Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

The Umpire Corner

Spit on ball

Rule question? Get it answered here.

by UmpSteve » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:55 pm

PDad wrote:
UmpSteve wrote:As I said, it is a myth perpetuated by well meaning people. Of course, if today's umpire continues the myth, your choices are to protest and call the UIC (hoping he knows the rule and the myth), or simply do what is asked.

The ASA rule states "Under the supervision and control of the umpire" - what does that cover? If not this, what is the proper response?


Excellent question. It means that the umpire is to oversee the use of the rosin bag, by
1) making sure rosin is only used on the bare hand, not placed on the ball or in the glove,
2) making sure it is approved powder rosin, not unapproved rock rosin in a bag,
3) that the rosin bag is returned to the ground behind the pitcher plate to be sure it isn't a visual distraction.

The right to use a rosin bag has certain parameters, listed above. Those are the items that the umpire is to supervise and control. Supervision and control doesn't supercede the rules which apply to the pitcher using an approved drying agent. If using an approved drying agent on the pitching hand doesn't require a wipe, "supervision and control" doesn't add the authority to mandate a wipe.
User avatar
UmpSteve
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:38 am

by hit4power » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:27 am

Interesting - I forwarded this discussion to someone more knowledgeable than I am, will let you know if I hear anything.


And here is what I heard....

swapped a couple of rounds of email with a guy who has published papers on the physics of baseball. First, the disclaimer - according to him no one has really studied the physics of spit balls or, more broadly, what exactly happens when a foreign substance is applied to the ball, so everything below is informed conjecture, not scientific fact, but, to me, anyway, it makes sense.

1) Why do "spit balls" move more than un-doctored balls? Most likely, it has nothing to do with the spin, or any effect on spin (other than as noted below), but has to do with disrupting the air flow around the ball. Air flow encountering the doctored spot (or a scuff) can be switched or "tripped" from laminar to turbulent. Drag is reduced when the airflow trips to turbulent and the ball will move towards the doctored spot. So my earlier comment that the larger MOI of a softball would reduce the effects of doctoring is not correct. A doctored softball can move just as much as a doctored baseball if thrown correctly.

2) Do spit balls spin more or less than un-doctored balls? Well, in baseball, they spin less. The classic spit ball is deliberately thrown with less spin, so that it either behaves like a knuckleball and breaks unpredictably (due to air flow tripping back and forth as described above), or they are thrown with less backspin (fingers can't grip the doctored spot tightly and so impart less spin) so that a hitter expecting a fastball that hops instead gets a spitter that seems to dive (in reality, due to less backspin, it just drops a bit more than what the hitter is used to seeing a fast ball do). In this version, it is somewhat akin to the modern split finger fastball, which is thrown hard, but with less spin than a normal fastball so it has a different trajectory than what the hitter is used to seeing.

Given the description of the OP, I'd say the pitcher wasn't throwing a classic spitter, but instead was using something more like the old NFL stick-em in order to get a better grip and thereby impart more spin to the ball causing more movement.
hit4power
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:09 am

by MTR » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:16 pm

hit4power wrote:
Interesting - I forwarded this discussion to someone more knowledgeable than I am, will let you know if I hear anything.


And here is what I heard....



swapped a couple of rounds of email with a guy who has published papers on the physics of baseball. First, the disclaimer - according to him no one has really studied the physics of spit balls or, more broadly, what exactly happens when a foreign substance is applied to the ball, so everything below is informed conjecture, not scientific fact, but, to me, anyway, it makes sense.

1) Why do "spit balls" move more than un-doctored balls? Most likely, it has nothing to do with the spin, or any effect on spin (other than as noted below), but has to do with disrupting the air flow around the ball. Air flow encountering the doctored spot (or a scuff) can be switched or "tripped" from laminar to turbulent. Drag is reduced when the airflow trips to turbulent and the ball will move towards the doctored spot. So my earlier comment that the larger MOI of a softball would reduce the effects of doctoring is not correct. A doctored softball can move just as much as a doctored baseball if thrown correctly.

2) Do spit balls spin more or less than un-doctored balls? Well, in baseball, they spin less. The classic spit ball is deliberately thrown with less spin, so that it either behaves like a knuckleball and breaks unpredictably (due to air flow tripping back and forth as described above), or they are thrown with less backspin (fingers can't grip the doctored spot tightly and so impart less spin) so that a hitter expecting a fastball that hops instead gets a spitter that seems to dive (in reality, due to less backspin, it just drops a bit more than what the hitter is used to seeing a fast ball do). In this version, it is somewhat akin to the modern split finger fastball, which is thrown hard, but with less spin than a normal fastball so it has a different trajectory than what the hitter is used to seeing.

