Jump to content

2016 NCAA Test Discussion


grayhawk
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2910 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

35)  Bases are loaded, and as the pitcher gets on the rubber with both feet and his free hand at his side, he moves his free hand into his glove and momentarily adjusts the baseball. After a quick adjustment he takes his free hand out of the glove and drops it to his side before taking a sign from the catcher. This is not a balk.

a.  True.

b.  False.

 

29)  R3 and one out. B3 hits a high pop-up between the plate and 3rd base in foul territory. R3, while going back to the base, intentionally bumps F5 as he is coming over to make the play, causing F5 to drop the ball in foul territory.

a.  Foul ball on B3 and no interference by R3.

b.  Interference is called. R3 is out and the batter is awarded 1st base.

c.  Interference is called. R3 is out and the batter is returned to bat with a strike added to the count.

d.  Interference is called and the batter is out. R3 returns to 3rd.

 

 

(Isn't the "right" answer to this "both R3 and BR are out since it was intentional and a double play was likely?"  But, that's not one of the choices.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, noumpere said:

35)  Bases are loaded, and as the pitcher gets on the rubber with both feet and his free hand at his side, he moves his free hand into his glove and momentarily adjusts the baseball. After a quick adjustment he takes his free hand out of the glove and drops it to his side before taking a sign from the catcher. This is not a balk.

a.  True.

b.  False.

 

29)  R3 and one out. B3 hits a high pop-up between the plate and 3rd base in foul territory. R3, while going back to the base, intentionally bumps F5 as he is coming over to make the play, causing F5 to drop the ball in foul territory.

a.  Foul ball on B3 and no interference by R3.

b.  Interference is called. R3 is out and the batter is awarded 1st base.

c.  Interference is called. R3 is out and the batter is returned to bat with a strike added to the count.

d.  Interference is called and the batter is out. R3 returns to 3rd.

 

 

(Isn't the "right" answer to this "both R3 and BR are out since it was intentional and a double play was likely?"  But, that's not one of the choices.)

On 35, I have false based on 9-1a, AR1:

A.R. 1 When a pitcher is on the rubber with his hands together, before any natural movement that commits the pitcher to pitch, he may move his hand within his glove to adjust the ball.Should the pitcher separate his hands while in contact with the rubber, a balk shall be called.

Since the pitcher put his hands together and then separated them, it's a balk.

On 29, based on the description, I don't think a double play was likely.  My answer is D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 29 -- if it's not a double play, then R3 is out and the batter returns with a strike.

 

In 35 -- in OBR, I think a pitcher is allowed a "momentary adjustment" and then separation, even with runners.  I think it's in the Evans balk video (and maybe elsewhere).  I know / see the reference you have, but I'm not sure it applies, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, #42 pitching coach complaining about 20 second call.

9-2-c A.R. Coaches are prohibited from arguing a 20-second rule violation. A warning shall be given for the first offense and an ejection of the head coach on subsequent violations.

  This looks like the answer: Issue a warning and then eject the head coach if it continues.

But, Appendix F has,

  1. Following a team warning, if a coach, student-athlete, manager or any other nonplaying personnel argues any penalty or timing procedure, they are subject to an immediate ejection.

This looks like the answer: Warn the team and if it continues, eject the pitching coach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GerryB said:

Ok, #42 pitching coach complaining about 20 second call.

9-2-c A.R. Coaches are prohibited from arguing a 20-second rule violation. A warning shall be given for the first offense and an ejection of the head coach on subsequent violations.

  This looks like the answer: Issue a warning and then eject the head coach if it continues.

But, Appendix F has,

  1. Following a team warning, if a coach, student-athlete, manager or any other nonplaying personnel argues any penalty or timing procedure, they are subject to an immediate ejection.

This looks like the answer: Warn the team and if it continues, eject the pitching coach.

I would stick with 9-2c AR.  It's specific to arguing the 20 second violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GerryB said:

Ok, #42 pitching coach complaining about 20 second call.

9-2-c A.R. Coaches are prohibited from arguing a 20-second rule violation. A warning shall be given for the first offense and an ejection of the head coach on subsequent violations.

