2016 NFHS Baseball Exam 1

[johnnyg08]

This will be the thread for the 2016 NFHS Baseball Exam 1 exam.

I would like a .pdf of the exam if anybody can connect me w/ the .pdf of the 2016 FED exam.  Message me if you have access. 

Thanks.

[Welpe]

Sent you a message on Facebook.

[ricka56]

There are several FB groups about umpires. 
Which FB group are y'all talking about ?

[Thunderheads]

3 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

There are several FB groups about umpires. 
Which FB group are y'all talking about ?

Rick I think you misread that ..... Welpe sent johnnyg08 a facebook personal message.  That being said though, ... Rolando has a page for Fed Rules Umpires ....  @JaxRolo can hook you up ......

[Welpe]

Rick, Jeff is correct, I sent him a personal FB message.

[mikelf1]

Also looking for PDF version of 2016 NFHS Baseball exam

[jjskitours]

2016 NFHS Exam Part 1  http://www.eteamz.com/ECBU/files/2016BaseballPartIExam.pdf

[maven]

I'd be cautious about posting this copyrighted material here without permission.

[jjskitours]

Didn't give that issue any thought since I just posted a web site link that anybody could have found. I'm not a lawyer, but eteamz.com who put this up is described as follows:

eteamz is the leading provider of FREE baseball websites. Our free baseball websites provide a comprehensive set of easy do-it-yourself website design, website hosting, team communication, and group management tools making it a snap to manage your baseball team or baseball league.

Since it is strictly for educational purposes and I for sure am not getting any compensation, I think I'll be okay. However, I do appreciate your concern and will be more careful in the future.
 

[Welpe]

1 hour ago, jjskitours said:

eteamz is the leading provider of FREE baseball websites. Our free baseball websites provide a comprehensive set of easy do-it-yourself website design, website hosting, team communication, and group management tools making it a snap to manage your baseball team or baseball league.

This doesn't mean anything. Fed holds the copyright to their tests, not eteamz. Regardless of your intention, they tend to not like their materials distributed.

[johnnyg08]

 

8.  R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into 2B when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three.  B2's follow through strikes the catcher.

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

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

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

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

 

 

[noumpere]

9 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

 

8.  R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into 2B when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three.  B2's follow through strikes the catcher.

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

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

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

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

 

 

C seems pretty clearly to be the correct answer for FED.

[maven]

Did we not just do a whole thread on this play?

This ruling is an application of the batter INT penalty, where the umpire rules that the batter's action constitutes INT but a double play is not prevented thereby: "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)."  7-3-5 PENALTY No possible double play = no second out = answer C.

The problem with applying that provision to this play is that no rule prescribes "just return the runner" as a penalty. The penalty for INT is an out (and other runners return), and the runner should be ruled out if we judge batter INT on strike 3. If we do not judge batter INT — because F2 had no play, so the batter's contact caused no possible hindrance — then there is no basis for returning R1.

This problem arises because FED applies the wrong rule to get the out on R1. 7-3-5 PENALTY mentions 8-4-2g, which states that INT which prevents a possible double play should be penalized with 2 outs. But that's not what we should use: INT should be penalized by at least ONE out. If we accept C as the correct answer, then there is no out for the INT, as the batter had struck out. IOW, we don't rule R1 out because the batter prevented a possible double play, but in order merely to penalize the INT.

[UMP45]

On 2/17/2016 at 9:45 AM, jjskitours said:

2016 NFHS Exam Part 1  http://www.eteamz.com/ECBU/files/2016BaseballPartIExam.pdf

Try and do part II also.

[johnnyg08]

On 2/28/2016 at 11:34 AM, noumpere said:

C seems pretty clearly to be the correct answer for FED.

While I agree w/ how the FED wants us to answer, do we agree that this is a horrible interpretation....under the premise that if F2 could've have retired him, then we don't really have interference so we're not going to call him out, but recognize the interference and send him back?  

This contradicts all other codes on BI correct? 

[maven]

10 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

While I agree w/ how the FED wants us to answer, do we agree that this is a horrible interpretation....under the premise that if F2 could've have retired him, then we don't really have interference so we're not going to call him out, but recognize the interference and send him back?  

This contradicts all other codes on BI correct? 

As you suggest, the ruling contradicts itself:

• there is no batter INT (because nobody is to be called out for it), but
• there is batter INT (which warrants returning R1).

No other major code supports such a ruling (and, arguably, neither do FED rules — this case play misapplies the batter INT rule, which is coherent as written).

