NCAA question

[AAUA96]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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).