2016 NCAA Test Discussion

[wingman3110]

R2, R3, no outs. B3 bunts the ball in the air along the first base line with the runners moving on contact. The first baseman is under the ball and ready to make the catch as he collides with B3, who was not trying to interfere. While R3 had started to retreat to third, R2 was still over two thirds of the way to third base at the time of the collision.

• a.
  • Dead ball, interference on B3. Since the interference was not intentional, only B3 is called out. All other runners return to their previous base.

• b.
  • Dead ball, interference on B3. Both B3 and R3 are out. R2 returns to second base.

• c.
  • Dead ball, interference on B3. B3 is out and so is R2 for the interference of his teammate. R3 returns to third.

• d.
  • No interference. The batter did not intentionally interfere. This is an example of the "scramble/unscramble" play.

 

B, right? Section 5, E

 

Am I overthinking this one?

[johnnyg08]

On 2/12/2016 at 8:14 PM, noumpere said:

Thought about posting in test thread but that thing has gotten pretty hard to follow, plus I'm not really in doubt of the correct answer.  #7 on the test led me to what seems like an odd rule - 5-13-b:  

Art. b.

Any protest by the coach of a competing team must be made at the time of the action or incident that caused the protest and before play is resumed. If the game ends (legal contest) in a protestable situation, the offended team has until all infielders have left fair territory and the catcher has cleared the dirt circle to voice its protest intentions. All protests must be made to the umpire-in-chief. Decisions on a protest involving nonconference teams shall be resolved by the secretary-rules editor of the rules committee.

So let's say a situation ends a game (I guess a misapplication of an IFF rule similar to the one in the video portion of the test could be a possibility) that a team could protest.  Defensive team gets the third out and runs off the field to celebrate near the dugout (catcher included).  Presumably they could do this in a just a few seconds.  So according to this rule, the offensive coach would practically have to immediately run to the UIC and say he wants to protest, otherwise it'd be too late?  Seems odd...

I like  your thought process there.  In the rule book, the specific rule is on the top of the page.  If what you cited above it at the top of the page and it refers to who is out when the BR interferes and a DP is possible, then you're on the right path.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, wingman3110 said:

R2, R3, no outs. B3 bunts the ball in the air along the first base line with the runners moving on contact. The first baseman is under the ball and ready to make the catch as he collides with B3, who was not trying to interfere. While R3 had started to retreat to third, R2 was still over two thirds of the way to third base at the time of the collision.

 

• a.
  • Dead ball, interference on B3. Since the interference was not intentional, only B3 is called out. All other runners return to their previous base.

 

• b.
  • Dead ball, interference on B3. Both B3 and R3 are out. R2 returns to second base.

 

• c.
  • Dead ball, interference on B3. B3 is out and so is R2 for the interference of his teammate. R3 returns to third.

 

• d.
  • No interference. The batter did not intentionally interfere. This is an example of the "scramble/unscramble" play.

 

B, right? Section 5, E

 

Am I overthinking this one?

I had A. 

[BuckeyeMike]

I had B based on 8-5.e.    "if the BR interferes intentionally or UNINTENTIONALLY (my emphasis) with a batted ball or the fielder fielding it, with a double play likely, the BR and the R closest to home plate are out, regardless of where the DP attempt my have taken place."

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, BuckeyeMike said:

"if the BR interferes intentionally or UNINTENTIONALLY (my emphasis) with a batted ball or the fielder fielding it, with a double play likely, the BR and the R closest to home plate are out, regardless of where the DP attempt my have taken place."

This ^^^

[MUAump2]

I had A originally.  Are they wanting you to assume that with R2 being so far from 2nd, a double play would be likely?  The question didn't explicitly state that, so that's why I went with A.

[johnnyg08]

10 minutes ago, MUAump2 said:

I had A originally.  Are they wanting you to assume that with R2 being so far from 2nd, a double play would be likely?  The question didn't explicitly state that, so that's why I went with A.

