Calling all LL Quizmasters

[GBR]

G’day my fellow Blues. I sure could use help in developing quizzes for http://greenbookrules.com/ and would like to ask if you are interested in helping out. If so please contact me at roger@greenbookrules.com or online in this post.

I have a specific method that the quizzes would need to be organized in so that I can publish it under the GBR method, as well as get it published rapidly. Meaning, if you have a written quiz already it would need to be put in the GBR method; easy enough once I show you what I am talking about. Credit to the author will be given of course. The number of questions per quiz should be 10 – 20. We can create more than one quiz per rule section, e.g., five different 10 questions each for Rule 6.00 - The Batter. I have completed Rule 2 and need quizzes for Rules 1, and Rules 3 – 9.

Here is an example of that I mean by the GBR method. Note each question starts with PLAY: … this is true even if it is not technically a “play”. All correct answers will have the entire rule or rules that pertain to the play. In addition, any comments to provide clarity would be added as a COMMENT: or annotation notation. If you have a picture for the rule great!. Each question will have a picture or flash movie, so you can supply it or I will, either was if fine with me. There are other factors easier to explain over the phone than in a post.

There are 20 question/answer types, e.g., true/false, multiple choice, multiple response, fill in the blank, word bank, matching drag and drop, matching drop down, sequence drag and drop, to name a few.

Here is an example of the GBR method I am referring to:

http://www.greenbookrules.com/training/quizzes/GBR_Rule_2_Quiz/quiz.html

Also, if you have quizzes you use for your district I can add a section under your name or district in the Quiz Bowl for your learners. I think I can have an email sent to you after a quiz is taken so you know how the learning did. I have not yet tested that function yet and do not know if my web server supports it or now, but I can certainly give it try.

I look forward to partnering with you on this venture.

[widac]

I just took a quiz, very nice. Is this your own site? Is it made especially for that LL? Nice job.

[mstaylor]

Good test but check it there are a couple of word repeats that need to be deleted. Also, on the play where the F5 touched a ball in flight, it hits the runner and then deflects to the F6. You added to call the runner out for interference, you need more info and a rule cite to justify that call.

[Rich Ives]

You have two mistakes.

1) R2 is not out for interference bacause the ball was deflected. 7.09(k)

2) On the "cap ball" the runner gets three bases 7.05(:cheers:

[GBR]

I just took a quiz, very nice. Is this your own site? Is it made especially for that LL? Nice job.

Hi. Yes, it is a site I created. It is geared towards LL and not softball.

[GBR]

Good test but check it there are a couple of word repeats that need to be deleted. Also, on the play where the F5 touched a ball in flight, it hits the runner and then deflects to the F6. You added to call the runner out for interference, you need more info and a rule cite to justify that call.

Thanks. I will fix that upon next publishing.

[GBR]

You have two mistakes.

1) R2 is not out for interference bacause the ball was deflected. 7.09(k)

2) On the "cap ball" the runner gets three bases 7.05(

7.09(k) ... what made me say it was an out is that part that states "and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball" ... with the second fielder lined up wouldn't that be an out?

7.05( ... right, three bases, thanks...

[GBR]

One question I had is whether I was looking for umps to submit a question or two or take on an entire rule. I'll gladly take what works for you. I'd prefer an entire rule you if that is something you'd like to tackle.

[Rich Ives]

7.09(k) ... what made me say it was an out is that part that states "and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball" ... with the second fielder lined up wouldn't that be an out?

7.05( ... right, three bases, thanks...

Once it's deflected it's a freebie. See below. Tha all-caps are as in the MLBUM.

MLBUM 6.4

The concept of the runner being in jeopardy after the ball goes past an infielder and strikes the runner in a situation where another infielder still has a chance to make a play on the ball applies ONLY when the ball PASSES the first infielder without being touched or deflected by him. This concept DOES NOT APPLY if the ball is touched or deflected by the first infielder, even though another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball.

Hope this helps.

[GBR]

MLBUM 6.4

The concept of the runner being in jeopardy after the ball goes past an infielder and strikes the runner in a situation where another infielder still has a chance to make a play on the ball applies ONLY when the ball PASSES the first infielder without being touched or deflected by him. This concept DOES NOT APPLY if the ball is touched or deflected by the first infielder, even though another infielder has a chance to make a play on the ball.

Hope this helps.

[mstaylor]

As Rich says once it s deflected the runner is removed from responsibility of avoiding the ball. Now if you intentionally interfere, even after the deflection then he can still be out. That was why I said you needed more info and a rule cite.

[Rich Ives]

As Rich says once it s deflected the runner is removed from responsibility of avoiding the ball. Now if you intentionally interfere, even after the deflection then he can still be out. That was why I said you needed more info and a rule cite.

It would have to be really really blatant. The whole point of not having interference on a deflected ball is that it is an unexpected event and an unpredictable path for the ball. Given that, I'd have a really hard time accepting an interference call of any kind.

(Example: If the ball deflected toward the runner's face and he put his hand up to defend himself I don't think that shoud be interference)

[mstaylor]

I completely agree, but a deflected ball that he kicks probably would be if obviously intentional. To be honest I don't think I have ever called it, it's rare, but I wanted to

explain my exception.