Everyone is just taking for a fact that it is pine tar. My dad, a surgeon who is a specialist in wound care took one look at the hand and immediatly named (this thing I dont remeber the name of it) but he says they use it to help hold wounds togeather, it has something to do with gripping. He was almost positive it was this thing and told me to feel his hand. I touched his hand an it was sticky, he said my point exactly, he had just finished working his one sunday a month at a wound center and had used the stuff. I asked if he washed his hands and he said many times, but the stuff just sticks and is really hard to get off. I might add you could not see anything on his hand. If Rodgers was using this stuff, this could explain why he was still so lights out. Just a thought take it for what it is worth.

Exactly!
 

Great perspective and I believe very true. Baseball is a dirty game - its not all good ole boys as its portrayed on TV.

We've been there as umpires in HS college and down and even with friends there is nothing above reproach when it comes to winning.

LaRussa knows what would have happened, Leyland's been around the block a few times and LaRussa probably knows that his pitchers might not be able to withstand the same treatments??

Makes you wonder ...

thanks
David

Just out of curiosity....
 

I was listening to the first part of the radio broadcast of last night's game three on ESPN radio and Joe Morgan indicated that he had had breakfast with Randy Marsh before the flight to St. Louis. Morgan asked Marsh why the crew never went and checked Rogers hand. Marsh replied that LaRussa never asked the umpires to do so.

I think that we have established that this is a reasonably accurate recount of the events. My question is if this is a MLB philosophy - wait for the opposing manager to request an inspection for a foreign substance on the pitcher?

How would all of you that work the levels below MLB (college, HS, LL, etc...) handle this situation? If you noticed something unusual on the pitcher's person, would you intitiate the inspection or would you wait for the opposing manager to bring it to your attention?

MLB 7.10: "....A manager may request that an umpire inspect an opposing pitcher for possession of an altering substance or object,but the umpire is not obligated by this request to inspect the pitcher." - quoted from J/R pg 134

I will not pick buggers. Manager is going to have to say something, especially if what I am seeing is very visible to everybody, as was the "something suspicious" on the base of Roger's thumb. He was clearly not hiding it.

My take on the whole thing...
 

First of all, LaRussa learned about the "stuff" on Rogers hand from an "reserve" player in the clubhouse who saw it on TV. He told LaRussa, who went to the ump inbetween innings. If LaRussa tells the plate ump that how was was informed, isn't using a television monitor grounds for ejection? Maybe that's whay Tony didn't force the issues. And if LaRussa didn't request the ump to pay Rogers a visit, the ump was obligated to, was he? And the fact that the pitcher is more than 60" away wouldn't it be a little hard to see the stuff on his hand where it was located? After all, the camera's had to really zoon in the show it. For me, I would have walked over to Rogers, ask to see his hand. If it was sticky, he's gone. If not, wash it off and let's play ball. Your thoughts.

The direct use of TV monitors is prohibited, as in having one in the dugout for the purpose of stealing signs, etc. The relaying of second-hand information from the monitors located in the clubhouse occurs in all MLB games, and is not illegal.

I would be surprised if there was a team who didn't have someone in the clubhouse watching a televised game.

San Diego Steve
 

That's my point. Maybe LaRussa didn't want to tip his hand. And since the PU wasn't directly asked by LaRussa to examine Rogers hand, the PU let it go.

What's your point? I still don't get it.

You said, "If LaRussa tells the plate ump that how was was informed, isn't using a television monitor grounds for ejection?"

I said, "The relaying of second-hand information from the monitors located in the clubhouse occurs in all MLB games, and is not illegal."

If LaRussa received information from the clubhouse that Rogers had this pine tar/poop on his pitching hand, that would not be illegal information, so why would he worry about tipping his hand?

Since Rogers has been photographed in at least 2 other games with the same goop on his hand, I wouldn't recommend he try it again in his next start.

..but will he get another start?




the world wonders

My point is did LaRussa violate the rule of using a television monitor for coaching purposes? Doe he rule say anyting about first or second hand viewing? Dosen't LaRussa risk being tossed if he tells the PU he saw the pine tar/poop on Rogers hand on a TV? As far as tipping his hand, maybe LaRussa had the player in the club house relaying information on what pitch Rogers was going to throw. (I know, a far fetched idea but hey, anything is possible right?)

BTW, I'm a Card's fan!

The rule is that the team cannot have any monitoring device in the dugout. Game info from clubhouse monitors is constantly being relayed to game participants, in every ballpark in the league.

As far as relaying pitches, it really is farfetched. That would require each batter to be wearing a wire of some kind in order to successfully relay that information in a timely manner. Oh yeah, after deciphering the signs, which can be constantly changed. Yeah, it's probably been tried already.

If they could do it to Branca, they can do it today.....

LOL.....

This forum is starting to look like a new tv reality show-- <i><b>"Global Moderators Gone Bad!"</b></i>:D