Getting Ready

[CecilOne]

For NCAA mechanics:

For U1, does a default 45 degree angle to the line contradict 90 degrees to the throw and 30 – 50 degrees to the line?

For a PU when U1 chases, is "preparing for a play at 1st", the same as "moving to a primary position 15 – 18 ft. from 1st"?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

For NCAA mechanics:

For U1, does a default 45 degree angle to the line contradict 90 degrees to the throw and 30 – 50 degrees to the line?

For a PU when U1 chases, is "preparing for a play at 1st", the same as "moving to a primary position 15 – 18 ft. from 1st"?

Question 1: Yes, it contradicts. No default 45 degree.

Question 2: Need the exact question to answer.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I don't know any association that has a default of 45 degrees.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Question 2: Need the exact question to answer.

CCA Manual - 2014.
Worded differently for R1, U1 chases, not caught:
specific situations pg.93 (be prepared)
general mechanics pg 13 (primary position 15 - 18 feet from 1st)

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

CCA Manual - 2014.
Worded differently for R1, U1 chases, not caught:
specific situations pg.93 (be prepared)
general mechanics pg 13 (primary position 15 - 18 feet from 1st)

I know what the manual says; what does the actual question ask?

I'll keep my opinions to myself about this year's test, despite scoring well.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I know what the manual says; what does the actual question ask?

There was a Q about PU action in that situation which just said prepared for a play at 1st. If that is the same as the pg 13 version, then the answer is True. If not the same, then the answer is False.

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I'll keep my opinions to myself

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by esqump

scoring well.

> 92 ?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

> 92 ?

96%

I am waiting to see which two are wrong. I have a feeling that one that was wrong was from the interpretations on the SUP website, though they changed a significant fact in the question (verse the case play). Not sure about the other one.

But for the fact that I am a nitpicker and have a good understanding of grammar, I would have easily missed 5 additional questions just because of their wording.

Though reading comprehension is important to understanding the rules, no umpire test should have "trick" questions that focus on grammar rather than content.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

96%

I am waiting to see which two are wrong. I have a feeling that one that was wrong was from the interpretations on the SUP website, though they changed a significant fact in the question (verse the case play). Not sure about the other one.

But for the fact that I am a nitpicker and have a good understanding of grammar, I would have easily missed 5 additional questions just because of their wording.

Though reading comprehension is important to understanding the rules, no umpire test should have "trick" questions that focus on grammar rather than content.

Good for you, I wish we could review right away while my thought process is still fresh.

[shagpal]

96% here too.

maybe we got same questions wrong.

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

96%

I am waiting to see which two are wrong. I have a feeling that one that was wrong was from the interpretations on the SUP website, though they changed a significant fact in the question (verse the case play). Not sure about the other one.

But for the fact that I am a nitpicker and have a good understanding of grammar, I would have easily missed 5 additional questions just because of their wording.

Though reading comprehension is important to understanding the rules, no umpire test should have "trick" questions that focus on grammar rather than content.

[Jake26]

I had a question on my instance of the test that, based on the wording, I think was intended to reference MechaniGram A in the CCA Manual, but there was no information about the location of any runners. So I made an assumption, and I suspect this is the one I missed.

[EsqUmp]

As suspected, one question's approved ruling reference had a majorly different fact than the question itself. If that reference is going to be used for the scenario in the test question, I guess that's fine although it wouldn't make much sense.

The other question now makes it possible to call out multiple runners for leaving prior to the pitch. I know it is a delayed dead ball, but when did they allow for multiple outs? Nothing in the rule book addresses multiple runnerS getting called out. Hmm...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

As suspected, one question's approved ruling reference had a majorly different fact than the question itself. If that reference is going to be used for the scenario in the test question, I guess that's fine although it wouldn't make much sense.

The other question now makes it possible to call out multiple runners for leaving prior to the pitch. I know it is a delayed dead ball, but when did they allow for multiple outs? Nothing in the rule book addresses multiple runnerS getting called out. Hmm...

Can you be more specific?

[EsqUmp]

I can post the actual questions when I'm back on my computer. An iPod touch is not the place to try to copy and paste. The one question, quickly, said the defense had the option to call the runner(s) out for leaving early. The answer was true. The (s) makes for multiple outs or a blantantly grammatically inaccurate question.

[EsqUmp]

The other questioned referred to AR 9.2 I believe dealing with home runs and the catch and carry rule.