NCAA Test

[noumpere]

Heres one that has generated some discussion here:

 

R1, R3 one out.  A pickoff from the pitcher gets by F3 and rolsl through the coach's box and towards the dugout.  F3 in his attempt to chase down the ball runs into the first base coach who made no attempt to avoid the fielder.  At the time of the contact, the coach had both feet entirely inside the lines of the coachs box.  R1 and R3 advanced on the wild throw.

 

a. Interference may be called only if the umpire decides that the basecoach did something intentional to disrupt the play of the first baseman

b. call "time and interference" declare R1 out and return R3 to third base

c. "Thats nothing" It is incidental contact as the coach in entitled to the protection of the coach's box

d. Call itnerference and leav ethe ball alive allowing for a possible play on R3 at the plate.

 

 

[johnnyg08]

I think I put D

8-5q p. 78

Is what I used for that one.

I equated this as the batter not vacating the batter's box if he had time when there was an impending play at the plate.

Since the coach is still in live ball territory.

I didn't see it as a dead ball on the dead ball table.

[hckyosgood30]

A- it may be called if the base coach did something intentional........ 

 

Ref- look at Rule 8.2-J on page 73. 

[johnnyg08]

So it has to be intentional huh???

[noumpere]

A- it may be called if the base coach did something intentional........ 

 

Ref- look at Rule 8.2-J on page 73. 

8-2.j talks about interfering with the thrown ball.  In the test play, the coach got in the way of the fielder.  Usually you can't apply rules on contact ing a bll to contacting a fielder (the result might be the same or it might be different but the rules are usually different).

 

And, from a practical standpoint, just standing there might be interpreted as intentional -- I think someone uses the term willful indifference or something.

[JaxRolo]

What if the Umpire judged that the coach stood there intentionally?

[Thunderheads]

What if the Umpire judged that the coach stood there intentionally?

I think noumpere just beat you to it!

[Jocko]

Isn't the rule that the 1BC has to make a good faith effort to avoid (or similar wording) or it's INT. And isn't INT a dead ball here? Kill the runner closest to home and return others to TOI base? I could be way off, but that seems logical.

[Fittske24]

Isn't the rule that the 1BC has to make a good faith effort to avoid (or similar wording) or it's INT. And isn't INT a dead ball here? Kill the runner closest to home and return others to TOT base? I could be way off, but that seems logical.

 

I beleive you are refering to article 4-8-b:

...It is unintentional interference if a base coach, "..."  tries to evade the ball and it touches the individual ....

 

This doesn't reference a player who is chasing after an errant throw....

[johnnyg08]

I am not an expert on NCAA rules, but I think the coach has a duty to vacate that position or be guilty of interference.  Just because he's in his box, doesn't mean that he doesn't have to get out of the way.

 

Could this be judged the same way on a pop fly over the coaches box, coach does not move to allow F5, F3, or any other fielder an opportunity to catch the ball? 

 

I think it does and I have interference on the coach in this play.  

 

I like where this discussion is going.  With the proper examples from certain guys on here, I could be persuaded to think otherwise.  hckyosgood30

 

cited a rule as well.  I will look that up.  I'm sitting w/ my wife in the hospital right now so I have some time.

 

 

 

[scubabob34]

Here's what I used for that question: 5-3, and I used penalty (1) to get R1 out. 

 

SECTION 3. No offensive team members, either in or out of the lineup, shall

physically or verbally hinder, confuse or impede any defensive player who is

attempting to make a play.

PENALTY—(1) The umpire shall call offensive interference and call out the

runner on whom the play was attempted, or would have been

attempted.

[alex7]

only concern, scuba, is that there's no play being made on R1 when the coach gets in the way.  I don't think we assume a play would have been made on R1 either.  That's why I'd go with A.

[scubabob34]

only concern, scuba, is that there's no play being made on R1 when the coach gets in the way.  I don't think we assume a play would have been made on R1 either.  That's why I'd go with A.

 

I was thinking that the pickoff from F1 constituted a play...

[JaxRolo]

Not knowing NCAA rules I go with A Isn't always a immediate dead ball on INT?

[hckyosgood30]

Ok guys here is why I have A.
 

First lets start with a def of int.- Interference SECTION 50. The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who
interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder attempting to make a PLAY.

