Defacing the Ball

dogpatch said:

I appreciate your explanation and taking the time to share past rules and interpretations. It looks like this phantom dirt-rubbing rule, which neither 1-3-6 nor 6-2-2 actually addresses, has been around for a while. Hopefully in the future it will somehow dawn on the powers-that-be that when they write explanations of rules, they should first make sure those rules are well written and actually exist in the rule book. They need look no further than the NCAA softball rules to see how to do a much better job!

Click to expand...

I am guessing you haven't umpired NCAA or NFHS softball.

The NCAA rule book is so very terrible. Umpiring using college rules is unnecessarily complex on top of dealing with college level games and the 'detail' they include makes things even worse. It is what happens when you let people with no experience of writing rules, write rules. Lots of rules and text to appease specific coaches (*cough* UCLA) or to prevent abuse of loopholes (*cough* Florida) or to address a very rare scenario which all have had unintended consequences.

So much worse than the NFHS book (which is no great publication either).

The worst rulebook ever is the NFL one. That thing is awful - which is why they get into so many stupid things every year.

eddieq said:

The 2024 Interpretations specifically say that rubbing dirt into the ball and rubbing the ball into the dirt are both defacing it.


The document is available here - see "situation 2"

Click to expand...

The situation here is that the 2024 interpretations do not cite an actual rule that is being interpreted. The reason there is no citation is that there is no rule in the current rule book that actually describes the action as being illegal. Folks should understand that interpretations of rules are not the rules... they simply clarify what is meant by the rule. First you write the rule, then you interpret it or clarify it as necessary. The rule being interpreted here has either been lost, or was never actually written. The NFHS rules committee needs to do a better job.

CoachCeetar said:

I think it's interesting you claim interpretations don't really change but then posted a whole bunch of them. If anything, the current interpretation is less precise as it takes out the specific 2013 wording of "rubbing the ball into the dirt is considered defacing".

The current wording gives a situation and calls it illegal, but it is also not specific. It says You cannot use dirt to deface the ball but not that the act of putting the ball into the dirt is defacing it. In this instance the pitcher did not "use dirt to deface the ball" as they never even touched dirt.

Plus, the umpire screwed it up! The whole point of this is the umpires are supposed to understand the rules, and clearly don't. If you're rule and your interpretation confuse the umpires, it's not clear and obvious enough, and is a bad rule.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you want to split hairs and claim that picking up dirt and rubbing it on the ball is illegal, but rubbing the ball into the ground is completely different and therefor legal? You may want to actually read the rule interpretation and no, the interpretation has not changed in the slightest in any of the interpretations I posted. You said specifically that interpretations change all the time, Im still waiting for you to produce a single rule interpretation that has changed that did not coincide with a rule change. I know of 1 that has changed without a corresponding rule change. Can you even Identify that 1? If they change all the time there should be plenty to choose from to provide at least 1 example.

The 2024 rule interpretation, contrary to your claim it does in fact state both picking up dirt and rubbing it on the ball and rubbing the ball into the dirt are both considered defacing the ball.

SITUATION 2: As Team A takes the field, Team A’s pitcher (a) takes a handful of dirt then drops it and does not wipe the hand prior to contacting the ball, (b) touches a towel in the back pocket that contains an approved drying agent and does not wipe the hand prior to contacting the ball, (c) takes a handful of dirt and begins to rub the dirt onto the ball, (d) takes the ball and begins rubbing it into the dirt. RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). Dirt is not a foreign substance and does not have to be removed from the hand prior to contacting the ball. Approved drying agents are allowed under the supervision and control of the umpire and are not required to be wiped off prior to contacting the ball. Once a towel with a drying agent has been removed from its packaging to be used in a game, it is very difficult to verify what material the towel is infused with. This drying agent should be allowed unless it is determined that the material on the towel is transferring to or discoloring the ball. If material is transferred to the ball or if the ball becomes discolored, the umpire should have this towel removed for the remainder of the game. Illegal in (c) and (d). In both of these cases, the player is defacing the ball by taking the dirt and rubbing it into the ball in (c) and rubbing the ball into the dirt in (d). In both cases this action is not allowed. Although dirt is not a foreign substance and it is allowed to be used to dry the hand, it is not allowed to be used to deface the ball.

marriard said:

I am guessing you haven't umpired NCAA or NFHS softball.

The NCAA rule book is so very terrible. Umpiring using college rules is unnecessarily complex on top of dealing with college level games and the 'detail' they include makes things even worse. It is what happens when you let people with no experience of writing rules, write rules. Lots of rules and text to appease specific coaches (*cough* UCLA) or to prevent abuse of loopholes (*cough* Florida) or to address a very rare scenario which all have had unintended consequences.

So much worse than the NFHS book (which is no great publication either).

The worst rulebook ever is the NFL one. That thing is awful - which is why they get into so many stupid things every year.

Click to expand...

I appreciate what you are saying. NFHS should NOT just use NCAA rules. But there are many NCAA rules that are well written and should be looked at as reference when NFHS writes its rules.

Use the contact info to reach out to NFHS with your arguments. Rule interpretations carry as much, if not greater weight as the rulebook. As umpires we are instructed to consider both when making a ruling. We always refer to case play for odd situations. Not a direct correlation but akin to courts using previous rulings and precedents to rule on similar situations before them.