I think there are two key points to this question...you list the first one, then the second is that R3 is out since he's closest to home plate, not R2, who they would likely have been put out for a double play minus the interference.

If you ever call it, that's the argument you're going to get from the offense and where I'd anticipate there being the greatest chance for an error in rule application.  OC is going to argue that R2 should be out, not R3.  

[ALStripes17]

I had A originally.  Are they wanting you to assume that with R2 being so far from 2nd, a double play would be likely?  The question didn't explicitly state that, so that's why I went with A.

The rules are written in a way that will make us find the applicable rule or A.R. in the book. Flip pages, dig deeper, and use the search function

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[jkumpire]

On 2/5/2016 at 11:38 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. 

With all due respect, ZM that was not the consensus in my group. Many of us saw INF or nothing on the play. The ruling was that INF by R3 was the better call according to Mr. Hiler, and I bought the DVD to hear the explanation again. . 

The answer choices for the question are irritating, The only choice for INF has as part of the answer is to get the BR runner out too, and impossibility on this play. so I picked the ball remains alive  and he's out on the tag. Probably missed that one.

 

[Forest Ump]

45 minutes ago, jkumpire said:

With all due respect, ZM that was not the consensus in my group. Many of us saw INF or nothing on the play. The ruling was that INF by R3 was the better call according to Mr. Hiler, and I bought the DVD to hear the explanation again. . 

The answer choices for the question are irritating, The only choice for INF has as part of the answer is to get the BR runner out too, and impossibility on this play. so I picked the ball remains alive  and he's out on the tag. Probably missed that one.

 

You can't have interference on that play. (the part where he runs into the fielder). I think Tom said he screwed up calling that interference but he could not edit it out.

One thing I learned on this play was to pay attention to how the runner reverses direction. In the video, he reverses twice and he does it on a dime. He does'nt reverse like that when he runs into the fielder. Further evidense that he is trying to draw obstruction. He could easily be called out for being three feet out of his established basepath.

[jkumpire]

38 minutes ago, jkumpire said:

With all due respect, ZM that was not the consensus in my group. Many of us saw INF or nothing on the play. The ruling was that INF by R3 was the better call according to Mr. Hiler, and I bought the DVD to hear the explanation again. . 

The answer choices for the question are irritating, The only choice for INF has as part of the answer is to get the BR runner out too, and impossibility on this play. so I picked the ball remains alive  and he's out on the tag. Probably missed that one.

 

Extremely disappointing, only got 93% Must have blown three easy questions. This is a great test every year, I enjoy this very much, except for this awful score. 

[jkumpire]

10 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

You can't have interference on that play.

One thing I learned on this play was to pay attention to how the runner reverses direction. In the video, he reverses twice and he does it on a dime. He does'nt reverse like that when he runs into the fielder. Further evidense that he is trying to draw obstruction. He could easily be called out for being three feet out of his established basepath.

However, this is the exact quote from the interpretation by Mr. Hiler on the video  everyone listening at the NCAA meetings heard:

"Wow, this is an amazing play...After watching all of these angles you may agree that if this official had it over again he would certainly call interference on the runner and I would agree with that..."

Yes, he is trying to buy OBS, I thought that from the first time I saw the play on ESPN U. But as Mr. Hiler also pointed out it is the PU who has the only good angle to see the play, and get the crew together on it. He didn't tip U3 he thought is was INF or trying toget outside of his baseline, so U3 went with the OBS call.

 

[Forest Ump]

Read my post again. I edited it.

[jkumpire]

14 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

You can't have interference on that play. (the part where he runs into the fielder). I think Tom said he screwed up calling that interference but he could not edit it out.

One thing I learned on this play was to pay attention to how the runner reverses direction. In the video, he reverses twice and he does it on a dime. He does'nt reverse like that when he runs into the fielder. Further evidense that he is trying to draw obstruction. He could easily be called out for being three feet out of his established basepath.

Don;t remember hearing him say that in Chicago though I could have missed it. I answered on my test ball is alive R3 out on tag, so maybe we are picking nits here. My bad. I can't get OBS on F2, period.

