received the answers and rules reference today, T or F...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I believe that when reading a question like this, we must assume that things that happen before the supposed play were ruled upon correctly. So the 8-run thing being not invoked implies that there was a proper reason for it not to be invoked.

So without a line-up card, the assumption is that the team is using the DP/FLEX and that B1 is neither. Otherwise, nine could be fine