Questions about the 2014 NFHS Umpire Test

[Guest jared]

I am 15 years old. I started umpiring late last year and I have umpired about 20 11U/12U games. Starting this coming weekend I have been moved up to 13U (a bigger field).

 

The local baseball umpire's association that I belong to is requiring that I take and pass the 2014 NFHS Baseball Umpire's Test.  I got a hold of 2013 rule/case books so starting yesterday I am trying to answer 25 questions each day after school. I find the test questions confusing. The same goes for the rule/case books. I have not been able to find the answers to the some of the questions so I am here asking for help.  You don't have to give me the answer (but that would be nice) I need help finding where the answers are in the rule/case books so that I can read it for myself.

 

Questions:

 

3) An eligible substitute whose name and number is not included on the lineup card that is submitted to the umpire-in-chief is prohibited from playing. 

                        True

                        False

 

I answered TRUE because the question said that he was "eligible". He would be added to the end of the line-up. Right?  I can't find the exact answer in the book.

 

8) R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow through strikes the catcher. 

                        Since B2 did not intentionally cause his bat to hit F2, there is no interference.

                        B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.

                        Since F2 had no possible play on R1, B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to first base.

                        B2 is guilty of interference. Both B2 and R1 are declared out. 

 

I answered "D" but according to 7.3.5 Situation C the answer could be "C" also it's a judgement call.  I am confused!

 

23) During the second inning of the game, the lead-off batter enters the box with an illegal bat. There has been no previous issue with an illegal bat. 

                        There is no problem. The batter shall secure a legal bat.

                        The batter is declared out and his head coach is ejected.

                        The batter is declared out and his head coach is restricted to the bench.

                        The player and the coach are warned and a subsequent violation will result in an ejection of the coach and the player.

 

I said "B" but I couldn't find the answer in the book.  I figured that if this is the 2nd time a illegal bat is discovered the coach deserves to be kicked out.

 

[Guest Jared]

I messed up on my 3rd question, I think I didn't read it correctly.  I think the answer should be "C".  But if it were the 2nd time would you eject the coach?

[maven]

(3) Yes, eligible substitutes are "required" to be included on the line-up card. But there is no penalty for failing to do so. Allow the substitution and add the sub to your card.
 
(8) That's a strange play, and none of those options is good. The batter is out on strike 3. You have to rule whether the contact with F2 is BI or not. If so, then R1 is out, too, and any benefit of the doubt should go to the defense here. If not BI, I see no basis for returning R1 to 1B. Certainly 7-3-5 does not support that ruling, which sounds more like OBR's backswing INT rule.
 
(23) 4-1-3b PENALTY: "On the first violation of 4-1-3b for entering the box with an illegal bat, the penalty for an illegal bat is applied (7-4-1a) [batter is out] and the head coach shall be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game."

[JaxRolo]

The first one is easy.

 

I was typing my answer when I saw @maven 's reply come through. And he is correct. to add to his response - A player can even come an hour later after the game started and still be allowed to be inserted into the lineup.

 

Remember They must start with 9 players and allowed to finish with 8. An out is recorded when that spot comes to bat. But if a new player shows up later he is allowed to enter and go back to 9 players.

[JaxRolo]

For the 2nd question this is the correct answer:

 

B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.

For the 3rd question this is the answer:

 

The batter is declared out and his head coach is restricted to the bench.

 

 

On the next offense the coach is ejected.

 

If it happens a 3rd time the assist. coach is ejected.

[Thunderheads]

For the 2nd question this is the correct answer:

 

B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.

For the 3rd question this is the answer:

 

The batter is declared out and his head coach is restricted to the bench.

 

 

On the next offense the coach is ejected.

 

If it happens a 3rd time the assist. coach is ejected.

Rolando.... B2 struck out on the play ....

[JaxRolo]

 

For the 2nd question this is the correct answer:

 

B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.

For the 3rd question this is the answer:

 

The batter is declared out and his head coach is restricted to the bench.

 

 

On the next offense the coach is ejected.

