The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
I think we knew that. The problem was the last sentence didn't make any sense (in the real world). If it was just ignored, then the answer to the OP (ignore the OBS on a caught fly) was obvious.
And maybe the lurkers would like to see the answer.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
I didn't have that question so I don't know what the possible answers were. I would hope that one of the answers is: "The umpire shall call the obstruction when it happens, allow the play to continue, and call the batter out on the catch by F9."
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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)
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).

Last edited by AAUA96; Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 04:17pm.
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAUA96 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #81 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:24pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
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?
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #82 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:07pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
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.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post

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.
Cite please.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NCAA Question mattmets Football 5 Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:14pm
NCAA W Sub Question SCalScoreKeeper Basketball 3 Sun Feb 05, 2012 03:38pm
NCAA question zm1283 Basketball 2 Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:02am
NCAA Rule change? - Question #57 NCAA Test ljudge Football 2 Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:21am
NCAA Question dumbref Football 9 Wed Nov 09, 2005 01:41pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1