Given the description of the OP, I'd say the pitcher wasn't throwing a classic spitter, but instead was using something more like the old NFL stick-em in order to get a better grip and thereby impart more spin to the ball causing more movement.


Okay, good info. If I'm reading this correctly, wouldn't it be necessary to have something protruding from the surface of the ball to disrupt the airflow?
MTR
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:21 am

by hit4power » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:21 pm

wouldn't it be necessary to have something protruding from the surface of the ball to disrupt the airflow?


As I understood the emails, not necessarily. The dimples on a golf ball (which do not protrude) do exactly the same thing - they force the air flow into turbulent mode, which reduces drag, and your golf ball with dimples will fly much further than the old golf ball that had no dimples. Because the dimples are uniformly distributed on the surface of the golf ball, no net force left or right is created, the only effect is to lower the drag and thereby prolong the flight. Getting your golf ball to hook or slice is a result of putting lateral spin on it.

So while a protrusion (like a seam) can do the job, so can a dimple, a scuff, or anything that is different such as a wet spot or a sticky spot. Basically, all you need is a discontinuity, regardless of its form, to create the potential for uneven (aka turbulent) air flow. If that discontinuity is localized vs. uniformly distributed then a net force will be created in one direction or the other and the ball is going to move.
hit4power
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:09 am

by AlwaysImprove » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:59 am

A couple of links on the history of the spitball:
http://www.stevenellis.com/steven_ellis_the_complete/2008/10/the-illegal-pit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitball

Moisture on the ball is not going to affect the aerodynamics of the ball. If moisture could take laminar flow to turbulent flow, you would see airplanes fall out of the sky. Scuffing or nicking the ball likely would affect the aerodynamics of the ball.

Vaseline was more used to take grip off of the ball. Same with large amounts of spit. Pitchers used to be able to use this to throw knuckleball spin. Sometimes the modern knuckleball is called the dry spitter.

Main reason for first outlawing the spitball was the pitcher Carl Mays killed batter Ray Chapman in 1919. The general belief was that Chapman was not able to pick up the ball coming because the ball was so dirty.

My DD licks her fingers when playing on dry dusty fields. She wipes past the leg. The point of it is to get more grip on the ball. I have notice improved movement, but it is because the spin rate is achieving what she should be able to achieve. In other words, the moisture on her fingers allows her to achieve the grip she would have achieved without the dust on the ball. Most of the better pitchers lick their fingers when playing on dusty dry fields.

We play in the northwest, where there is tons of rain, and we play in the rain often. We have had great luck with both powdered rosin and gorilla gold, it really helps keep moisture under control. Once the fingers are wet, no order of drying the ball with a towel can achieve normal grip. A little rosin, or gorilla gold and the grip comes back.

I wish I had a dollar for every time an umpire told her that rosin was not allowed. In fact it is such an across the board pain in the butt, that often coaches tell her not to use it. This mistake is so prevalent that most kids in our area do not use any drying agent. I would say 25-50% of our high school season is played with wet fields. Half or our fields are turf fields. I have seen many a game where the pitcher is clearly struggling with getting a grip on the ball, always sending to the coach with towel, but that is no help if the hands are actually wet.

When I first started coaching, I even made the mistake showing the umpire in the book that rosin was allowed. Wow, I do not think I have ever seen something get an umpire that worked up that fast. Goodbye strike zone.

Also I have heard, and I have seen some people say that rock rosin like this:
[url]http://www.softball.com/rosin/Rawlings-Professional-Rock-Style-Rosin-Bag/softball/lev/6/productId/1358/N/34+36/Nty/1/Ntk/Def/Ntx/mode%20matchallpartial/Ntt/rosin/VCategory/SEARCH_SUCCESSFUL/index.pro
[/url] is illegal. A UIC at nationals, who appeared very knowledgeable, and a very good umpire in our area both have told me that this is should be allowed. Although it is rocks of rosin in a bag, you break the rosin and rub the rocks against each other to create powdered rosin. The bag canvas bag only allows powdered rosin to the hand, so this should be allowed.

My question to the blues here is, how do you handle a situation where blue should clearly allow the rosin bag, but they say it is not allowed? Don't really care about showing anyone up, Don't really care about creating an unfair advantage. Just want the kid to be able to do what is allowed in the book.
User avatar
AlwaysImprove
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:27 am

by MTR » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:11 am

AlwaysImprove wrote:I wish I had a dollar for every time an umpire told her that rosin was not allowed. In fact it is such an across the board pain in the butt, that often coaches tell her not to use it. This mistake is so prevalent that most kids in our area do not use any drying agent. I would say 25-50% of our high school season is played with wet fields. Half or our fields are turf fields. I have seen many a game where the pitcher is clearly struggling with getting a grip on the ball, always sending to the coach with towel, but that is no help if the hands are actually wet.

