2025 NCAA Rules Test Thread

[BLWizzRanger]

No, there is specific wording in the text that says other position players, placing the substance, are ejected with the coach.

Thats what I read at 0200 last night so my comprehension could have been comprimised. I will post it when I can get to it today.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[BLWizzRanger]

No, there is specific wording in the text that says other position players, placing the substance, are ejected with the coach.

Thats what I read at 0200 last night so my comprehension could have been comprimised. I will post it when I can get to it today.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

Still effected by last night as it seems I didnt read all posts... lol...

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[Velho]

12 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Yes. This has been covered in one of the offseason vids. Draw an imaginary line at the point of the plate, and crossing that line is a violation.

I recall this not being called that way during last year CWS?

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, Velho said:

I recall this not being called that way during last year CWS?

I believe it was called this way, but the confusion about the rule is why this rule language was changed.

[grayhawk]

Another question that appears to be confusing, at best, or with 2 correct answers. WITHOUT the use of video replay, which of these two calls is NOT reversible:

1. Foul reversed to fair on a line drive to F3.

2. No catch reversed to catch on a sinking line drive in the infield to F6.

Seems to me that neither can be reversed.

#1 can be reversed WITH the use of video review under the new rules. But since it was touched by F3 AT his initial position, rather than BEYOND his initial position, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (8) Note, then it is NOT reversible without the use of video review.

#2 cannot be reversed since it was in the infield, not the outfield or foul territory, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (10).

What am I missing?

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Another question that appears to be confusing, at best, or with 2 correct answers. WITHOUT the use of video replay, which of these two calls is NOT reversible:

1. Foul reversed to fair on a line drive to F3.

2. No catch reversed to catch on a sinking line drive in the infield to F6.

Seems to me that neither can be reversed.

#1 can be reversed WITH the use of video review under the new rules. But since it was touched by F3 AT his initial position, rather than BEYOND his initial position, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (8) Note, then it is NOT reversible without the use of video review.

#2 cannot be reversed since it was in the infield, not the outfield or foul territory, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (10).

What am I missing?

Is this a condensed version of the question? I have one that has four situations, of which two are these, but there is additional information that is vital to showing that #2 can be reversed.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Is this a condensed version of the question? I have one that has four situations, of which two are these, but there is additional information that is vital to showing that #2 can be reversed.

Same question, but the other two choices can definitely be reversed. 

[Replacematt]

14 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Same question, but the other two choices can definitely be reversed. 

Does your #2 include the provision that there are two out?

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Does your #2 include the provision that there are two out?

Yes, for #4. I did note that when I read the question, but I did not see an exception for two outs in appendix E for plays without video review.

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Yes, for #4. I did note that when I read the question, but I did not see an exception for two outs in appendix E for plays without video review.

Note 1. 

"No catch" can be changed to "catch" anywhere on the field if there are two out or no runners on.

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Another question that appears to be confusing, at best, or with 2 correct answers. WITHOUT the use of video replay, which of these two calls is NOT reversible:

1. Foul reversed to fair on a line drive to F3.

2. No catch reversed to catch on a sinking line drive in the infield to F6.

Seems to me that neither can be reversed.

#1 can be reversed WITH the use of video review under the new rules. But since it was touched by F3 AT his initial position, rather than BEYOND his initial position, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (8) Note, then it is NOT reversible without the use of video review.

#2 cannot be reversed since it was in the infield, not the outfield or foul territory, as written in Appendix E 1 (c) (10).

What am I missing?

A call of no catch on the infield can be changed to catch if  there are two outs. Appendix E 1-c11 note 1  (don’t ask me why it’s after 11 “hit by pitch situations” and not after 10. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I did not see an exception for two outs in appendix E for plays without video review.

Putting it after 11-HBP situations sure doesn't help. 

[grayhawk]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

A call of no catch on the infield can be changed to catch if  there are two outs. Appendix E 1-c11 note 1  (don’t ask me why it’s after 11 “hit by pitch situations” and not after 10. 

Yeah, that's poor placement. Thanks guys.

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/3/2025 at 5:10 PM, BigBlue4u said:

The rule is poorly written.  It should be worded, when a catcher steps "on or in front of any part of home base without possession of the ball and interferes with the batter, it's catcher's interference."

FYI, I have written dozens of rules tests over the years, and I absolutely avoided any question that could even remotely be construed as a "trick" question.  Do that just one time, and the people taking the test will be primarily looking for a different angle to the question rather than its basic premise.

 

I don't call NCAA (contemplated it, but don't see it working with my schedule or being worthwhile enough in my area), but I would challenge that you do NOT want "and interferes with the batter" added to this rule.  I put this on par with the way NCAA is approaching FPSR: it is a SAFETY concern to have the catcher stepping up there.  By requiring that "and interferes" portion, you are going to be encouraging batters to take a swing at them.  Stop that before it happens and penalize it as a safety concern.

[BLWizzRanger]

Did you guys mention the last sentence in App E(c)  (11) Note 2?

A line drive hit directly toward an infielder shall not meet the requirement for a potential change of the initial call.

So Play (4):
PLAY 4) With two outs and the base umpire in C-position, a sinking line drive is hit to F6 who gloves it near the ground. The base umpire rules “no catch” and all runners advance safely.

 

So even if there was less than two outs, the note says that it is not reversible due to it being a line drive to the infielder.  Am I missing something here?

[Replacematt]

43 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Did you guys mention the last sentence in App E(c)  (11) Note 2?

