2025 NCAA Rules Test Thread

[Richvee]

45 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

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

And they must re enter in the same spot in the batting order as the player that was out for concussion protocol. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 1/3/2025 at 6:54 PM, Richvee said:

Out of the park home run, rounding 3b, runner misses the bag, 3B coach is a few feet down the line towards home to high five him, sees the miss, and pushes the runner back to third. Would this not be coach assistance? 

NFHS CB 3.2.2 SIT A:

B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while rounding third, trips over the base.  The third-base coach helps B1 up off the ground.  RULING: The ball is dead and, since B1 is awarded four bases for the home run, B1 is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach.

 

Richvee,

Would the above also apply to your play?

[Replacematt]

36 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

NFHS CB 3.2.2 SIT A:

B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while rounding third, trips over the base.  The third-base coach helps B1 up off the ground.  RULING: The ball is dead and, since B1 is awarded four bases for the home run, B1 is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach.

 

Richvee,

Would the above also apply to your play?

Well, given that this is the NCAA test thread, no.

Also, the only question about coaches assisting runners on the test has nothing to do with the assistance being a live or dead ball--it's about whether it can be reversed because it happened after a call that was subsequently changed.

[Replacematt]

On 1/3/2025 at 12:45 PM, grayhawk said:

I'm only about 15 questions in and there appear to already be a couple of "trick" questions. Post your questions here without explicitly just asking for answers. My first question:

Can a coach physically assist a runner when the ball is dead? 3-3e states:

A base coach may not physically assist a runner in returning to or leaving the base.

8-5f states a runner is out when:

A coach, by touching or holding a runner, physically assists the runner in returning to or leaving a base (see 3-3-e);

I cannot find anything that indicates that this is only the case when the ball is live.

Quoting this because I alluded to it in another response.

The issue in this question is not about whether a coach can assist on a dead ball. It's to illustrate what happens on a call that is subsequently overturned.

Unless there are differing sets of questions, I don't see anything that is a trick question--all are covered by rule (there are some where you have to combine a few rules,) and a little application of syllogistic logic, or by the offseason/preseason interpretations and clarifications. There is only one where I think there is a lack of consistency between the language used in the question and what is used in the videos, so I am going to have to go back and rewatch to see if it's me picking nits or misremembering. I am 99% sure of the proper answer to that particular question.

[grayhawk]

43 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The issue in this question is not about whether a coach can assist on a dead ball. It's to illustrate what happens on a call that is subsequently overturned.

Yes, and the correct answer reflects that.

[Replacematt]

12 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Yes, and the correct answer reflects that.

Yep. Given the way the discussion in the thread went, I thought it significant to revisit the why of the question. 

Also not pertinent to the question, but brought up in discussion...I would also be hesitant to state that coach's assistance is legal during a dead ball unless there is a definitive NCAA interpretation that says such. While FED allows assistance as such, OBR does not (McGwire's home run notwithstanding.)

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, Replacematt said:

The issue in this question is not about whether a coach can assist on a dead ball. It's to illustrate what happens on a call that is subsequently overturned

  But the answer “this is coach assist the runner is called out” is  a wrong answer. which leads to the question, is this answer wrong because the ball is dead, or because the call on the field was changed? I think it’s because the runner was called out and then changed. 
But it still leave the question that this “wrong answer” brings up as a side note. 
Can there be coach assist during a dead ball? 

[noumpere]

15 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

NFHS CB 3.2.2 SIT A:

B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while rounding third, trips over the base.  The third-base coach helps B1 up off the ground.  RULING: The ball is dead and, since B1 is awarded four bases for the home run, B1 is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach.

 

Richvee,

Would the above also apply to your play?

In FED, I think those words are important.  It isn't pushing the runner back to a missed base.

[lawump]

On 1/4/2025 at 11:39 AM, grayhawk said:

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

I believe it arises out of the hyper-technical argument that the LSU coach made in his written and filed protest after the clusterf*ck of a play that happened in the SEC Tournament between LSU and South Carolina.  The NCAA, as I understand, wanted to make clear that the LSU head coach's interpretation of the rule was wrong and they were wanting to close an apparent loophole.

Of course, if the NCAA had an umpire manual/casebook like MLB, MiLB, and NFHS...they could have just resolved it with a simple interpretation in the casebook without having to go through the rules amending process.

[Richvee]

18 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

NFHS CB 3.2.2 SIT A:

B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while rounding third, trips over the base.  The third-base coach helps B1 up off the ground.  RULING: The ball is dead and, since B1 is awarded four bases for the home run, B1 is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach.

 

Richvee,

Would the above also apply to your play?

I agree with @noumpere's thinking on this. And of course, this doesn't help us with the NCAA interp

[grayhawk]

I put in an "Ask Randy" on this. Let's see if he can give us something definitive. 

[BigBlue4u]

16 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I put in an "Ask Randy" on this. Let's see if he can give us something definitive. 

Good luck.  Randy is very unpredictable when it comes to answering email.  Since this is the baseball off-season, one would think he would have the time.

[grayhawk]

2 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Good luck.  Randy is very unpredictable when it comes to answering email.  Since this is the baseball off-season, one would think he would have the time.

This wasn't an email. It was through the "Ask Randy a Rules Question" on RQ+. Hopefully, when he publishes his next iteration of answers, he will include this one.

