grayhawk

100%, and should be added to this document.

Meh. Never had an issue with it, and don’t feel disrespected by it, but the coaches and catchers in college tend to use my name, and I use theirs as well. Feels more professional that way.

Yeah, that's poor placement. Thanks guys.

Yes, for #4. I did note that when I read the question, but I did not see an exception for two outs in appendix E for plays without video review.

Same question, but the other two choices can definitely be reversed.

Another question that appears to be confusing, at best, or with 2 correct answers. WITHOUT the use of video replay, which of these two calls is NOT reversible: 1. Foul reversed to fair on a line drive to F3. 2. No catch reversed to catch on a sinking line drive in the infield to F6. Seems to me that neither can be reversed. #1 can be reversed WITH the use of video review under the new rules. But since it was touched by F3 AT his initial position, rather than BEYOND his initial position, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (8) Note, then it is NOT reversible without the use of video review. #2 cannot be reversed since it was in the infield, not the outfield or foul territory, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (10). What am I missing?

I believe it was called this way, but the confusion about the rule is why this rule language was changed.

Right. It's a total clusterf*ck. Did they write the test to show how poorly they wrote the rule?

They "got me." The correct penalty should be F2, F1 and HC all ejected. Both F1 and F2 were cheating, and now they want the head honcho to get it too.

I've done the same. Questions and answers should be straight forward, with the goal of furthering the test-taker's knowledge. Make the questions challenging enough to get the in the book, but reward them for getting there and finding the answer.

That's how I answered it. I don't remember reading that, but based on what you posted, balk and int is certainly the correct answer. I think one of the ones I got wrong was the penalty for the catcher applying a foreign substance. I answered the catcher and head coach. I answered that way even though I can't find that penalty specifically in the rules, I can't imagine why we wouldn't EJ the catcher. The correct answer must be the pitcher and head coach are ejected.

No. I'm hoping it's in the first "Ask Randy a Question" response.

Got 57/60. I marked the questionable ones, but no clue which 3 I missed.

I saw that I thought that might be the case, but should we have to use deductive reasoning to enforce a rule, especially on one that could be cleared up so easily?

Second question, and this one pisses me off because when the rules change was put in, the wording of this question is exactly why I felt it was vague: During a steal or squeeze, when a catcher steps "on, or in front of any part of home base without possession of the ball" then it's catcher's interference, etc. But what happens when the catcher steps to the left or right of the plate? Is there an imaginary line at the point of the plate extending outward and stepping over that line is a violation, or does it only encompass the width of the plate?

I'm only about 15 questions in and there appear to already be a couple of "trick" questions. Post your questions here without explicitly just asking for answers. My first question: Can a coach physically assist a runner when the ball is dead? 3-3e states: A base coach may not physically assist a runner in returning to or leaving the base. 8-5f states a runner is out when: A coach, by touching or holding a runner, physically assists the runner in returning to or leaving a base (see 3-3-e); I cannot find anything that indicates that this is only the case when the ball is live.

Haven't heard what the conferences I work for are doing yet, but if I had to guess, it would be the paneled shirts and the new MLB shirts as long as we match our partners.

Disgusting. He should be fired (no pun intended).

@concertman1971 has his base pants tailored this way.

I just hope Billy puts out some really good videos on all of this so we go into the season well prepared to deal with any scenario.

I agree that it's not used, but it's more a product of how we moved from the pivot to the over the shoulder when working 2 man games and just kept doing it working 3 or 4 man.

Agreed. There are actually fewer situations where taking the BR to 2B would be needed in 3 or 4 man since U3 or U2 are there.

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. I'm trying to think of scenarios in the past where I took BR into 2B on the outside and I can't really think of any. Yes, moving outside when the throw goes to the plate, but not on the initial play. Doing so does present more risk than when U3 takes the play on the outside as described earlier.

Any time you're covered on the back side, you're free to work the base 360 degrees (like a play at the plate). Same thing as U3 running in to take a play at 2nd when U1 doesn't go out on a hit to RF with no runners (PU has the play at 3rd & U1 has the play at the plate). Don't just go to a spot, work for the best look. Or just do what you're coordinator expects you to do.

Because there are times when you won't be taking the play at 2nd from the inside. No runners, the batter hits a shot down the LF line that U3 turns and points fair, but stays in for a potential play at 3rd. U1 takes BR into 2nd on the outside for the play, keeping ball, bag, umpire in line. Never would you do a pivot in this situation.