xtreamump
 

NCAA T or F ?

Team A has been reduced to 9 eligible players. Leading 12-3 in the bottom of the 6th inning, B1 on team A turns her ankle after rounding first base on an outfield hit. She crawls safely back to first base, but is unable to stand without assistance, and her coach determines that she must leave the game. The game is declared a forfeit, and team B is awarded a 7-0 victory.

I am not an umpire, but my kid is starting to play NCAA and I'm trying to learn the rules...

Why wouldn't the 8 run rule (6.13) be in effect here? Shouldn't the game have ended after the 5th inning?

Perhaps this is a championship game where the run-rule is not in affect.

Otherwise, you are correct. The game should have been declared a win for the home team before this situation took place. So maybe this is a trick question and the answer is False.

NCAA does not have a short-hand rule. If a team is reduced to less than nine eligible players, then the opposing team is granted an immediate forfeit. See 8.1.1.1 and 8.1.1.2 Effect.

Only in effect if the respective Divisional softball committee formally declared before the start of the tournament....so we're talking the exception here, not the rule.

And yes, I agree the answer is False.

This type of question does not belong on a test. Questions supposed to test knowledge, not trick umpires into incorrect answers. The fact that the question presupposes that the umpires already did something incorrectly (allowing a batter to bat when the game was officially over), is improper.

And yet, this type of question is typically found on every test. Sometimes, there are multiple questions like this.

There are also questions that leave out so much information, you have no idea what's going on. It's almost as if the test writers do not want anybody to get all questions correct.

Retired high school teacher of 32 years and with expertise in test construction here. My beef with rules tests is just that way too many questions are more reading test than rules/situations. The powers that be need to do some tweaking.

This year's NFHS test has to win the trophy for the worst test ever!!

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.)

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

xtreamump
 

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

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.

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.

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.