Only in NJ

[Kevin_K]

Today the State of NJ released its annual refresher test for all NJSIAA certified umpires in baseball and softball. 

On first glance I find this question:

A pitcher is wearing a compression sleeve that is a camouflage pattern matching the school's colors. It extends below the elbow on his throwing arm. The umpire should:

1. Allow it since the colors match the school's colors.

2. Have the pitcher remove it since he may not wear white or gray on his throwing arm.

I have never claimed to have a backward and forward understanding of the rule book, but even I know that neither answer is correct. How does this kind of nonsense happen every single year? At what point will there be a test that is correct? And that doesn't try to trick anyone? 

In the inimitable words of one C. Brown....."AAAUUUGGGHHHH!!!" 

[BT_Blue]

Easy answer will be B. They can not wear camouflage compression sleeves.

[LittleBlue]

18 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Today the State of NJ released its annual refresher test for all NJSIAA certified umpires in baseball and softball. 

On first glance I find this question:

A pitcher is wearing a compression sleeve that is a camouflage pattern matching the school's colors. It extends below the elbow on his throwing arm. The umpire should:

1. Allow it since the colors match the school's colors.

2. Have the pitcher remove it since he may not wear white or gray on his throwing arm.

I have never claimed to have a backward and forward understanding of the rule book, but even I know that neither answer is correct. How does this kind of nonsense happen every single year? At what point will there be a test that is correct? And that doesn't try to trick anyone? 

In the inimitable words of one C. Brown....."AAAUUUGGGHHHH!!!" 

This is NJ! We have a reputation of having wrong questions/answers on the test to uphold!

[Richvee]

NJ test question....Opinions welcome...Runner designations edited to protect our sanity.

 

With the bases loaded and one out, B1 grounds a ball to F6 who flips to F4 for a force out on R1 at second base. F4's throw to first base is wide and B1 is safe. F3 picks up the ball and throws home. F2 has R2 trapped in a rundown between home and third. He runs R2 back to third where R1 is standing. R1retreats and the defense tags R1 out between third and second. In the meantime, R2, who had gone back to third advanced toward home and scored. The offensive coach then points out the runner tagged out as R1who had been forced at second base. The umpire should rule:

• a.
  • Since R1 had previously been retired, he is not the third out of the inning and 2 runs score with B1 on 2nd base.

• b.
  • Since R1 was a retired runner and stayed involved in the play, he is guilty of interference.It is 3 outs and no runs score.

• c. R3 scores, R1 is guilty of interference. R2 cannot score as the ball became dead immediately when retired runner R1 interfered: the moment defense made a play on R1

• d.
  • None of the above.
• My thought is running the bases after being retired is not in and of itself reason for interference. Defense needs to know R1 was forced out at 2nd. Pretty sure that's how OBR would rule. I'm not sure how FED feels on this. I'm also wondering if running back to the base you were forced out at is considered "just running the bases", or a basis for INT if the defense is dumb enough to chase him.

 

 

•  

[VolUmp]

On 2/8/2017 at 5:52 PM, BT_Blue said:

Easy answer will be B. They may not wear camouflage compression sleeves. (below his elbow)

1-4-2   Compression sleeves that are solid black or solid dark-colored shall be the only colors allowed to be worn by the pitcher below his elbow.

[VolUmp]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

NJ test question....Opinions welcome...Runner designations edited to protect our sanity.

 

With the bases loaded and one out, B1 grounds a ball to F6 who flips to F4 for a force out on R1 at second base. F4's throw to first base is wide and B1 is safe. F3 picks up the ball and throws home. F2 has R2 trapped in a rundown between home and third. He runs R2 back to third where R1 is standing. R1retreats and the defense tags R1 out between third and second. In the meantime, R2, who had gone back to third advanced toward home and scored. The offensive coach then points out the runner tagged out as R1who had been forced at second base. The umpire should rule:

 

• a.
  • Since R1 had previously been retired, he is not the third out of the inning and 2 runs score with B1 on 2nd base.

 

• b.
  • Since R1 was a retired runner and stayed involved in the play, he is guilty of interference.It is 3 outs and no runs score.

 

• c. R3 scores, R1 is guilty of interference. R2 cannot score as the ball became dead immediately when retired runner R1 interfered: the moment defense made a play on R1

 

• d.
  • None of the above.
• My thought is running the bases after being retired is not in and of itself reason for interference. Defense needs to know R1 was forced out at 2nd. Pretty sure that's how OBR would rule. I'm not sure how FED feels on this. I'm also wondering if running back to the base you were forced out at is considered "just running the bases", or a basis for INT if the defense is dumb enough to chase him.

My answer is clearly C.