  This looks like the answer: Issue a warning and then eject the head coach if it continues.

But, Appendix F has,

  1. Following a team warning, if a coach, student-athlete, manager or any other nonplaying personnel argues any penalty or timing procedure, they are subject to an immediate ejection.

This looks like the answer: Warn the team and if it continues, eject the pitching coach.

Stick with the Appendix...think about it...are you going to run the head coach and keep the AC in the game?  The EJ of the head coach deals with a subsequent argument...this is one argument.  Warn, then run the AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Stick with the Appendix...think about it...are you going to run the head coach and keep the AC in the game?  The EJ of the head coach deals with a subsequent argument...this is one argument.  Warn, then run the AC.

Keep in mind how the answers are worded:

"Issue a warning and then eject the head coach if it continues."

"Warn the team and if it continues, eject the pitching coach."

So is arguing a 20 second violation a TEAM warning?  If so, then I think the appendix is right.  If it's not a team warning, then go with 9-2c AR.

 

EDIT:  I think you've convinced me.  I read the entirety of the Appendix again and since it's specific to the 20 second pitch clock, it makes more sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Keep in mind how the answers are worded:

"Issue a warning and then eject the head coach if it continues."

"Warn the team and if it continues, eject the pitching coach."

So is arguing a 20 second violation a TEAM warning?  If so, then I think the appendix is right.  If it's not a team warning, then go with 9-2c AR.

 

EDIT:  I think you've convinced me.  I read the entirety of the Appendix again and since it's specific to the 20 second pitch clock, it makes more sense.

Correct, but subsequent is different from prolonged.  You're not going to leave the AC in the game when he's the one causing the problems.  No way.

Appendix F is where your answer lies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Correct, but subsequent is different from prolonged.  You're not going to leave the AC in the game when he's the one causing the problems.  No way.

Appendix F is where your answer lies.

I'm sold as a practical answer. Don't reward the AC for getting his HC run!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2016 at 10:38 AM, zm1283 said:

Is this the rundown where U3 called OBS and scored the runner? Where the runner ran into the catcher going back toward the plate? The consensus on this was that OBS was the correct call, at least in Chicago. 

That was the only thing that was unequivocally NOT the right answer. The discussion centered whether INT was an option. They even said that OBS was not on the table on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Matt said:

That was the only thing that was unequivocally NOT the right answer. The discussion centered whether INT was an option. They even said that OBS was not on the table on this one.

Are you talking about the breakout session? In the room I was in, OBS was by far the overwhelming opinion, including the two presenters.

There is no way it could be interference. The catcher didn't even have the ball. What/who would the runner be interfering with? It was either OBS or nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zm1283 said:

Are you talking about the breakout session? In the room I was in, OBS was by far the overwhelming opinion, including the two presenters.

There is no way it could be interference. The catcher didn't even have the ball. What/who would the runner be interfering with? It was either OBS or nothing. 

Given that the first comment from the presenters was regarding how U3 probably would have made the proper call had he used proper timing: "He started to make the right call..." and later stated that this call was reversible because it was made after the play ended, I can assure you that OBS was soundly rejected.

The INT discussion hinged on if F2 was involved in the play or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2016 at 0:34 PM, johnnyg08 said:

Correct, but subsequent is different from prolonged.  You're not going to leave the AC in the game when he's the one causing the problems.  No way.

Appendix F is where your answer lies.

No.. your answewr is in the rules.. rule 9.2.c  it says it right threre... ( although it doesnt make sense to me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2016 at 10:42 AM, Matt said:

Given that the first comment from the presenters was regarding how U3 probably would have made the proper call had he used proper timing: "He started to make the right call..." and later stated that this call was reversible because it was made after the play ended, I can assure you that OBS was soundly rejected.

The INT discussion hinged on if F2 was involved in the play or not.

From my recollection, they talked about how he could have used better timing and not called the runner out first before calling obstruction. I could be thinking of entirely the wrong play, but I'm 95 percent sure almost everyone in our breakout room thought this was obstruction. 