[hefty_lefty]

On 1/3/2025 at 10:52 PM, Richvee said:

Plus, rule 9-2e actually says “The pitcher or defensive player shall not…..”

yet the penalty only says pitcher and HC🤷‍♂️

The NCAA 25 preseason guide stated that "previously, a violation of rule 9-2e resulted in the ejection of the offending player. This spring, upon discovery, the head coach is also ejected." I don't have access to the previous rulebook to see what verbiage was actually changed, but it's extremely confusing as written to imagine a situation where a position player possesses a foreign substance, and the pitcher is the one ejected. Maybe the shortstop just wants something on his hand to keep from airmailing a throw on a wet day, that's the pitcher's fault?

For the sake of argument, rule 1-11c states that a player intentionally damaging or discoloring the ball will be warned and then "removed" from the game (since it's "removed" and not ejected does that get us out of writing a report?). The question in the test is about foreign substance, so I don't think that rule applies here. However, if a pitcher has a nail file like Joe Niekro, per NCAA we just warn, and then only eject the pitcher if it continues, not the coach. I know what the spirit of the rule for foreign substances is, but question how they came up with this penalty. 

[Replacematt]

On 1/8/2025 at 8:58 AM, lawump said:

I believe it arises out of the hyper-technical argument that the LSU coach made in his written and filed protest after the clusterf*ck of a play that happened in the SEC Tournament between LSU and South Carolina.  The NCAA, as I understand, wanted to make clear that the LSU head coach's interpretation of the rule was wrong and they were wanting to close an apparent loophole.

Of course, if the NCAA had an umpire manual/casebook like MLB, MiLB, and NFHS...they could have just resolved it with a simple interpretation in the casebook without having to go through the rules amending process.

That has been one of my biggest gripes about NCAA rules management.

I mentioned the skunk in the outfield now being illegal by rule vice interpretation in another thread. I did not even know that interpretation existed until a couple seasons ago, when I had the boredom to go through RQ+ for all previous interpretations. (I just went back to find it and found it with a date of 2019, which is when I was deployed and not focused on baseball, but Lego.) What other pre-RQ+ interpretations are out there that aren't formally documented?

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

That has been one of my biggest gripes about NCAA rules management.

I mentioned the skunk in the outfield now being illegal by rule vice interpretation in another thread. I did not even know that interpretation existed until a couple seasons ago, when I had the boredom to go through RQ+ for all previous interpretations. (I just went back to find it and found it with a date of 2019, which is when I was deployed and not focused on baseball, but Lego.) What other pre-RQ+ interpretations are out there that aren't formally documented?

A bunch. Put "paronto" in the search box. You will see some threads where confusion exits.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

A bunch. Put "paronto" in the search box. You will see some threads where confusion exits.

Oh, for sure. I was being rhetorical in this case. 

[MRG9999]

I just registered as NCAA umpire and started taking the test. 

I have a question regarding if a non-conference 9 inning regulation game can be halted after 7 innings if the home team is ahead by 10 or more runs or does it have to be agreed upon prior to the start of the game.  I am leaning towards that it has to be agreed upon per NCAA rule book 5-8,b,4.

[Replacematt]

6 minutes ago, MRG9999 said:

I just registered as NCAA umpire and started taking the test. 

I have a question regarding if a non-conference 9 inning regulation game can be halted after 7 innings if the home team is ahead by 10 or more runs or does it have to be agreed upon prior to the start of the game.  I am leaning towards that it has to be agreed upon per NCAA rule book 5-8,b,4.

Welcome to the club. If you're coming from youth ball, you'll (hopefully) find that college ball tends to be more professional and easier to manage if you use the prescribed protocols.

If you haven't already, make sure you get into the preseason interpretations, documents, and videos before getting into the test.

Also, the test is to get umpires into the rulebook, not to play a game of gotcha. Much of the time, the rulebook language will be in the answer.

With that in mind, does the rulebook language support your hunch?

[MRG9999]

5 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Welcome to the club. If you're coming from youth ball, you'll (hopefully) find that college ball tends to be more professional and easier to manage if you use the prescribed protocols.

If you haven't already, make sure you get into the preseason interpretations, documents, and videos before getting into the test.

Also, the test is to get umpires into the rulebook, not to play a game of gotcha. Much of the time, the rulebook language will be in the answer.

With that in mind, does the rulebook language support your hunch?

Thanks.  I am coming from High School and higher level tournament and summer ball.  I have reviewed the preseason interpretations, docs and videos that were sent weekly.  

I get the test get you into the rule book.  

Was just kind of brain dead due to videos and rules.

[BravoUmp]

On 1/5/2025 at 4:25 PM, 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?

What were your answer choices? I had 2 choice that involved asking the "offensive" coach if he still wanted IBB after situation changed. I did not have an answer regarding asking the "defensive" coach, so I chose the dead ball since it's the focus of new rule. 

[grayhawk]

6 minutes ago, BravoUmp said:

What were your answer choices? I had 2 choice that involved asking the "offensive" coach if he still wanted IBB after situation changed. I did not have an answer regarding asking the "defensive" coach, so I chose the dead ball since it's the focus of new rule. 

They mistakenly put in "offensive" where "defensive" should have been in the correct answer, which is B.

[BravoUmp]

2 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

They mistakenly put in "offensive" where "defensive" should have been in the correct answer, which is B.

I guess I missed that question, because I immediately ruled the answer out when they said "offensive".

[Richvee]

19 hours ago, grayhawk said:

They mistakenly put in "offensive" where "defensive" should have been in the correct answer, which is B.

Ha! I never even noticed that. I usually miss a "which one is NOT true", or I miss read pivot and free foot. Add offense and defence to the list 

[johnnyg08]

On 1/4/2025 at 10:09 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

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.

Yep, this is the way. F2 needs to stay back.