 

If it happens a 3rd time the assist. coach is ejected.

Rolando.... B2 struck out on the play ....

 

Still the most correct answer. He continues to bat but since he struck out he goes to the bench.

[umpstu]

On 8 I have c. In the case book it says that if, in the opinion of the umpire, it prevented the catcher from retiring the runner he can be called out. If he doesn't have a chance to get the runner, which it implies in the question, he returns to time of pitch base.  Case book pg 7, 7.3.5 situation c.

[JaxRolo]

On 8 I have c. In the case book it says that if, in the opinion of the umpire, it prevented the catcher from retiring the runner he can be called out. If he doesn't have a chance to get the runner, which it implies in the question, he returns to time of pitch base. Case book pg 7, 7.3.5 situation c.

After re-reading the rule and the OP you are correct the answer is c

Good job

[umpstu]

 

On 8 I have c. In the case book it says that if, in the opinion of the umpire, it prevented the catcher from retiring the runner he can be called out. If he doesn't have a chance to get the runner, which it implies in the question, he returns to time of pitch base. Case book pg 7, 7.3.5 situation c.

After re-reading the rule and the OP you are correct the answer is c

Good job

 

Yea, but it doesn't mean I was right. I thought I might be able to call my wife and tell her I was right. She always tells me I am wrong.

[BT_Blue]

On 8 I have c. In the case book it says that if, in the opinion of the umpire, it prevented the catcher from retiring the runner he can be called out. If he doesn't have a chance to get the runner, which it implies in the question, he returns to time of pitch base. Case book pg 7, 7.3.5 situation c.

After re-reading the rule and the OP you are correct the answer is c

Good job

So we are just going tp ignore the fact that the swing and miss was for strike three? Did I miss something?

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

[BT_Blue]

@Guest_Jared, I will five you the same advice that I always give regarding rules testing and it is this... do not read any more into the question then is required. More often then not these darn things are written in some horribly bad version of legalese. Take the questions at face value and you will find the answers quite often word-for-word in the rule/case books.

[JaxRolo]

On 8 I have c. In the case book it says that if, in the opinion of the umpire, it prevented the catcher from retiring the runner he can be called out. If he doesn't have a chance to get the runner, which it implies in the question, he returns to time of pitch base. Case book pg 7, 7.3.5 situation c.

After re-reading the rule and the OP you are correct the answer is c

Good jobSo we are just going tp ignore the fact that the swing and miss was for strike three? Did I miss something?

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2. Technically not

[yawetag]

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

 

 

You have to know that the runner would have been thrown out had the backswing INT not occurred. In the OP, R1 is sliding into the base as the batter swings, so there's no way he would have been thrown out.

[Richvee]

 

 

On 8 I have c. In the case book it says that if, in the opinion of the umpire, it prevented the catcher from retiring the runner he can be called out. If he doesn't have a chance to get the runner, which it implies in the question, he returns to time of pitch base. Case book pg 7, 7.3.5 situation c.

After re-reading the rule and the OP you are correct the answer is c

Good job

So we are just going tp ignore the fact that the swing and miss was for strike three? Did I miss something?

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

 

Answer c says Batter is out, runner returns. This is correct. No one missed the fact that he struck out, and the penalty for the interference is runner returns to first because the INT did not prevent F2 from throwing out R1. 

[BT_Blue]

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

 

You have to know that the runner would have been thrown out had the backswing INT not occurred. In the OP, R1 is sliding into the base as the batter swings, so there's no way he would have been thrown out. So by rule, if F2 had no chance of throwing out R1, then R1 goes back to first on the BS INT?

[umpstu]

 

 

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

 

You have to know that the runner would have been thrown out had the backswing INT not occurred. In the OP, R1 is sliding into the base as the batter swings, so there's no way he would have been thrown out. So by rule, if F2 had no chance of throwing out R1, then R1 goes back to first on the BS INT?

 

Yes. I saw this play happen last year, except that there was no way the catcher didn't throw out the runner. The runner was extremely slow and was maybe half way to second when the interference occurred. Umpire put him back.