It feels like you’re not arguing that it should be legal but trying to find a loophole to excuse the illegal behavior of your pitcher. Tell her not to do that and move on with the game.

Sorry gang, I didn't read all 6 pages of this thread so forgive me if this has been said.

Umpires that I know, who aren't on ego trips and trying to "over umpire" games will always throw the brand new balls over to a pitcher on either team, who isn't pitching that game, to get the game balls "game ready". That's the right way to go about it. But, as I said, there are umpires who think the game is about and for them. Most are great people and there for the right reasons but there's always a few who don't understand the spirit of the rule.

This has happened to me personally countless times. Too many foul balls require a new one thrown in if there's no time to throw it to a bench pitcher to rough up. I've never met a hitter who wanted me to throw a ball at them that is brand new. Not one. If a ball is slick, who knows where it's going!!!????!! That results in HPB's. Or, sometimes that very umpire who won't let someone take the shine off a ball will get hit hard by a wild pitch.

This is less of a problem now days with Gorilla Gold being legal in all the alphabet soup softball organizations: USSSA, PGF, USA, etc. This is the only grip enhancer legal in softball because it doesn't discolor the ball. In the old days, Pine Tar would easily transfer to a ball and it'd become black. That was harder to see in old days when the ball was white. Now that men's fastpitch has switched to Yellow balls full time, it's less of an issue. But still, umpires throw out balls that become black from pitchers who need a little extra than what Gorilla Gold can offer.

For the absolute life of me, I cannot understand why a pitcher today in 2024 doesn't use Gorilla Gold. I just cannot understand it. It's on par with my disbelief that anyone today would start smoking. It makes no sense to me. I know, I know, I've had girls who say "I don't like it" and I'll admit it can be an acquired thing. And no, I'm not a paid endorser of the product. But there was a reason that for 100 years a pitcher couldn't have a grip enhancer: because it gave the pitcher some help. Not using that is mindboggling to me. For the first 2/3 of my pitching career, I didn't use anything sticky despite growing up in the NE USA where it's sometimes cold through to June. Veteran pitchers would offer Pine tar, firm grip (paste and spray), and other kinds of sticky products used by football wide receivers. I'd always say no. Boy was I naive.

eddieq said:

Use the contact info to reach out to NFHS with your arguments. Rule interpretations carry as much, if not greater weight as the rulebook. As umpires we are instructed to consider both when making a ruling. We always refer to case play for odd situations. Not a direct correlation but akin to courts using previous rulings and precedents to rule on similar situations before them.

It feels like you’re not arguing that it should be legal but trying to find a loophole to excuse the illegal behavior of your pitcher. Tell her not to do that and move on with the game.

Click to expand...

Correct, not arguing whether or not it should be legal. Incorrect, not "trying" to find a loophole but rather found a glaring loophole! Also pointing out ambiguity caused by poorly created rules.

dogpatch said:

Correct, not arguing whether or not it should be legal. Incorrect, not "trying" to find a loophole but rather found a glaring loophole! Also pointing out ambiguity caused by poorly created rules.

Click to expand...

I think most people understand that you can only apply approved substances to a ball, and dirt is not on that list. Otherwise what you describe would be a common occurrence, in 50+ years I have never seen anyone do it.

Taking up another part of this conversation . . .

We are told case plays and interpretations should be treated the same as rules . . . but by who? People who don't fix broken rules and people who use them to cover their backsides. NFHS (particularly baseball) is FULL of case plays that contradict the actual rule or don't actually cite a rule.

Three baseball examples off the top of my head:

Runner's lane interference requires actual interference to be called -- however the interp says a runner should be automatically called out for running outside the lane if a throw is made, regardless of the lack of interference.

A pitch that hits a batter's loose or improperly worn equipment is not a hit by pitch -- however the interp says it IS a hit by pitch if that is a sliding mitt sticking out of his back pocket.

Obstruction is any act that hinders or impedes a runner's progress -- unless you are only blocking 30% of the base as the runner is not actually entitled to their preferred path according to the interp.

Why? Somebody who served on the NFHS rules committee once let us (another forum) know that interpretations are often used to circumvent the rule making process. It is easier to get an interpretation disseminated than to go through the long, slow, complex process of making a rule. (I believe him, but I'm not sure I really buy the structural claim that it takes a long time based on how fast some changes actually happen.)

If case plays and interpretations were meant to be the gospel, they wouldn't be sold in a separate book for another $10 and they wouldn't be buried in Arbiter or shared in secret back room meetings at the local VFW. They would be a piece of the rulebook itself. I cannot hand a rookie umpire THE RULE BOOK and then say, oh, but I expect you to call the game by the double secret probation rules.

Yes, my bias is showing.

ArmWhip said:

I think most people understand that you can only apply approved substances to a ball, and dirt is not on that list. Otherwise what you describe would be a common occurrence, in 50+ years I have never seen anyone do it.

Click to expand...

There are no approved substances to apply to the ball in game. A pitcher may use approved substances on their hand as long as the substance does NOT transfer to the ball.