[Forest Ump]

You got that question right. I heard him say the comment about interference at the Palo Alto meeting. Alot of people missed the question about the pitcher going to his mouth while the ball was dead. Also the video question where F4 charges in and makes contact with R1 going into second.

[johnnyg08]

19 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

You got that question right. I heard him say the comment about interference at the Palo Alto meeting. Alot of people missed the question about the pitcher going to his mouth while the ball was dead. Also the video question where F4 charges in and makes contact with R1 going into second.

Crazy that the going to the mouth one was one that so many missed.  It's word-for-word in the rule book.  Very interesting stuff there.

[andydufresne]

Don't get locked in the can while reading Jughead comics. Your assigner will take back all your games.

[zm1283]

I stand by the assertion that my breakout group in Chicago mostly agreed that the rundown play was obstruction, and personally I still have obstruction after watching the video several times. The catcher's leg is still in front of the runner as he turns to run back toward the plate. 99 percent of us are going to call this obstruction in real time. The correct answer on the test is to leave the ball live and in play though. There is absolutely zero chance it is interference of any kind on the runner. 

There is no way you could get him for deviating more than three feet from his base path. That is grabbing the sh*tty end of the stick. 

I thought the test was better written and easier to understand this year than in previous years. 

[BT_Blue]

I do like how the test was written. The decision to ask top level umpires to help write the questions has definitely made it easier to take.

[andydufresne]

Question #34a

The ball is dead and the pitcher is on the rubber in the wind up position. Before the plate umpire puts the ball in play the pitcher inadvertently drops the ball. it caroms off his shoe, crosses the first-base foul line and comes to rest on foul ground. The correct ruling is:

a. Do nothing since time was out.

b. Before you put the ball in play, add a ball to the count.

c. Warn the pitcher.

d. Call a balk with runners on base and a ball with no runners on base.

Rule 9-2 (b) Penalty

[Replacematt]

22 hours ago, zm1283 said:

I stand by the assertion that my breakout group in Chicago mostly agreed that the rundown play was obstruction, and personally I still have obstruction after watching the video several times. The catcher's leg is still in front of the runner as he turns to run back toward the plate. 99 percent of us are going to call this obstruction in real time. The correct answer on the test is to leave the ball live and in play though. There is absolutely zero chance it is interference of any kind on the runner. 

There is no way you could get him for deviating more than three feet from his base path. That is grabbing the sh*tty end of the stick. 

I thought the test was better written and easier to understand this year than in previous years. 

How do you have obstruction when a) the runner initiated the contact and b) was not hindered, as he was not making a legitimate attempt at a base?

[zm1283]

On 2/18/2016 at 10:34 PM, Matt said:

How do you have obstruction when a) the runner initiated the contact and b) was not hindered, as he was not making a legitimate attempt at a base?

I don't feel like the runner initiated all of the contact, plus you don't need contact for obstruction. 

He was turning back to run toward the plate, how is that not an attempt at a base? I'm not against leaving the ball live when a runner initiates contact trying to draw obstruction, but I think in real time on a play like this, you don't split hairs. 

[grayhawk]

On 2/18/2016 at 8:34 PM, Matt said:

How do you have obstruction when a) the runner initiated the contact and b) was not hindered, as he was not making a legitimate attempt at a base?

Based on historical evidence, this play would be called obstruction in MLB almost every time.  They almost always give the runner the benefit of the doubt on run downs.

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, zm1283 said:

I don't feel like the runner initiated all of the contact, plus you don't need contact for obstruction. 

He was turning back to run toward the plate, how is that not an attempt at a base? I'm not against leaving the ball live when a runner initiates contact trying to draw obstruction, but I think in real time on a play like this, you don't split hairs. 

The test says he is out as he initiated the contact to draw obstruction.

[BT_Blue]

8 hours ago, Matt said:

The test says he is out as he initiated the contact to draw obstruction.

No. The test says he is out on the tag. That he is not allowed to try and create OBS. So the ball stays live.