A line drive hit directly toward an infielder shall not meet the requirement for a potential change of the initial call.

So Play (4):
PLAY 4) With two outs and the base umpire in C-position, a sinking line drive is hit to F6 who gloves it near the ground. The base umpire rules “no catch” and all runners advance safely.

 

So even if there was less than two outs, the note says that it is not reversible due to it being a line drive to the infielder.  Am I missing something here?

That is to further clarify where on the field the delineation is between reversible and non-reversible balls. That is irrelevant under Note 1.

[pbear]

Thanks, all, this is a helpful discussion! Here is one I felt was tricky:

Runner on second base (R2), two outs. B3, the offensive team’s best hitter, is the next batter. As B3 arrives at home plate, the catcher tells the home plate umpire that they wish to walk B3 intentionally. At the same time as this conversation, R2 takes off for third base and is safe without a throw.

It seems that this comes down to PU not calling "Time," which keeps the play live and R2 reaches third base legally. This is reasonable since the IBB request came from the catcher instead of the head coach (2-7). So after the steal, there still has not been a legal request for IBB. PU should ask the head coach if they want the IBB.

Am I thinking about this correctly?

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, pbear said:

Thanks, all, this is a helpful discussion! Here is one I felt was tricky:

Runner on second base (R2), two outs. B3, the offensive team’s best hitter, is the next batter. As B3 arrives at home plate, the catcher tells the home plate umpire that they wish to walk B3 intentionally. At the same time as this conversation, R2 takes off for third base and is safe without a throw.

It seems that this comes down to PU not calling "Time," which keeps the play live and R2 reaches third base legally. This is reasonable since the IBB request came from the catcher instead of the head coach (2-7). So after the steal, there still has not been a legal request for IBB. PU should ask the head coach if they want the IBB.

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Yes, precisely. 

[SH0102]

32 minutes ago, pbear said:

Thanks, all, this is a helpful discussion! Here is one I felt was tricky:

Runner on second base (R2), two outs. B3, the offensive team’s best hitter, is the next batter. As B3 arrives at home plate, the catcher tells the home plate umpire that they wish to walk B3 intentionally. At the same time as this conversation, R2 takes off for third base and is safe without a throw.

It seems that this comes down to PU not calling "Time," which keeps the play live and R2 reaches third base legally. This is reasonable since the IBB request came from the catcher instead of the head coach (2-7). So after the steal, there still has not been a legal request for IBB. PU should ask the head coach if they want the IBB.

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Yes, in terms of a rules test, I viewed that as testing that we know IBB are dead balls (hence why it’s even up for debate) but that only HC can call/signal that (as you correctly cited)

[pbear]

4 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Yes, in terms of a rules test, I viewed that as testing that we know IBB are dead balls (hence why it’s even up for debate) but that only HC can call/signal that (as you correctly cited)

Cool, thank you. There were so many moving parts on the first five or so questions, it stressed me out!

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, SH0102 said:

Yes, in terms of a rules test, I viewed that as testing that we know IBB are dead balls (hence why it’s even up for debate) but that only HC can call/signal that (as you correctly cited)

That is correct. F2 saying something doesn't make it an IBB; thus, we don't call time until we have confirmation from the HC (and all other play has stopped.)

[umpire-member58763195]

Hello, I have a question regarding the following question. I am trying to determine whether #10 remains an eligible substitute.

During the sixth inning, a coach makes a pitching change and brings in relief pitcher #10. After #10 warms up but before the pitcher has completed facing one batter, lightning strikes and the game is delayed for an extended period of time. Upon resumption, the coach wants to bring in relief pitcher #20 instead of #10.

I am using rule 5-5-b Note 3--If a pitcher is brought into the game but has not faced one batter (or retired the side) when the game is stopped for weather, such pitcher may, but is not required to, continue pitching when the game is resumed.

Thanks!

[Richvee]

40 minutes ago, umpire-member58763195 said:

Hello, I have a question regarding the following question. I am trying to determine whether #10 remains an eligible substitute.

During the sixth inning, a coach makes a pitching change and brings in relief pitcher #10. After #10 warms up but before the pitcher has completed facing one batter, lightning strikes and the game is delayed for an extended period of time. Upon resumption, the coach wants to bring in relief pitcher #20 instead of #10.

I am using rule 5-5-b Note 3--If a pitcher is brought into the game but has not faced one batter (or retired the side) when the game is stopped for weather, such pitcher may, but is not required to, continue pitching when the game is resumed.

Thanks!

I used 5-5g to answer the second part. #10 entered the game, and was then legally removed. 

[grayhawk]

42 minutes ago, umpire-member58763195 said:

Hello, I have a question regarding the following question. I am trying to determine whether #10 remains an eligible substitute.

During the sixth inning, a coach makes a pitching change and brings in relief pitcher #10. After #10 warms up but before the pitcher has completed facing one batter, lightning strikes and the game is delayed for an extended period of time. Upon resumption, the coach wants to bring in relief pitcher #20 instead of #10.

I am using rule 5-5-b Note 3--If a pitcher is brought into the game but has not faced one batter (or retired the side) when the game is stopped for weather, such pitcher may, but is not required to, continue pitching when the game is resumed.

Thanks!

Aside from players who have been taken out and being cleared for a possible concussion, are players who have entered the game and been taken out eligible to return?

[Kevin_K]

6 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Aside from players who have been taken out and being cleared for a possible concussion, are players who have entered the game and been taken out eligible to return?

Players who temporarily sub in for others who are undergoing concussion protocols