When I first started coaching, I even made the mistake showing the umpire in the book that rosin was allowed. Wow, I do not think I have ever seen something get an umpire that worked up that fast. Goodbye strike zone.

Also I have heard, and I have seen some people say that rock rosin like this:
[url]http://www.softball.com/rosin/Rawlings-Professional-Rock-Style-Rosin-Bag/softball/lev/6/productId/1358/N/34+36/Nty/1/Ntk/Def/Ntx/mode%20matchallpartial/Ntt/rosin/VCategory/SEARCH_SUCCESSFUL/index.pro
[/url] is illegal. A UIC at nationals, who appeared very knowledgeable, and a very good umpire in our area both have told me that this is should be allowed. Although it is rocks of rosin in a bag, you break the rosin and rub the rocks against each other to create powdered rosin. The bag canvas bag only allows powdered rosin to the hand, so this should be allowed.

My question to the blues here is, how do you handle a situation where blue should clearly allow the rosin bag, but they say it is not allowed? Don't really care about showing anyone up, Don't really care about creating an unfair advantage. Just want the kid to be able to do what is allowed in the book.


Speaking ASA

Actually, the rule says "resin" of which rosin is. I believe so this is to avoid a semantical difference should a new product hit the market that is not necessarily "rosin".

You are correct, the rock isn't good for a couple of reasons. One is that the "rock" can be used to scuff the ball. Shouldn't see that in JO, but remember, the rules are not just for kids.

Also, the "rock" does have some resistence to crumbling. IOW, it can take a bit of force and strength to break it up. Even then, it starts to break into smaller pebbles, not pulverize. I can see an issue of a defender stepping on or tripping over this and turning an ankle as opposed to the bag which would just flatten out if stepped upon.
MTR
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:21 am

by AlwaysImprove » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:22 am

MTR wrote:
AlwaysImprove wrote:I wish I had a dollar for every time an umpire told her that rosin was not allowed. In fact it is such an across the board pain in the butt, that often coaches tell her not to use it. This mistake is so prevalent that most kids in our area do not use any drying agent. I would say 25-50% of our high school season is played with wet fields. Half or our fields are turf fields. I have seen many a game where the pitcher is clearly struggling with getting a grip on the ball, always sending to the coach with towel, but that is no help if the hands are actually wet.

When I first started coaching, I even made the mistake showing the umpire in the book that rosin was allowed. Wow, I do not think I have ever seen something get an umpire that worked up that fast. Goodbye strike zone.

Also I have heard, and I have seen some people say that rock rosin like this:
[url]http://www.softball.com/rosin/Rawlings-Professional-Rock-Style-Rosin-Bag/softball/lev/6/productId/1358/N/34+36/Nty/1/Ntk/Def/Ntx/mode%20matchallpartial/Ntt/rosin/VCategory/SEARCH_SUCCESSFUL/index.pro
[/url] is illegal. A UIC at nationals, who appeared very knowledgeable, and a very good umpire in our area both have told me that this is should be allowed. Although it is rocks of rosin in a bag, you break the rosin and rub the rocks against each other to create powdered rosin. The bag canvas bag only allows powdered rosin to the hand, so this should be allowed.

My question to the blues here is, how do you handle a situation where blue should clearly allow the rosin bag, but they say it is not allowed? Don't really care about showing anyone up, Don't really care about creating an unfair advantage. Just want the kid to be able to do what is allowed in the book.


Speaking ASA

Actually, the rule says "resin" of which rosin is. I believe so this is to avoid a semantical difference should a new product hit the market that is not necessarily "rosin".

You are correct, the rock isn't good for a couple of reasons. One is that the "rock" can be used to scuff the ball. Shouldn't see that in JO, but remember, the rules are not just for kids.

Also, the "rock" does have some resistence to crumbling. IOW, it can take a bit of force and strength to break it up. Even then, it starts to break into smaller pebbles, not pulverize. I can see an issue of a defender stepping on or tripping over this and turning an ankle as opposed to the bag which would just flatten out if stepped upon.


Resin in the book, thanks for the correction.

My understanding is that rock resin as pointed to by my link should be allowed. Now that NFHS, ASA and NCAA directly allow Gorilla Gold, and that product works the best, we prefer to use it.