[JHSump]

Something is wrong with pitcher in this question!

 

The pitcher places his pivot foot on the pitching plate with the toe of the pivot foot in front of a line through the front edge of the plate and the toe of his pivot foot behind the back edge. His non-pivot foot is front of a line extending through the front edge of the pitching plate.

a) This is an illegal pitching position.

b) This is a legal wind-up position.

c) This is a legal set position.

[Welpe]

@johnnyg08,Here's the thread where we beat that up:

 

 

[johnnyg08]

11 hours ago, Welpe said:

@johnnyg08,Here's the thread where we beat that up:

 

 

Thanks!!

[ricka56]

On 3/2/2016 at 7:01 AM, JHSump said:

Something is wrong with pitcher in this question!

The pitcher places his pivot foot on the pitching plate with the toe of the pivot foot in front of a line through the front edge of the plate and the toe of his pivot foot behind the back edge.

That boy has wide feet

[tankmjg24]

Here is one that I may be picturing wrong, but given the scenario I have catcher interference. 

85.  With no outs, R1 from third base is attempting to steal home. B2's swing contacts the catcher, causing him to not catch the pitch which rolls away as R1 scores.

A. Since B2 did not intentionally cause his bat to hit F2, there is no interference.
B. B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.
C. B2 is guilty of interference. Both B2 and R1 are declared out.
D. B2 is guilty of interference. B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to third base.

I figure they are maybe trying to describe follow-through interference, but I feel as if the question should then read B2's follow-through swing instead of B2's swing.  Given the scenario, I am picturing the batter hitting the catcher while swinging.  Thoughts? 

[ALStripes17]

Here is one that I may be picturing wrong, but given the scenario I have catcher interference. 

85.  With no outs, R1 from third base is attempting to steal home. B2's swing contacts the catcher, causing him to not catch the pitch which rolls away as R1 scores.

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

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

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

D. B2 is guilty of interference. B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to third base.

I figure they are maybe trying to describe follow-through interference, but I feel as if the question should then read B2's follow-through swing instead of B2's swing.  Given the scenario, I am picturing the batter hitting the catcher while swinging.  Thoughts? 

Read it as if the batter's follow through swing contacted the catcher.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, tankmjg24 said:

Here is one that I may be picturing wrong, but given the scenario I have catcher interference. 

85.  With no outs, R1 from third base is attempting to steal home. B2's swing contacts the catcher, causing him to not catch the pitch which rolls away as R1 scores.

A. Since B2 did not intentionally cause his bat to hit F2, there is no interference.
B. B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.
C. B2 is guilty of interference. Both B2 and R1 are declared out.
D. B2 is guilty of interference. B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to third base.

I figure they are maybe trying to describe follow-through interference, but I feel as if the question should then read B2's follow-through swing instead of B2's swing.  Given the scenario, I am picturing the batter hitting the catcher while swinging.  Thoughts? 

In FED, it would be Catcher Obstruction -- and since they didn't use that term, it's the follow-through they are describing.  Yes, it could be more clear.

[johnnyg08]

On 3/17/2016 at 1:58 PM, tankmjg24 said:

Here is one that I may be picturing wrong, but given the scenario I have catcher interference. 

85.  With no outs, R1 from third base is attempting to steal home. B2's swing contacts the catcher, causing him to not catch the pitch which rolls away as R1 scores.

A. Since B2 did not intentionally cause his bat to hit F2, there is no interference.
B. B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat.
C. B2 is guilty of interference. Both B2 and R1 are declared out.
D. B2 is guilty of interference. B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to third base.

I figure they are maybe trying to describe follow-through interference, but I feel as if the question should then read B2's follow-through swing instead of B2's swing.  Given the scenario, I am picturing the batter hitting the catcher while swinging.  Thoughts? 

As others have said, think of this as a runner stealing home and the batter interferes.  Or batter interference on a suicide squeeze.  The answer options give us no option for CI or CO in FED.  

[DWDIII]

On March 1, 2016 at 7:01 AM, JHSump said:

Something is wrong with pitcher in this question!

 

The pitcher places his pivot foot on the pitching plate with the toe of the pivot foot in front of a line through the front edge of the plate and the toe of his pivot foot behind the back edge. His non-pivot foot is front of a line extending through the front edge of the pitching plate.

a) This is an illegal pitching position.

b) This is a legal wind-up position.

c) This is a legal set position.

They threw out this question