So, slapping the ball towards the ground is illegal? Isn't that INTENTIONALLY contacting the ball with dirt/chalk? IMO, anything that is part of the field is fair play and I'm not the only one that thinks this. Chalk is part of the field as is the dirt. A resin bag is not. Now, if a player walks over to where the guy is chalking the field and grabs a handfull of chalk out of his chalker, that is crossing the line.

So what? The rule is that the player may not "use" a foreign substance on the ball or on the contact points of the hand, and may not "apply" a foreign substance to the ball (ref: NFHS 6-2-2). It says nothing about keeping the ball from contact with the playing surface during normal play. I don't know why you cannot see the distinction.All of those violate the rule. I'll grant you that most of the time in girls fastpitch, when a foreign substance is applied to the ball it is not to affect the flight of the ball in the classic spit-ball sense, but rather to improve the pitcher's grip. Nonetheless, if done improperly, it is a violation.

I'm arguing what a "foreign substance" is. Is there dirt on the field of play? Is there chalk on the field of play? How are these "foreign" substances? They're part of the field and not foreign. Is there a definition of what a foreign substance is according to the ASA book? Tell me where to look as I can't find it, I have the 2006 and 2007 books right here. Rule 6, section 6.A talks about resin and saliva, says nothing about dirt/chalk.

I don't see how dirt can help a pitchers grip. I can see the opposite.

Upon what assumption do you base your interpretation that the rule refers to substances foreign to the playing field and grounds rather than substances foreign to the ball?

Because dirt and chalk get on the ball and on the players hands/gloves/uniforms/hair/etc. during normal play. What difference does it make if he/she puts a little more on his/her hand before touching the already dirty ball? What advantage does the pitcher have by doing this? I see none so why make a big deal out of it. These substances are not foreign to the playing field or players. I'm also not assuming anything. What makes my interpretation wrong? Show me in the rule book that dirt and chalk are considered foreign substances. You can't because it's not in there. I'm not going to make up a rule. Also, even before the first pitch is thrown, there's going to be dirt and chalk on the ball.

...

Try case play 6.6-4.

Between the time a ball is manufactured, shipped, purchased and subsequently opened from its bag or box, is dirt and chalk part of its intristic composition?

No, therefore those substances are foreign to the ball.

Do balls get dirt or chalk on them propior to the game and during the course of normal playing action?

Of course they do, but that is not what the rule is addressing at all. The rule addresses only the actions of a player who intentionally places these substances on the ball.

Don't have a case book and don't plan on buying one for this situation either. Until someone can show me in the rule book that dirt and chalk are foreign substances, I'll keep umpiring the way I umpire. For all you others that disagree with me, better start bringing more balls to the games because to be true to your interpretations of the rules, you'll need to change balls after every pitch.

Uh...with that attitude you won't be umpiring very long. Pardon my sarcasm but here goes...Are you going to call balls that are hit and fielded on the foul line foul because it is called a foul line? I mean it is a foul line not a fair line!

And this is one of the most asinine comments I've ever quoted. What are you trying to say? What the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?

One of the most asinine ever? Perhaps.

Coming in a close second:

"For all you others that disagree with me, better start bringing more balls to the games because to be true to your interpretations of the rules, you'll need to change balls after every pitch."

Why? Even if we disagree on what constitutes a foreign object on the ball, nowhere has anyone implied a problem with dirt or chalk on the ball as the result of normal game play.

If I were to be "true to my interpretations of the rule" I would have no problem with the ball until that dirt or chalk was deliberately placed there by a defensive player.

What's the difference? Convince me there'e a difference between what gets on the ball during normal play and what a defensive player puts there on purpose.

Perhaps it was an asinine statement (remember I did admit it was sarcasm)...as was yours.

My point is that there are probably a few rules and interpretations that we, as umpires, may not agree with. However, all umpires should strive to enforce the rules and interpretations the same. This is clearly an illegal pitch and as far as I can tell you are probably the only umpire that thinks it isn't.

For you to stand up and say "For all you others that disagree with me, better start bringing more balls to the games because to be true to your interpretations of the rules, you'll need to change balls after every pitch" is very unprofessional and a disservice for all of us who uphold the rules.

That's all I have to say about that, except perhaps I was wrong to word my previous post the way I did and you may have to agree to disagree with the interpretation but enforce the rule as it should be applied.

Apply what rule? I apply every rule the book tells me to. There is no rule that forbids the use of dirt and/or chalk on the ball. Maybe it isn't addressed in the Rule Book because of the simple fact that dirt and/or chalk are already on the ball and putting on more makes no difference. If it's on the ball, it's going to get on the pitchers hand. What difference does it make if he/she puts on more dirt/chalk?

The rule governing substances on the ball specifically refers to a defensive player placing said substances on the ball.

There is no rule in the book about substances getting on the ball during playing action.

Difference enough for you?

Here's an extreme example that illustrates the difference: In between pitches, F6 spits into the dirt near second base. On the next pitch, B1 lines the ball which hops right into the loogie.

Do we both agree that saliva falls into the category of a foreign substance? So, what penalty applies on this play? None, of course, as the substance was not deliberately placed upon the ball by a defensive player.

But you're veering away from the main point here. The crux of the question is what constitutes a foreign substance, not how the substance gets on the ball.