Started play with 1 out.  R3 scores easily. 2nd out was the simple 6-4 turn on R1 at 2B (Two Outs).

By the time the errant throws occurred, and R2 was caught in a run down, R1 has to be off the base paths.

In this situation, it is a textbook example of confusing the defense who took their efforts off of R2 (no longer forced) when they saw R1 being the easier out.

Call R2 out for R1's INT — end of inning.  1 run scores.

[ALStripes17]

My answer is clearly C.
Started play with 1 out.  R3 scores easily. 2nd out was the simple 6-4 turn on R1 at 2B (Two Outs).
By the time the errant throws occurred, and R2 was caught in a run down, R1 has to be off the base paths.
In this situation, it is a textbook example of confusing the defense who took their efforts off of R2 (no longer forced) when they saw R1 being the easier out.
Call R2 out for R1's INT — end of inning.  1 run scores.

Absolutely not. There was an interpretation on a batter-runner being retired on a caught fly ball and continuing to 2B, drawing a throw... That was ruled not INT and that there is nothing in the rules about a retired runner continuing to run the bases.

Answer is A. Results of the play stand.

[grayhawk]

4 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Absolutely not. There was an interpretation on a batter-runner being retired on a caught fly ball and continuing to 2B, drawing a throw... That was ruled not INT and that there is nothing in the rules about a retired runner continuing to run the bases.

Answer is A. Results of the play stand.

8.3.3 Situation I

[Richvee]

28 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

8.3.3 Situation I

I agree, but, FWIW the retort I'm getting from the "opposition" is that the case play has the runner continuing to run the bases. This question has the retired runner continuing to run the bases, then  retreating. They're saying once he reverses course and the defense attempts a play n him, he has confused the defense and should be called for INT. 

[grayhawk]

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I agree, but, FWIW the retort I'm getting from the "opposition" is that the case play has the runner continuing to run the bases. This question has the retired runner continuing to run the bases, then  retreating. They're saying once he reverses course and the defense attempts a play n him, he has confused the defense and should be called for INT. 

In both cases, the defense made a play on the retired runner who was still running the bases as if he was not out.  Isn't the defense's play on the retired runner the key part of the ruling?  If we aren't going to bail out the defense for failing to know who's out in the first case, why are we bailing them out in the second case?

[Richvee]

16 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

In both cases, the defense made a play on the retired runner who was still running the bases as if he was not out.  Isn't the defense's play on the retired runner the key part of the ruling?  If we aren't going to bail out the defense for failing to know who's out in the first case, why are we bailing them out in the second case?

I agree. Test study group meeting next Sunday. I'll see what they have to say. 

[ALStripes17]

In both cases, the defense made a play on the retired runner who was still running the bases as if he was not out.  Isn't the defense's play on the retired runner the key part of the ruling?  If we aren't going to bail out the defense for failing to know who's out in the first case, why are we bailing them out in the second case?

Because there are people that don't want to be wrong ever ever ever

[VolUmp]

6 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Absolutely not. There was an interpretation on a batter-runner being retired on a caught fly ball and continuing to 2B, drawing a throw... That was ruled not INT and that there is nothing in the rules about a retired runner continuing to run the bases.

Answer is A. Results of the play stand.

AL,

What would be your answer if this were OBR?

[ALStripes17]

AL,
What would be your answer if this were OBR?

Don't do OBR, so no worries

[VolUmp]

24 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Don't do OBR, so no worries

I don't get your answer. 

My point is — I suppose by the letter, since once again FED has failed to be thorough, the test answer is likely A.

in OBR, this would clearly be C once the official saw the runner (either intentionally or not) confusing the defense.

So … the FED test answer is probably A. It SHOULD be C if any common sense were applied. 

[maven]

In both cases, the defense made a play on the retired runner who was still running the bases as if he was not out.  Isn't the defense's play on the retired runner the key part of the ruling?  If we aren't going to bail out the defense for failing to know who's out in the first case, why are we bailing them out in the second case?

The rule clearly allows the runner (BR) in 8.3.3I to continue to run the bases after he has been retired. The question for me is, does that mean to ADVANCE, or to do absolutely anything a runner would do, including trying to draw a rundown.

It is not clear to me that the intent of this rule is to permit the offense to do what R1 in the test play is doing. I think we want retired runners to be able to round the bases without being liable for INT, provided that this is ALL that they do. The BR in 8.3.3I is just rounding the bases; R1 in the test play is intentionally trying to deceive the defense (not that intent is decisive here).

I think that there's a case to be made here that R1 is not "merely continuing to run the bases" in this play.

[grayhawk]

The rule clearly allows the runner (BR) in 8.3.3I to continue to run the bases after he has been retired. The question for me is, does that mean to ADVANCE, or to do absolutely anything a runner would do, including trying to draw a rundown.

