ASA test question

[IRISHMAFIA]

I really don't understand how anyone can actually read the rule and not come the correct answer

4.6.C: A substitute who enters the game without reporting is considered an unreported substitute

Since in the OP the unreported substitute has complete his/her turn at bat, subparagraph 3 applies:

When completing a turn at bat and is discovered
a. BEFORE the next pitch, legal or illegal
b. BEFORE the defense has left the field
c. BEFORE the umpires have left the field

According to OP, "c" applies so you go to the EFFECT:

1. The unreported substitute is officially in the game and ruled out. (B1 is out, nullifies the run)
2. All other outs that occur on this play stand (n/a in the OP)
3. All other runners will return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch (n/a in the OP)

BTW, the rule for 2015 reads the same as the rule for 2016

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I really don't understand how anyone can actually read the rule and not come the correct answer...

Read the question again, Mike:

19. In the bottom of the seventh inning of a tie game, an unreported substitute for B1 is batting and on the first pitch hits a home run.
Before the umpires leave the playing field, the defense notifies the umpires that B1’s substitute did not report. The umpire should rule:
a.) B1’s substitute is officially in the game, the run is nullified and B1 is declared out.
b.) B1’s substitute’s run counts because there is no penalty for an unreported substitute and the game is over.
c.) B1 substitute’s is declared out but the run counts and the game is over.
d.) None of the above.

Throughout, it is careful to distinguish between B1 and B1's substitute, yet answer choice a) says it is B1 that is out, not B1's substitute.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Read the question again, Mike:

19. In the bottom of the seventh inning of a tie game, an unreported substitute for B1 is batting and on the first pitch hits a home run.
Before the umpires leave the playing field, the defense notifies the umpires that B1’s substitute did not report. The umpire should rule:
a.) B1’s substitute is officially in the game, the run is nullified and B1 is declared out.
b.) B1’s substitute’s run counts because there is no penalty for an unreported substitute and the game is over.
c.) B1 substitute’s is declared out but the run counts and the game is over.
d.) None of the above.

Throughout, it is careful to distinguish between B1 and B1's substitute, yet answer choice a) says it is B1 that is out, not B1's substitute.

Basically you have an reported substitute who finished their at bat when B1 should have batted and then appealed so we have Batting out of order B1 is out. The unreported Sub is now in the game as she has batted Illegally.

THis is how I view it by breaking it down.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

Basically you have an reported substitute who finished their at bat when B1 should have batted and then appealed so we have Batting out of order B1 is out. The unreported Sub is now in the game as she has batted Illegally.

THis is how I view it by breaking it down.

Where did this come from?

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Read the question again, Mike:

19. In the bottom of the seventh inning of a tie game, an unreported substitute for B1 is batting and on the first pitch hits a home run.
Before the umpires leave the playing field, the defense notifies the umpires that B1’s substitute did not report. The umpire should rule:
a.) B1’s substitute is officially in the game, the run is nullified and B1 is declared out.
b.) B1’s substitute’s run counts because there is no penalty for an unreported substitute and the game is over.
c.) B1 substitute’s is declared out but the run counts and the game is over.
d.) None of the above.

Throughout, it is careful to distinguish between B1 and B1's substitute, yet answer choice a) says it is B1 that is out, not B1's substitute.

There is nothing wrong with the wording of the question. If b1's substitute is officially in the game, they now are in fact b1.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

There is nothing wrong with the wording of the question. If b1's substitute is officially in the game, they now are in fact b1.

Perhaps, but player designations generally do not change during the play scenario description. Given that everywhere else in that question and the various answer choices a clear distinction is made between "B1's substitute" and "B1" as being different players, there IS in fact, something wrong with the wording of the question, IMO. The test taker can reasonably conclude that answer a) is incorrect due to the wording, not due to lack of rules knowledge. In fact, the test taker most likely to view choice a) as incorrect is the test taker who thoroughly DOES know the rules. Hence, the wording of the rule is a problem.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

There is nothing wrong with the wording of the question. If b1's substitute is officially in the game, they now are in fact b1.

Exactly, you can only have one player occupying any single position at any one time.

I think y'all are overthinking the question looking for a booger.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Exactly, you can only have one player occupying any single position at any one time.

I think y'all are overthinking the question looking for a booger.

Disagree. See my reply above. It is not "looking for a booger"; neither is it "overthinking". It is applying the situation as described, with the answers provided, to the rule as written. It is not unreasonable to assume (and it is not overthinking to assume) that the question is written to make the point of exactly which player is out, B1 or B1's subsititute.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Disagree. See my reply above. It is not "looking for a booger"; neither is it "overthinking". It is applying the situation as described, with the answers provided, to the rule as written. It is not unreasonable to assume (and it is not overthinking to assume) that the question is written to make the point of exactly which player is out, B1 or B1's subsititute.

Quite plan, IMO. OP clearly states "unreported substitute for B1 is batting".

The substitute is officially in the game when discovered. That is the first thing that occurs. That means the player originally scheduled to bat is no long in the game. How are you going to rule someone not in the game out?

IMO, the question was provided to force the umpire to look into the rule (4.6.C) and determine which of the 4 possible effects is applied to the given situation.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quite plan, IMO. OP clearly states "unreported substitute for B1 is batting".

The substitute is officially in the game when discovered. That is the first thing that occurs. That means the player originally scheduled to bat is no long in the game. How are you going to rule someone not in the game out?

IMO, the question was provided to force the umpire to look into the rule (4.6.C) and determine which of the 4 possible effects is applied to the given situation.

How do you rule someone not in the game out? You don't, which is why some would conclude choice a) is incorrect.

They didn't HAVE to state choice a) the way they did, and (as I said, and will repeat here) choice a) is the ONLY place in the entire scenario or answer choices where "B1" apparently means a different player than everywhere else... even choices b) and c) where she has also already been discovered and should (presumably) be referred to as merely "B1." But this is not a test in transitory nomenclature, it is a rules test.

Of course, threads like this treat poorly-written test questions as some kind of huge deal when they are generally merely an annoyance, but this question IS poorly written (or, perhaps as youngump states is intentionally written to trip up the test taker on a purely trivial nomenclature issue, in which case the question writer should be ashamed of themselves).

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Disagree. See my reply above. It is not "looking for a booger"; neither is it "overthinking". It is applying the situation as described, with the answers provided, to the rule as written. It is not unreasonable to assume (and it is not overthinking to assume) that the question is written to make the point of exactly which player is out, B1 or B1's subsititute.

In my experience taking ASA tests, half the time when there is an ambiguity in a question like this, they want it overthought and half the time they just made a mistake.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I really don't understand how anyone can actually read the rule and not come the correct answer

OUCH !

Yes, the answer is straight forward to those well versed in discussions of the rules and some related basics; but not necessarily full of clarity as written.

And yes, I have to work on unreported sub rules between books.