 

ok so now we must look at is the fielder making a play on the ball and/or is “in the act of fielding†according to the book.  Which is defined as  'A.R. 3—After a fielder has misplayed a batted or thrown ball and the ball is “within a step and a reach†the fielder is still considered “in the act.â€

 

ok so first red flag I see nothing that gives F3 a step and a reach before we even get to the coach and a possible interference. 
But I'll digress, so now we go to 8.3-J  -“ If a thrown ball strikes a base coach on foul ground, the ball is in play. If the coach interfered intentionally with such a thrown ball, the runner is out and any other runners must return to the
last base touched’

 

ok so now we figure out if F3 is within a step and a reach of the ball and if the coach intentionally was in F3’s way.  And now we have interference in your judgement….. to me still no but moving on.

 

Is the ball alive or dead?  Well as Fitts already stated it’s a live if the interference is deemed unintentional according to 4-8-b
“If it is unintentional interference, the ball is live and in play. It is unintentional interference if a base coach, bat person, photographer, etc., tries to evade the ball and it touches the individual or if it touches such person without the person being aware the ball was coming.â€

 

And if deemed intentional the ball is dead via 6.2-C “the ball becomes dead and base runners return when: A coach intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.â€

 

Ok so now again I see nothing of intent and/or a step and a reach to deem in the act of fielding. It’s not C b/c there is no protection for a coach by rule in his box, if you deemed it unintentional it could be kept in play with no penalty for D.  You can say interference and kill it, but what rule are you going to use to get R1 out with no play being made on him, and R1 not committing the interference in B?  For me the best answer is A.  It has to be intentional and in the act of fielding or making a play.  That’s my thinking.  But I guess I’ll find out when the release my answer key on the 4 questions that I missed once the test closes.

 

Just my $0.02

[celt62]

It's "A".  The umpire has to rule it as intentional.  It's very close to a scenario in Referee Mag's study guide for NCAA rules 2013-14.  Inexpensive book and it gives for each rule at least half a dozen case plays.  It's really helpful for testing and it should work for the next two years.

[alex7]

only concern, scuba, is that there's no play being made on R1 when the coach gets in the way.  I don't think we assume a play would have been made on R1 either.  That's why I'd go with A.

 

I was thinking that the pickoff from F1 constituted a play...

That's understandable.  However, by the time the coach affected the play, that pickoff play was completely over.  You now have a fielder just chasing a loose ball.  No play there.

[Haid D' Salaami]

A- it may be called if the base coach did something intentional........ 

 

Ref- look at Rule 8.2-J on page 73. 

8-2.j talks about interfering with the thrown ball.  In the test play, the coach got in the way of the fielder.  Usually you can't apply rules on contact ing a bll to contacting a fielder (the result might be the same or it might be different but the rules are usually different).

 

And, from a practical standpoint, just standing there might be interpreted as intentional -- I think someone uses the term willful indifference or something.

It was a thrown ball, by the pitcher.

[jjskitours]

Anyone have a rule ref for NF for this. It seems the consensus is A and the best argument for requiring "intentional" is that F3 was not "making a play". Correct?

[GreyhoundAggie]

JJ,

 

I don't think FED says it has to be intentional. The coach gets in the way of the player trying to get to the ball, even if not intentional, he has still interfered.

 

I would answer B in FED. Get R1 out since the play was being made on him, send R3 back.

[Jocko]

JJ, I don't think FED says it has to be intentional. The coach gets in the way of the player trying to get to the ball, even if not intentional, he has still interfered. I would answer B in FED. Get R1 out since the play was being made on him, send R3 back.

NFHS 3-2-3 pages 27-28 discusses coach hit by thrown ball. Would we, by inference, use the same rule regarding contact with fielders? I think yes.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I see what you are saying Jocko, but I would read that as intentionally interfering with the throw, not F3 chasing the throw.

 

I know that the base coach is "in play" if the ball just hits him, same as an ump in foul territory. But that is not the same as the coach getting in the way of a player trying to get to the ball.

 

Thoughts?

[Majordave]

NCAA Preseason Test results are Available online for all who took it.  I am such a dumbass.  I printed all of my questions out, worked on them, circled the answers I believed were correct, researched and discussed with local college association members and finalized my selections.  I went online and input my answers and submitted.  Got a 97.  Great!  Missed two.  Best NCAA score I have had to date.  Today I checked the results to see which questions I missed and why.  Here is the dumbass part.  I had the answers correct on my printed sheets and for some reason chose the wrong answers online.  But for the not paying attention to detail, I would have scored 100.  Oh well.  Lesson learned.

 

This question was on my version of the test.  Correct answer was:  Call "time" and call "That's interference," declare R1 out and return R3 to third base. Explanation: 8-5q

 

So there you have it.  My personal tale of above average intelligence and lack thereof, all in one event.

[johnnyg08]

Nice work!  100% on paper.

[Umpire in Chief]

I got an 88 there were 2 I kicked myself for missing after the fact.