ASA 2014 test question 16
 

Question 16 of the ASA 2014 test:
With two outs and R1 on 3B, B4 get a base hit. R1 should score easily but is knocked down by F5. B4 tries to stretch a single into a double and is tagged out before reaching 2B for the 3rd out. Does the run count?

I’m think’n there isn’t enough information. Was obstruction called and DDB signaled? Did runner get up and go home? Did runner stay on ground?
If there isn’t information missing I’m think’n this is a great question. I can’t find anything on this but that’s me.

My ruling if I had to use the knowledge instantly on the field, and my logic cuz I can’t find anything: Run scores cuz defense can’t benefit by knocking down a runner and getting an out somewhere else, no matter the timing, to prevent the run from scoring. It would have been, my judgment, the run scored before the out was made at second.....or, after play is over tell'm rrun would have scored had they not been obstructed and it would have scored before the out at 2nd.
Am I completely wrong here? If my logic’s wrong, where?
Thanks………..

my best suggestion, always answer true unless it is false.

I am not ASA, but does the word "easily" give you enuff for what you need?

You have to make assumptions that those all happened. It's going to be blatantly obvious that the runner was obstructed when she was knocked to the ground by F5. So of course the call will be made.

As for what happened with the runner, it doesn't matter since the question said she would have easily scored.

To answer any test question, you have to assume the umpires acted the way they were supposed to... on this question that would mean they did A) SEE, and B) RULE obstruction. If you start asking yourself, "Did the umpire see the action in the question", no question will be valid.

Completely irrelevant (and this being one of my pet peeves regarding many umpires' misunderstanding of this rule, it scares me that you are asking this.

Again, irrelevant (same)

No need for any of that logic, or adding stuff to the rules like "can't benefit by knocking down..." What does the obstruction rule say to do?

I just did my test online and got a 100%, Mike is dead on with his responses.

The correct answer is yes score the run.

So Cal has our 1st of 3 Rules clinic on the 18th. I will be curious to see how many people take the test before then.

Given the assumptions that were pointed out........would the mechanics be:

Give delayed dead ball signal and say "obstruction". Watch play at 2nd base and call out. Now call "dead ball" and explain that run scores even though out was made before runner crossed the plate?

I'm having a little difficulty in an obstruction call away from a play and the mechanics involved. Let's say the runner went back to 3rd. Would you then award them home because in your judgment that's where you think they'd have been even though they went back to 3rd?

in your judgment that's where you think they'd have been

Personally speaking yes I would do exactly that.

Remember you award the base that you feel the runner would have made if no Obstruction had occurred.
ASA rule Supplement #36

To me, this is a classic example of a test giving you a 'red herring' , to see if you can find what they are actually looking for. I do not care what happens after this OBS, that runner gets home. Period. Next question.

When you try to over complicate these tests - that is when you get yourself in trouble.

Linkd: How long have you been working, and how long does it take you to do the ASA test? And how often to do you really have to look something up in the book? I am asking because for our high school test here in New York, we have to take it as a group, and it is CLOSED BOOK. It is also partially written by the inestimable Jay Miner, who is the NYS Clinician/Rules Interpreter, so that should give you an idea of how good it is. Now also understand, in our little group, one of our members is not only a clinician at our State School, but she is also ASA UIC for New York. Our group clinician is a former clinician at the State School - they both freely admit they usually miss a couple of questions on that test, so understand that a friend of mine and myself will get that test, and get it done - 100 questions, including checking - in about 30-35 minutes. And both get scores in the 97-99 range. And there are veterans who take FOREVER to get it done.

My point is this: You SHOULD be able to these tests relatively quick - if you can't get it right on the test quickly, how are you going to be able to react on the field? On the field, if you have any experience at all, you know how to eliminate the non essential stuff - the same goes for these tests. Even though the actual writing on these is sometimes...well...you can tell they were written by umpires :p

How is the NFHS test? Open/closed book?

People often complain that the NCAA rule book is too long and goes into too much detail. Though that may be true in same cases, it works well here:

Base awards should be made even after the third out of an inning and if an obstructed base runner would have scored before the third out, the run would score on the base award.

A.R. 9.3.1: Two outs with a base runner on second base on a base hit to the outfield. The base runner is obstructed rounding third base. The ball is thrown home (even though there was no play) and on the throw, the batter-runner attempts to advance to second base but is thrown out for the third out of the inning. RULING: The base runner is awarded home and the run scores if the umpires judge she would have scored but for the obstruction.

As it applies to this specific scenario assuming ALL action was given, this is true.

As a general statement, it is dead wrong.

You have described one philosophy / purpose for these tests... namely to test the official in their knowledge and application of the rules that they would carry with them to the field. This is the classic exam philosophy - to test what you have learned.

The test philosophy used here is different. Our tests are given open book, and it is "legal" for them to be openly discussed among your fellow umpires (at your association meeting, for example). The purpose of such a test is quite different from what you described. The purpose is to encourage umpires to read / dig into the rule book, and to encourage discussion of different plays and scenarios.

Not being a teacher or a clinician, I can see the advantages of each approach. The major disadvantage of the closed book exam approach for any state-wide testing is probably logistics.

Well, if you were acting solo (one-man), you would handle both the obstruction call at third and the out call at second. With two-man, however, the PU takes the OBS call, and the BU would make the call on the BR at second.

As for calling "dead ball", is that really necessary, given the fact that the out at second base was the third out of the inning? What is appropriate for ASA play? Would "Time" be the better verbal here? Does it matter?

"Dead Ball!" is the proper call when an obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base they would have reached absent the obstruction.

As you say, it really doesn't matter here, since we are dealing with the third out of the inning, but I would recommend it as a matter of consistency. Calling the dead ball stops all further play.

Honestly, I think dead ball or time work perfectly well here. Given that we have a third out - nothing really needs to be said to kill the ball - so I likely go with "Time!"; but either declaration alerts those that need to know that we have something further to inform them of.