From another forum, coach putting spit on ball

[topper]

Originally Posted by topper
They indeed do - before the game.

Are you saying you would allow a coach to put anything on the ball between innings based on what's done prior to the game? Where do you draw the line? Most importantly, please cite the supporting rule as well.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Is that what I said and, BTW, the coach didn't put anything on the ball, did he?

BTW, YOU cite the rule forbidding the coach from doing what was described in the OP.

No, but it is implied. I'll re-word my question: Would you allow a coach to put anything on their hands and then rub up the ball between innings?

As for citing the rule, college rules don't exclude non-playing personel from their wording while ASA does allow for ruling on issues not specifically covered in the rules. Dave's solution works for me.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

No, but it is implied. I'll re-word my question: Would you allow a coach to put anything on their hands and then rub up the ball between innings?

As for citing the rule, college rules don't exclude non-playing personel from their wording while ASA does allow for ruling on issues not specifically covered in the rules. Dave's solution works for me.

Not so. ASA specifically notes who (a defensive player) many not apply a "foreign substance" to the ball. Therefore, the god rule does not apply.

And, again, I did not say anything, I specifically addressed the situation offered in the OP.

But even if you want to stop the coach, the book does not give you an avenue to use the foreign substance rule. Want to dump him for USC, knock yourself out. However, once the pitcher has possession of the ball, now you have a violation.

Think about it. In ASA, when a coach screams an appeal from the dugout, do you not wait until a fielder repeats it or presents you with the appeal?

[darkside]

You have nothing. You cannot call this or make up a call just because you don't like it. We are here to enforce the rules as written, not make them up to our liking. If you don't like the wording, put in a change. Personally, I don't see an epidemic of coaches doing this to require a rule change. I could also care less if they spit on the ball and rubbed it in. Doing this will not change the movement of the ball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by darkside

You have nothing. You cannot call this or make up a call just because you don't like it. We are here to enforce the rules as written, not make them up to our liking. If you don't like the wording, put in a change. Personally, I don't see an epidemic of coaches doing this to require a rule change. I could also care less if they spit on the ball and rubbed it in. Doing this will not change the movement of the ball.

No problem with what you say. BUT, if you allow the coach to do it, you can be sure a player will at some time, and you would be required to enforce that penalty.

NCASA stated my position. First time I see it, I change out the ball, and tell the coach he cannot do that (apply a foreign substance) to the ball. Rub it up, fine; the spit or dirt, only an umpire may do.

If he repeats, it isn't a G-d rule; he may not do what you specifically directed him not to do. And, before you ask, yes, you may direct anything you deem to be in the spirit (and intent) of the rules.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No problem with what you say. BUT, if you allow the coach to do it, you can be sure a player will at some time, and you would be required to enforce that penalty.

NCASA stated my position. First time I see it, I change out the ball, and tell the coach he cannot do that (apply a foreign substance) to the ball. Rub it up, fine; the spit or dirt, only an umpire may do.

If he repeats, it isn't a G-d rule; he may not do what you specifically directed him not to do. And, before you ask, yes, you may direct anything you deem to be in the spirit (and intent) of the rules.

Bingo! Best answer yet.
Covers everything in the OP, shows good game management, works around the issue that ASA 6.6.A. makes no mention of other team personnel.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

And, before you ask, yes, you may direct anything you deem to be in the spirit (and intent) of the rules.

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.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This rule, for example, is from another game and time.......

Then get rid of it.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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?

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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 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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Then get rid of it.

I tried. The traditionalist just laughed and ignored 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.

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....

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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?

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

? 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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by darkside

I could also care less if they spit on the ball

Really? How much less?

[topper]

For the 3rd time I ask those who think we have nothing:

What substance would you not allow the coach in the OP to put on his hands and then rub up the ball? Motor oil? Hair spray? Tape? Resin? Non-Delaware mud? And if you find a substance that you won't allow, what rule will you cite then?

Why is it that none of you will attempt to answer this?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

For the 3rd time I ask those who think we have nothing:

What substance would you not allow the coach in the OP to put on his hands and then rub up the ball? Motor oil? Hair spray? Tape? Resin? Non-Delaware mud? And if you find a substance that you won't allow, what rule will you cite then?

Why is it that none of you will attempt to answer this?

That's Delaware River mud and is believed to come from a tributary in NJ