53. (Women's and JO Girls Fastpitch) Pushing off and dragging the pivot foot in contact with the ground is not required. a) true b) false


The question exhibits a serious lack of context.

It's certainly not required of the center fielder... or the batter... or the scorekeeper.

Hmmm ... but it is required of the pitcher by rule. But would anybody call this? By that I mean a really weak pitcher who just pitches slow pitch style has not pushed off or drug but I'd never thought of calling it illegal.

It's either a "gotcha" question or an improperly worded one, because who the hell else would care? Get real.

I have proctored these tests for a little over a decade and constantly run into umpires who want to parse every 20 word question into a 70 word situation instead of just reading what is there and giving the appropriate answer.

I've never seen a "gotcha" question on an ASA test. In my experience, the ASA test has one purpose: to make the umpire think. From the discussion, it seems that is exactly what it did.

In some cases just reading what is there may not be enough. In some cases a relevant piece of information is missing. So while they may not be intended as "gotcha" questions, there have been several corrections to the test answers over the years.

When I attended a class to become certified as an ASA umpire, the UIC giving the class had us review the previous 5 years umpires' exam. Rule changes notwithstanding, there was often a question or two that he told us to ignore because they were "bad questions".

I think things have improved in the past few years, but from my original post, there are still some nebulous areas on the test. I'm all for "thinking" and some say that I think too much at times. I usually try to envision a test question scenario to something I may have seen at some point. Often times that's easy. Sometimes I have to play it out a bit more and check the book for the answer.

And that's a good thing.

The thing that is irksome is this: On one question, what seems to the reader to be an error, typo, or oversight turns out to be the test-writer's way of seeing if the reader is paying attention... but on another question, what seems to be an error or oversight is indeed an error or oversight.

So if the test-taker takes the question at it's word, they'll miss 1 of the 2 above ... but if they put away the lawyerese and answer what they think the test-taker meant to be asking, they will also miss 1 of the 2.

There is little to no doubt that there can be multiple responses that can or are partially correct lacking certain information, but I have found that was often because the person submitting/writing the question had a preconceived response in mind and did not always venture into other "what if" options.

But my point is, and always has been, just answer what is in front of you. Should you believe there is an answer incorrectly marked wrong, ask for clarification from your UIC.

I've tried that a few times. When I asked either via e-mail or in a meeting format, the person who corrected my submitted seemed just as confused and simply said that that was the answer on the answer sheet.

Until a clarification comes from the National Office, the lower level UICs, perhaps as high as a state UIC or commissioner don't have the authority to correct such a mistake.

Actually, a UIC and/or commissioner can change just about anything they please. :) ASA couldn't care less about the test. And if a state/metro UIC doesn't have the answer to your questions, s/he should have a member of the NUS who they can call for clarification. If s/he will not do that, s/he is not much of a UIC.

Do any of them have a "pivot foot"? ;)

They do if they are pivoting. ;)

Base umpires have a pivot foot.

'Course not many of our local guys use them. :(

As I suspected, this is indeed a bad question.

Still catching up from vacation :rolleyes:, posting to keep near top. :)