From another forum, coach putting spit on ball
 

"Noticed this weekend, opposing coach would pick up game ball to hand to his pitcher before she warmed up and spit in his hands and then rubbed the game ball and gave that ball to the pitcher in every inning. Blue said that was okay. Is it? (gross, definately....legal too?)"

Opinions?

I suppose if he was playing under some rule set that allows applying a foreign substance to the ball it would be legal...:eek:
What rule set was he playing under?:confused:

Not positive, I believe ASA. That was my opinion, I wouldnt allow a pitcher to do it, why would I allow a coach to do it?

I don't believe the rules have to allow it. They have to "not allow" it to be illegal. And I can't find anywhere where a coach cannot do this between innings.

ASA rules do not allow a "free pass" on applying a foreign substance on the ball between innings.....
Rule 6 Section 6. Foreign Substance/Protective Wraps
A. A defensive player shall not at any time during the game be allowed to use any foreign substance on the ball.

So now just looking at the coach's actions, what would we do if during an inning a coach goes out for a conference with the pitcher and at the end of the conference spits on the ball rubs it up and hands it to the pitcher?
(a) Call an IP for applying a foreign substance to the ball?
or...
(b) Do not call an IP because 6-6.A. only states that a defensive player cannot apply a foreign substance on the ball, and makes no reference to a coach doing it?

IMO the coach is violating the spirit of the rule and my gut says it's an IP, but I can't see where the rules would support my IP call.

FWIW, NCAA addresses it clearly:
10.13.2 No player or team personnel may apply moisture or a foreign substance to the ball or do anything else to deface the ball.
EFFECT
For the first offense, an illegal pitch shall be called as soon as the foreign substance touches the ball. On the second offense the pitcher shall be ejected.

Simple solution: dump the coach. He, of all people, should know better than to teach his players to do this.

Dump the coach on what grounds? Based on the sitch in the OP, what ASA rule would support an ejection of the coach?

You guys are worse than the coaches. GMAFB!

This is zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, nothing, not a damn thing. I do this to every ball I touch. You know how much I like baseball, but just why do you think umpires rub down a certain number of balls with Delaware River mud before every game?

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 site the supporting rule as well.

USC. If the players aren't allowed to do it, why would the coach ever be?

I hold the coach to higher standards than I do the players.

Yes, but you're the one doing it, not the coach. Does the coach hand it back to you for you to verify what's left on the ball?

Do I think the simple act of spitting on the ball really gives the pitcher much advantage? Nah, not really, but then why do we have a rule against the players doing it?

Other solution: go to pitcher's plate, ask for the ball from the coach, pull him/her aside and tell them plain and simple: "need me to scuff up the ball? I'll do it for you. Spit on the ball again, and it's sayonara. Thanks, Coach."

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.

Why is the coach handling the ball?

So if a situation called for it, we would be OK using 6.6.A. with a coach if they were in some manner applying a foreign substance to the ball?

Don't know, would you?

Even if you thought you were, I believe this to be over-officiating at its extreme. This is one of those things that some umpire gets talked into enforcing by a coach because "rules are rules" and we end up with another ridiculous thread about TWPs.

Think about it. A coach moistens HIS HANDS (not the ball), picks up a ball and rubs it down, hands the ball to the pitcher who then throws five warm-up pitches to the catcher who is now handling the ball with her glove and throwing hand as many times as their are pitches, then throws the ball to F4 who throws the ball to F6 who throws the ball to F....well, you get the point.

So, after this ball has been thrown and caught in a glove 13 times, just what is going to happen on the first pitch that was effected by the coach spitting on his/her hands?

Oh, here it comes........EVEN IF the pitcher threw no warm-up pitches, the coach's actions would still would not affect the pitch.

Go ahead, make that call. What you do with the boogers you find is your business. I know it will not be mine.

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.

I'm not looking to be an OOO or pick a booger on the field. I'm just trying to get clear on how ASA would want the sitch in the OP handled should it arise and, understand the correct application/interpretation of 6.6.A.
If ASA sees it as non issue or a violation, then it's not a booger I'll pick if I happened to see a DC doing it. If an OC should observe it and complain about the DC I now know what to tell him.

I still question why you would WANT to make a point of calling this?

Wanting to do something and having to do something do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

What if the coach actually does put something besides spit on the ball? Are we going to stick with the technicality of "this rule only applies to players, not coaches?"

Either the spit is a foreign substance or it isn't.

Because it's an IP in college and a coach putting a foreign substance on the ball at other levels needs to be addressed.

I'm wondering about the want. There is no have. You don't HAVE to rule this illegal, because it's not.

But 2 or 3 of you obviously WANT to - either by warping one rule improperly to fit what you want into it,or by using the God rule unnecessarily. My question is... "Why?"

Irrelevant. I'll say it again... WHY?

What in the OP makes it irrelevant? It doesn't mention the level of ball.
Where to you draw the line Mike? (either Mike BTW) If not spit then what would make you address it and what rule would you cite then?

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?

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.

Really? How much less?:rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

Around the proverbial tree I see! I was responding to the original post!

So was I.

Wrapped around a tree or not, I will address any issue that may affect the fairness of the game even when it isn't covered by the rules. I am given this authority BY RULE and will use it when necessary. These instances happen very rarely as the 2 rule sets I work under cover almost everything that could happen. In this case I believe ASA should change it's wording to include any team personnel if it wants it's foreign substance rule to cover more possible situations. Until then, I will use whatever the rules book gives me to manage my games.

And Daddy Mike, that's my judgement and it's not protestable either.

Just curious.

I've seen several coaches, when their team is in the 1B dugout, will stroll to the circle from the 3B coaches box after their third out on offense, pick up the ball and wait for his pitcher to get there (or will wait somewhere between the circle and 1B).

That's what I'm picturing here.

If you toss them when this happens, you can totally avoid the problem in this thread. :D;):D:p
________
Los Angeles Dispensary Reviews

That might be a little drastic...but if he's spitting on the ball? Hmmmm. Maybe charge a defensive conference?

Does anyone actually read these things?

Spitting on the ball....spitting on his hands then rubbing up the ball....I don't see a big difference there.

Are you, IRISHMAFIA, OK with the coach's actions? It sure seems like it. I'd still like to know what he's doing out near the circle.

We're talking about the "1 minute" between innings. What rule is being broken here?

Between half innings?
What do you care?

Personally, I feel as though this thread has drug on way too long. This is one of those not addressed in any book situations. So, if you feel it was nothing, say nothing. If you feel as though the coach is, by spitting on his hands (I find that offensive enough to want to toss him ;) ) and then rubbing the ball, helping out his players or altering the ball in some way, replace the ball, address it with the coach and move on.

Pretty simple, it would seem to me.

I can assure you of one thing, I will remember this coach and never shake his hand again at the plate conference. :cool: