And maybe the lurkers would like to see the answer.

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.

"As long as the flyball is caught, the obstruction is ignored."

Incorrect choices (w/ my abbrev. of BR) were:
- Since the BR was still able to reach first base, the contact created by the pitcher is ignored

- There cannot be obstruction in the infield when the batted ball is in the outfield

- All runners, including the BR, are awarded one base.

There is a difference in the definition of "foreign substance" in these two rules. When related to possessing a "foreign substance" you would include creams, petroleum jelly, oils, etc. When related to applying a "foreign substance" to the ball, you would also include dirt, rosin, spit, etc. So the penalty is less if you apply a foreign substance because it MAY BE something that is a natural part of being on the field. But bringing a foreign substance on the field is worse - because you planned it. If F1 applied Vaseline to the ball, you wouldn't let him pitch it, AND if you discovered there was a big glob of it under his hat brim, then you would eject him. If F1 put rosin on the ball, you wouldn't let him pitch it, but you wouldn't eject him (unless he kept doing it).

That makes complete sense, but I don't believe there is a rule prohibiting possession of a foreign substance, only applying it to the ball. So, according to the NCAA, if the pitcher has a glob of grease on the brim of his cap, and the umpire sees it, he better wipe some of it on the ball before the ump gets there if he wants to have any chance of getting away with just a warning.

Well, he possess spit, that is a foreign substance. If he rubs dirt from the mound on the ball, that is a foreign substance. How are you going to deal with that?

You need to go back and read post #68 in this thread.

I know that piece. I had that question on my test. (got it right)

My post is on topic with other posts about foreign substance you can spit on a ball, and you possess spit, but they're exclusive.

I get the rule, but it seems as though some are talking themselves into circles.

Cite please.