I really wish we could post the video so everyone could see it in the same place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 4:34 PM, johnnyg08 said:

Correct, but subsequent is different from prolonged.  You're not going to leave the AC in the game when he's the one causing the problems.  No way.

Appendix F is where your answer lies.

Disagree.  It's the Head Coach who gets ejected.

4 minutes ago, zm1283 said:

From my recollection, they talked about how he could have used better timing and not called the runner out first before calling obstruction. I could be thinking of entirely the wrong play, but I'm 95 percent sure almost everyone in our breakout room thought this was obstruction. 

I really wish we could post the video so everyone could see it in the same place. 

I'm laughing at this exchange because I'm thinking about how one of the points of having a meeting instead of just letting us watch videos was so we could all be on the same page.

 

Apparently that didn't work out too well. ;)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Disagree.  It's the Head Coach who gets ejected.

I'm laughing at this exchange because I'm thinking about how one of the points of having a meeting instead of just letting us watch videos was so we could all be on the same page.

 

Apparently that didn't work out too well. ;)

 

 

I think the word subsequent means the 2nd time not the first time.  What's your definition of subsequent?  I'm sticking with what the rule reads along with what is in Appendix F.  I'm warning then dumping the AC.  Yes, that is supported in the rules.  There's far more support for this answer than dumping the HC according to this question. 

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 4.42.25 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 4.45.45 PM.jpg

2016-02-08_16-47-31.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2016 at 11:40 AM, grayhawk said:

On 35, I have false based on 9-1a, AR1:

A.R. 1 When a pitcher is on the rubber with his hands together, before any natural movement that commits the pitcher to pitch, he may move his hand within his glove to adjust the ball.Should the pitcher separate his hands while in contact with the rubber, a balk shall be called.

Since the pitcher put his hands together and then separated them, it's a balk.

On 29, based on the description, I don't think a double play was likely.  My answer is D.

35 is no balk.  Or True...A momentary adjustment is allowing before taking signs.  It must be momentary.  That is a Paronto interpretation that is in the Study Guide.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

35 is no balk.  Or True...A momentary adjustment is allowing before taking signs.  It must be momentary.  That is a Paronto interpretation that is in the Study Guide.

 

What Study Guide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, noumpere said:

Disagree.  It's the Head Coach who gets ejected.

I'm laughing at this exchange because I'm thinking about how one of the points of having a meeting instead of just letting us watch videos was so we could all be on the same page.

 

Apparently that didn't work out too well. ;)

 

 

Ok.. how about Tobacco rule.. SS is using chewing tobacco.. he and the Head coach get ejected.. does that make sense? The head coach is responsible for his team, so he need to tell Pitching coach to shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, grayhawk said:
6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

35 is no balk.  Or True...A momentary adjustment is allowing before taking signs.  It must be momentary.  That is a Paronto interpretation that is in the Study Guide.

 

What Study Guide?

balk.. once you put your hand in the glove you cant take it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

35 is no balk.  Or True...A momentary adjustment is allowing before taking signs.  It must be momentary.  That is a Paronto interpretation that is in the Study Guide.

Yes a momentary adjustment.. but the pitcher takes his hand off the ball... which is a no no..

 

how much more clear does this get?

 

Rule 9.1.8 pg 843 "A.R. 1 When a pitcher is on the rubber with his hands together, before any natural movement that commits the pitcher to pitch, he may move his hand within his glove to adjust the ball. Should the pitcher separate his hands while in contact with the rubber, a balk shall be called. A.R. 2 A pitcher may pause during his delivery from the windup position without penalty "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

balk.. once you put your hand in the glove you cant take it off.

Would you agree, assuming you went to a pro school, that momentary adjustment is allowed in OBR games? Would you agree that in other codes momentary adjustment might be allowed depending on the level of training the umpire has attained? Would you agree that most people would not missunderstand a momentary adjustment for coming set and the TOP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimurray said:

Would you agree, assuming you went to a pro school, that momentary adjustment is allowed in OBR games? Would you agree that in other codes momentary adjustment might be allowed depending on the level of training the umpire has attained? Would you agree that most people would not missunderstand a momentary adjustment for coming set and the TOP?

Yes i would agree.. But im just telling you what the rule says..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...