[yawetag]

 

 

 

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

 

You have to know that the runner would have been thrown out had the backswing INT not occurred. In the OP, R1 is sliding into the base as the batter swings, so there's no way he would have been thrown out. So by rule, if F2 had no chance of throwing out R1, then R1 goes back to first on the BS INT?

 

Yes. I saw this play happen last year, except that there was no way the catcher didn't throw out the runner. The runner was extremely slow and was maybe half way to second when the interference occurred. Umpire put him back.

 

 

If that's the case, then you bang the two outs.

[Richvee]

 

 

I would have to go with D as the answer. Both B2 (strike out) and R1 (back swing INT by B2) are declared out. Much the same way we would declare R1 out when B2 interferes with F2's throw by coming across the plate and impeeding F2.

 

You have to know that the runner would have been thrown out had the backswing INT not occurred. In the OP, R1 is sliding into the base as the batter swings, so there's no way he would have been thrown out. So by rule, if F2 had no chance of throwing out R1, then R1 goes back to first on the BS INT?

 

Just to clarify. It really isn't anything special to do with back swing INT. BS INT is treated just as BI in FED. 

[Richvee]

FED 7-3-5

 

 

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

a. leaning over home plate,

b. stepping out of the batter's box,

c. making any other movement, including backswing interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner

 

 If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible ­double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

[yawetag]

Exactly. And the penalty is exactly as most of us have said. If the third strike prevented the runner from being out, bang two outs; otherwise, send the runner back.

[Guest POLOGREEN]

Richvee is absolutly correct! Keep in mind BORR Batter Out Runners Return BUT in this case your judgement is required on the runner and catcher!

[Guest Geoff]

Third strike- Batter is called OUT!. DEAD BALL CALLED!...RULE 7-4-5 PENALTY: last sentence" If the pitch is a third strike and in Umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs) , two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

 

According to what was written, the R1 was already sliding in base when the Batter Interference happened, so yes, we as UMPIRES love OUTS, however, the truth of the play is that in our judgment the runner remains on second and the Batter is called out!..................That's my judgment as it is written. The catcher had no play on R1 as it is written in the situation given.

 

However, I just realized that I called a DEAD BALL at the plate and with that said ALL runners will return to their previous bases. So, I corrected myself and would now call the Batter still out ....but R1 returns to First Base.

[UMP45]

Third strike- Batter is called OUT!. DEAD BALL CALLED!...RULE 7-4-5 PENALTY: last sentence" If the pitch is a third strike and in Umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs) , two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

 

According to what was written, the R1 was already sliding in base when the Batter Interference happened, so yes, we as UMPIRES love OUTS, however, the truth of the play is that in our judgment the runner remains on second and the Batter is called out!..................That's my judgment as it is written. The catcher had no play on R1 as it is written in the situation given.

 

However, I just realized that I called a DEAD BALL at the plate and with that said ALL runners will return to their previous bases. So, I corrected myself and would now call the Batter still out ....but R1 returns to First Base.

It's not "Dead Ball". It's "TIME"!

[Guest Geoff]

Your right, TIME  is the correct verbiage I meant and then the ball is DEAD and all the base runners return to the bases, exceptions see 5-1-2a  

[Guest Geoff]

Here is a question I keep asking my fellow Umpires...., with Runner(s) on base and the batter hits a foul ball (DEAD BALL), I insist that all the runner(s) RETAG the base they were leading off from...before the home umpire puts the dead ball back into play my saying "PLAY". This is what I call PREVENTIVE baseball, my question is what if the runners on a foul ball DO NOT retag the base and the batter then hits a single and the runners advance but the defensive team appeals before the next pitch that the runner never retagged the bag...I can not find a penalty for not retagging after every foul ball (DEAD BALL) only that all runners will retag the bag? 

 

IS THERE A PENALTY?   What's the call?

 

RULE:  8-2-9 The Umpire will not make the ball live until the runners return to the appropriate base.

 

I know that GOOD mechanics between you and your partner is necessary!! <<KNOW THE RULES>>