Skip to main content

The recent incident involving Joel Peralta reminded me of something that happened two years ago when I was working a 16u tournament...played under HS rules.

At pregame conference before a 9:30PM game, coach tells me all his pitchers wear helmets. (a kid in their town was seriously injured the previous year, and their entire organization mandates it). He wanted to bring it to my attention before the game started, as it had "been a bone of contention" with some opponents and umpires. I told him I was well aware of the rules, and that the helmet was fine, as long as it wasn't reflective or putting off a glare. The game went on without any difficulties.

The following afternoon, however, the conditions were much differant. The sky was clear, and the helmet was giving off three or four distinct flahes of light during the pitcher's delivery. I noticed it during his warmups, and told the coach he'd have to do something to eliminate the reflection. He whined for a minute or two, then they went to work doctoring up the helmet with mud. It looked like hell, but killed the reflection. About the third inning (I don't know if some of the stuff had worn off, or if the angle of the sun had changed) but the glare was back, especially when he turned his head just before delivery. We stopped the game for a few minutes, and told them they must do more to eliminate the problem....which they did.

Several pitched into this inning, a foul ball went to the screen then rolled back near my feet. I gave the catcher another ball, and took a quick look at the ball (just making sure it hadn't been cut or damaged when it hit the screen.) I couldn't help but notice a sticky spot just next to one of the seams. I stuck that ball deep into my bag. I began paying closer attention, and noticed that the pitcher was 'adjusting' his helmet after nearly every pitch. After a foul had gone out of play, I put a brand new ball into play. Pitcher rubbed it up a bit, adjusted his helmet and got on the rubber.

I called time, went to the mound and asked for the ball. There was a fingerprint sized dab of something sticky, right in the same spot where it had been on the other ball. I asked him what it was, he shrugged his shoulders. I asked his manager to come out and join us, as well as my partner. I checked the kid's helmet, and found it had been smeared with pine tar.

I ejected both the pitcher and the manager, gave the helmet and both baseballs to the tournament director.

Imigine this...when the next pitched came in, he had a differant helmet...it was clean as a whistle, and had a natural dull black finish.
Don't tell me how hard the labor was; just show me the baby.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by dash_riprock:
The rule against applying a foreign substance to the ball does not require intent.


Let's use some common sense here...

Umpire orders something, fix isn't quite good enough, new fix occurs, pitcher follows his routine by habit, ends up with pine tar on the ball.

I sure as hell am not ejecting a pitcher for something unintentional.

I would also further posit that the only reason that the rule does not address intent is that it assumes that any application would be intentional--which in this case, it may not be.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt13:


Let's use some common sense here...

Umpire orders something, fix isn't quite good enough, new fix occurs, pitcher follows his routine by habit, ends up with pine tar on the ball.

The umpire didn't order the pitcher to wear a helmet, he just ordered that it be legal.
quote:


I sure as hell am not ejecting a pitcher for something unintentional.
Neither would I. An EJ is not required by the rule.
quote:
I would also further posit that the only reason that the rule does not address intent is that it assumes that any application would be intentional--which in this case, it may not be.

The rule is there to prevent a foreign substance from being applied to the ball, period. The penalty is left to the umpire so he is free to leave the pitcher in the game if he believed the violation was unintentional. In the OP, it is clear to me that the umpire judged the violation to be intentional.
Absolutely no question in my mind...it was intentional, and it was all planned by the coach. I'm not paranoid, nor am I some kind of conspiracy theorist, but when it all came together, it was obvious that they were playing me for a chump.

Here's my evidence:
This kid's slider was average to good in the first inning, but was flat out filthy after the second doctoring of the helmet.
Both suspect baseballs were marked with tar in the exact same spot (right where the middle finger would be when throwing a slider).
The look on the catcher's face when I asked to see the baseball.
The look that the pitcher gave to his manager after I found the spot on the second ball.
The fact that they had another (non-reflective) helmet all along.
quote:
Originally posted by scocar:
It sure seemed intentional to me, but I would probably not run them unless I had rock solid, court-of-law proof. I would have removed the helmet, the balls, and proceeded.

Probably a good call, although a degree of HTBT involved. The huge difference in his slider is evidence that he knew what he was doing, as well as the matte finish helmet so quickly produced. The other possible piece of evidence would be, did he touch the helmet before the pine tar was applied? If no, he gets tossed.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×