Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie
Regarding the pitcher being discovered using a foreign substance, I too had the same answer you did: "The pitcher is ejected immediately" and I took my cue from the Study Guide 2013-2014. I believe I've seen MLB reports where an F1 (for example, Gaylord Perry) being ejected immediately upon discovery of a foreign substance on his hand or body/clothing. (As a side note, there were a few erroneous and conflicting (with NCAA) rulings/explanations in that guide. It actually had BESR as the legally required marking on the bat - pp. 42 & 43)!
|
The test writer (or a lawyer) could argue that, "The umpire discovers the pitcher has applied a foreign substance to the ball" and "pitcher in possession of a foreign substance", are not the same thing. That would be a chicken-**** reasoning, IMO. So the premise of the question is flawed (Shocking). How could an "umpire discovers the pitcher has applied a foreign substance to the ball" without the evidence to prove it (F2 might have applied the foreign substance).
I hate these wrong (sometimes) if you apply the spirit of the rules questions.