It is not clear to me that the intent of this rule is to permit the offense to do what R1 in the test play is doing. I think we want retired runners to be able to round the bases without being liable for INT, provided that this is ALL that they do. The BR in 8.3.3I is just rounding the bases; R1 in the test play is intentionally trying to deceive the defense (not that intent is decisive here).

I think that there's a case to be made here that R1 is not "merely continuing to run the bases" in this play.

Actually, in 8.3.3 I, the retired BR doesn't merely round first, he then "makes a break toward second."

[maven]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Actually, in 8.3.3 I, the retired BR doesn't merely round first, he then "makes a break toward second."

True.

What FED rule are we discussing and using to answer the NJ question?

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I don't get your answer. 

My point is — I suppose by the letter, since once again FED has failed to be thorough, the test answer is likely A.

in OBR, this would clearly be C once the official saw the runner (either intentionally or not) confusing the defense.

So … the FED test answer is probably A. It SHOULD be C if any common sense were applied. 

If my 2011 BRD references are still valid both OBR and NCAA require you to judge intent by the retired runner. It's possible he didn't know he was out and if you judged no intent there would be no interference. Of course if you see a smirk while he's doing this intent would be easy to judge. Whatever you judge, you will probably have to have another "intent" judgement when that runner's next turn at bat comes up.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

If my 2011 BRD references are still valid both OBR and NCAA require you to judge intent by the retired runner. It's possible he didn't know he was out and if you judged no intent there would be no interference. Of course if you see a smirk while he's doing this intent would be easy to judge. Whatever you judge, you will probably have to have another "intent" judgement when that runner's next turn at bat comes up.

Here's a BRD play that is very close to the OP:

Play 160-296: R1. B1 grounds to the shortstop. R1 is forced out at second, but the relay throw is not in time at first. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between second and third and is tagged “out” again as BR takes second. Ruling: In FED, BR remains at second. In NCAA / OBR, BR is out for R1’s interference. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Here's a BRD play that is very close to the OP:

Play 160-296: R1. B1 grounds to the shortstop. R1 is forced out at second, but the relay throw is not in time at first. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between second and third and is tagged “out” again as BR takes second. Ruling: In FED, BR remains at second. In NCAA / OBR, BR is out for R1’s interference. 

Any FED reference for that? Ordinarily Carl would cite "point not covered, treat as in NCAA/OBR." A rules difference needs some basis in the rules (or authoritative interp).

In all codes, a retired runner is held to a stricter standard than a runner for INT. OBR 6.01(a)(5) Comment states, "If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders." This Comment squares with FED 8.3.3I, where the BR (who has been retired) legally continues to advance and does nothing else to hinder the defense.

The standard interpretation of the OBR Comment grants a retired runner a permission to advance that he would not otherwise have. The only things a retired runner may do legally are get/stay out of the way or advance. Getting into a rundown is INT if it hinders the defense, regardless of intent (I haven't looked at NCAA on this point, but for me, getting into a rundown is itself evidence of intent to hinder, no smirk required).

Without explicit coverage in FED, I'd treat it the same.

[grayhawk]

Any FED reference for that? Ordinarily Carl would cite "point not covered, treat as in NCAA/OBR." A rules difference needs some basis in the rules (or authoritative interp).
In all codes, a retired runner is held to a stricter standard than a runner for INT. OBR 6.01(a)(5) Comment states, "If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."
The standard interpretation of this comment grants a retired runner a permission to advance that he would not otherwise have. The only things a retired runner may do legally are get out of the way and advance. Getting into a rundown is INT if it hinders the defense, regardless of intent (I haven't looked at NCAA on this point, but for me, getting into a rundown is itself evidence of intent to hinder, no smirk required).
Without explicit coverage in FED, I'd treat it the same.

His reference is 8.3.3 I.

[maven]

4 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

His reference is 8.3.3 I.

Yeah, that's weird, and provides no substantial basis for a rule difference.

[grayhawk]

Yeah, that's weird, and provides no substantial basis for a rule difference.

I think it stems from "and breaks toward second base" in the case play. To me, that's an intentional act to confuse the defense and draw a throw, yet Fed seems to feel this doesn't rise to be interference. Perhaps it's akin to a legal deke by the defense, such as convincing a stealing R1 on a fly ball to the outfield that it was a grounder to short which causes R1 to slide into second.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Here's a BRD play that is very close to the OP:

Play 160-296: R1. B1 grounds to the shortstop. R1 is forced out at second, but the relay throw is not in time at first. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between second and third and is tagged “out” again as BR takes second. Ruling: In FED, BR remains at second. In NCAA / OBR, BR is out for R1’s interference. 

You should post all of the BRD pertaining to the matter.