The rock resin pointed to in my link is permanently sewn into the bag. So the rocks cannot be used to scuff the ball. Besides you are not allowed to directly apply anything to the ball. To me it is not anymore of a tripping hazard than a powdered resin bag.

As far as creating powder, it is actually very easy to do. Just rap the bag on a fence post, a bat or a cleat three or four times and rub it around a bit and you get tons of powder.

For me rock resin works way better in rain than powdered resin. Powdered resin bag turns into a mushy concrete like substance with any direct rain. With rock resin bag gets wet, but just squeeze it and work it a bit and it starts producing resin powder again.

I laugh at pitchers/coaches in our area that are too dim to use an approved drying agent, then walk batters and are unable to pitch decent. You get the normal hysterics and churning about how they should not have to play in the weather, etc. Using resin may catch some less well informed umpires off guard, and you have to find a way to convince them it is allowed, but it is well worth it to pitch with a dry hand.

The order of preference for me is:
1) Gorilla Gold - Stays dry in your pocket, super effective at drying, works in dusty, or rainy environments. Down side is you have to order online, no stores in our area carry it. http://www.softball.com/gorilla-gold/Gorilla-Gold-Bat-Grip-Enhancer/softball/lev/6/productId/2702/N/34+36/Nty/1/Ntk/Def/Ntx/mode%20matchallpartial/Ntt/gorilla%20gold/VCategory/SEARCH_SUCCESSFUL/index.pro
2) Rock Resin in a sewn pouch - Works better in a wet environment than powdered resin.
http://www.softball.com/resin/Rawlings-Professional-Rock-Style-Rosin-Bag/softball/lev/6/productId/1358/N/34+36/Nty/1/Ntk/Def/Ntx/mode%20matchallpartial/Ntt/resin/VCategory/SEARCH_SUCCESSFUL/index.pro
3) Powdered Resin in a canvas bag -
http://www.softball.com/resin/Rawlings-Powdered-Rosin-Bag/softball/lev/6/productId/11227/N/34+36/Nty/1/Ntk/Def/Ntx/mode%20matchallpartial/Ntt/resin/VCategory/SEARCH_SUCCESSFUL/index.pro
User avatar
AlwaysImprove
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:27 am

by AlwaysImprove » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:30 am

I think the book may be more correct if they changed to Rosin, not Resin. MHO.

Rosin is a particular type of Resin. Rosin is Resin with the volatile terpene components removed.

All of the manufacturers call their products Rosin. I do not even think you can use Resin as a drying agent, unless it has been processed into Rosin, which is still a resin, but more specifically called Rosin. Does that make sense?
User avatar
AlwaysImprove
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:27 am

by UmpSteve » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:58 am

Why do you believe it (rock rosin) should be approved? It clearly isn't powdered rosin, which is the only substance approved without being on an approved list, and it isn't on an approved list. It is clearly a different substance than powdered rosin; it factually isn't the same material that just isn't broken down, yet. If it was the identical substance in a different form, you wouldn't have any real preference, would you?

I am not a chemist, and I cannot tell you the difference in properties. But I am told that, after using rock rosin, the balls can become coated with a tacky material. That is contraindicated with a substance for which approval relies totally on not ever being transferred to the ball. I have been told (again, not an area I can speak to with authority) that in its natural element, the bars of rock rosin are actually closer to pine tar in substance than to whatever the material that powdered rosin is. It's primary resemblence is that it can be ground and powdered, not that it is the same, or has the same nontransferable property.

I also would think that Rawlings (a source per your link), or SOMEONE would have applied for and secured approval if it met the standards needed to be approved. After all, it was financially rewarding enough for the manufacturer of Gorilla Gold; so why wouldn't it be approved if it met all the requirements?
User avatar
UmpSteve
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:38 am

by AlwaysImprove » Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:17 pm

The Rawlings bag produces powdered rosin, that is exactly identical to the rosin that comes out of the powdered rosin bag in every possible way. I can tell you from extended use, that it behaves in every fashion like powdered rosin. No residue on the ball, drys the hands falls off.

I am actually going off of what two very knowledgeable umpires told me. Why would powdered rosin not be allowed? The sealed sewn bag ensures that you only ever get powdered rosin. They both felt as strongly as you do, disallowing this would be silly.

When I was a kid there was a Rock Resin bag like this
Image
It was used for batters, and was very similar to pine tar. You put your hands into the rocks. This definitely made a one hell of a mess. From memory that was almost identical to pine tar.

The bag that you put your hand into is the one that should be disallowed. The bag that has rocks that you shake to produce powder, is the same as powdered rosin, and should be allowed.
User avatar
AlwaysImprove
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Umpire Corner