Which is your judgment, of course. Personally, based on your comment that the pitcher was adjusting her glove, I probably wouldn't have made that call. I am not saying you are wrong, just a different view.

If you determined the pitcher applied a foreign substance to the ball, yesCoach may have been referring to "looking" for illegal acts as opposed to watching and observing for possible violations.

In our terms, looking for boogers. Since none of us were there, I don't think we can really say.

"The 80s" are coming today and tomorrow here in Portland. :eek:

Still, I've only had 6 rainouts this season so it's not like the weather's been terrible.

Bottom of 9th???
Still no score???

GOOD CALL, Blue!!!!;)

NFHS 6.2 Art.2... The pitcher shall not at any time during the game be allowed to use tape or other substance on the ball or contact points of the pitching hand or fingers; nor shall any other player apply a foreign substance to the ball. (There's more but I don't have the time right now to type all of it.)

See PENALTY: (Art.2)

Another example of rules overkill based upon baseball mentality. The rule should simply forbid applying a foreign substance to the ball and leave it at that.

Now that would absolutely make too much sense!

Where does it say anything about wiping off after wiping her brow? Without inspection, how do you know the sweat was on the "contract points"?

I was responding to the OP had F1 not wiped the sweat off her hand before contacting the ball. Her hand was the contact point on the ball.

edited for correct spelling of responding.

But, the rule doesn't reference the hand generically as a contact point. It refers to the "contact points of the pitching hand or
fingers", meaning there are non-contact points of the pitching hand and fingers.

You can't just call it because she fails to wipe off, as that remedy applies only to licking the fingers. In fact, even when a pitcher licks her fingers and "wipes off" it is almost never a thorough or effective action, but it does fulfill the letter of the rule.

Other than dinging a pitcher for licking her fingers and then not pretending to wipe it off, the only way to enforce the other aspects of the rule is to inspect the hands or the ball.

The whole moisture contamination of a 12" softball is absurd anyway. Attempting to enforce the #2 situation in the OP because she did not wipe off is OOO and is not proper enforcement of the rule, IMO.

2) IMJ sweat evaporated in a blink of a whisker, thus no foreign substance on contact point of hand.

1) NCAA umpire's ASA National career ended when he called illegal pitch for player not being on the field at the time of the pitch. This umpire in question is an NCAA assignor for a conference and has gone as far as the Super Regionals. Call was correct by rule, but sometimes, you gotta look past the rule or stop something from happening that does not need to happen.

Are you sure the problem wasn't that the ump did not allow enough time for the player to get in position? If there was no other issue, it is very sad when any organization places the brunt for poor rule writing on those they entrust to enforce the rules. If they don't want the penalty applied as specified in the rule book, change the rule book!

The double touch rule is very frustrating for lower level/beginning pitcher's to comply with. They want to bring their hands together to fix their glove, they step in the mound with the ball in the wrong hand and bring the hands together to switch the ball, they bring their hands together to reposition the ball in the glove, and they sometimes just want to start over and bring their hands apart to do so. They do these things because they have not developed a routine that complies with the rules.

I honestly feel that most IPs are the result of the pitcher just messing up and are not intentional. I also know that there are pitchers who deliberately break the pitching rules.

The coach must understand the legal pitching routine and do their job ... COACH!

2002-3 case book. Someone with current book, please verify.

F5 rubs dirt on the ball and then gives it to the pitcher to pitch.

Ruling: Umpires should use discretion in the determination of "foreign substances". Once the pitcher has the ball with the foreign substance near the pitcher's plate, an illegal pitch should be called.

Anyone have a ASA reference that is cut and dried about rubbing dirt cuz the above can be read more than one way.

Do the words "the foreign substance" in the ruling refer to the stem (dirt) or to a determination by the umpire that a foreign substance has been used?

Mike can you get this play cleaned up at your next meeting in OKL city?

Thus, using my discretion, wiping sweat off the eyebrow or forehead is not getting an IP from me.

Thanks, Ron

Gonna step on someone's toes with this... but i dont care. If ASA dropped this caliber of a person (I am assuming he was a very capable umpire and the above quote lacks a lot of detail) because of this... then ASA lost out. guess they needed to make room for someone's nephew or cousin (ok, cheap shot.. but you cant say its doesnt happen) :mad:

Probably other things going on with this guy - I doubt one bad call and bad piece of officiating did this. Probably political type stuff no one knows about except him and the powers that be.