Had me right until there. Way TOO MANY made up rules are initiated in "the spirit and intent" of the rules. We see it all the time and just as much among umpires as the coaches and players. Too many believe THEY know what the game is about and how it should be played regardless of the rules or lack of them. Some are even in defiance of the rules and rarely make any sense.

This rule, for example, is from another game and time. It was developed when moistening the cover affected the weight and balance of the ball. On today's equipment, it has minimal, if any, effect whatsoever and is out of date. Think about the ridiculous things mentioned and tell me what type of advantage it would give a pitcher that isn't already applicable in a legal format?

No one one this thread is talking about allowing anyone to cheat, it is about using common sense and applying the rule wh ere it needs to be applied.

Then get rid of it.
You chastise people for considering "the spirit and intent" of the rules, yet talk about whether an advantage is gained? I guess you're not one of the "THEY" you mentioned in your post.
Then when does your common sense draw the line when it comes to coaches applying a foreign substance to the ball and how would you support your actions?

I had a similar reaction when reading his post as well. Citing "the spirit of the rule" is a dangerous and slippery slope, and I don't believe such an approach should be used on the field.

Though in Steve's defense, I do trust that his application of such an approach is probably 100 times better than a lot of the other umpires we hear about. :D

This is certainly true, and I know and understand your opinion on the matter of whether a pitcher should be required to wipe their fingers after licking them. Yet the rule is still on the books. Yes, the rule specifically states "defensive player," probably because the writers assumed that no coach would ever be so stupid as to put spit on the ball him/herself. I was not there when the rule was written, so I can't know for certain why they did not use the phrase "defensive participant." However, we all know that coaches, sadly (or maybe fortunately?), are not always that bright, and they will create situations that we need to address.

So, not trying to be smart here, but where does this common sense begin and end? There doesn't seem to be a consistent consensus on how to approach a coach who spits on the ball. If we prohibit players from performing this action by rule, how can we justify excluding coaches?

I won't disagree with the rant part, that too many people make up rules. But, I also know I have to have some rules basis to direct anyone to do anything, and directing the coach (who is not specifically precluded from this action) to cease and desist needs some support. Otherwise, it is simply OOO.

And the intent of the rule is that no one (other than umpires) be allowed to do this. While it may be from another game and another time initially, the most recent major rules set (NCAA) not only kept the rule, they added what we are saying is the spirit and intent, that NO ONE can deface or add a foreign substance.

Why can umpires do it; because we will never do anything beyond what you state, rubbing the ball up to remove the slick sheen. What might pitchers, other players, and YES, their coaches, do? Anything that they perceive as a possible advantage, legal or not. So, it is our responsibility to make sure they don't.

Game management tells me to simply swap out the ball the first time, as no rule has been violated. To stop it from happening again, I either cite a rule, make one up, or act OOO. I prefer to cite a rule that supports my decision to stop it.

The rule originaled in baseball and the intent is to prevent players from doing something to the ball that will alter it's flight path or make it more difficult to see.

I never said you have nothing. You just don't have an IP, and likely not an ejection unless the coach keeps doing it after you told him to stop. I completely don't understand the obvious desire of some here to create an incident out of this. This is simply (at most, since you brought up ridiculous substances like motor oil ... and not in the OP) a "Cut it out, coach, you can't do that," unless he pushes the issue. In the OP, I'm not saying a word - like so many have said, by the time this ball goes through several warm up pitches, nothing the coach did matters.

In ASA I am not going looking for boogers on this......however.......if the other coach brings it to my attention, I won't ignore it. I will tell the offending coach to quit applying a foreign substance on the ball. If he does it again....he will get a warning......again............ejection.......

All of this is pretty hypothetical though........since I have never seen it.

Joel

So you're picking and chosing your acceptable foreign substances? Now who is playing god? What if the pitcher does it between innings? Do you use this same "no advantage gained" logic when calling IPs in general?

I tried. The traditionalist just laughed and ignored it.

No, I chastise people for using that as a reason to make up or circumvent the rules. But if you would address what is offered instead of making it up as you go along....

I don't need to as the discussed issue ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES!!!

My only problem with swapping the ball is that is plays into that perception. Check it? Sure, why not. But if you throw it out, there should be a reason, not just to appease someone. And if there is something wrong, then you go after the coach.

What the heck are you talking about? I'm not picking and choosing anything... I'm enforcing the rules as written.

For some reason, you are offended that I won't enforce a rule that does not exist to prevent something that is not illegal and has no effect on play. Bwah-huh??? That's "playing God?"

What could be wrong? You've already said that this is not illegal. And if you go after the coach, what rule will you cite?

Again, selective reading. A number of things could be wrong, but the only thing I have stated is that you cannot apply the foreign substance rule to the coach. And I also previously stated that an UC citation against the coach was feasible if you believe what s/he did was. I do not believe the issue noted in the OP is.

And, son, that is my judgment and not protestable. :cool:

If the umpire is so wrapped around a tree on "stuff on the ball" why not just inspect the ball before the 1st pitch of the inning and see if there is "stuff" on the ball? If there isn't, put ball back in play and play on. If there is "stuff" on the ball, which could have come from anyone one of the infielders and the coach, who ya gonna blame? Toss the ball out and use another.

Second scenario probably wouldn't happen because umpire would be filling his socks with "stuff" he couldn't get out of when he tosses someone.

Me as a coach would "protest" this game for misapplication of a rule if I was tossed.

If I see you as a coach applying something to the ball, I will instruct you not to do it again. If you continue and get tossed for UC you can protest all you like. You will lose. And all I will have in my socks are my feet.