Joe West confiscates pitchers scouting report (9/2 update- Players allowed to use cheat sheets)

[McBride11]

Just have the team print the scouting report on the Band Aid. One of those large square Band Aids not the little thin ones. Unless you're playing the Orioles then you can use the thin one.

This reeks of Joe West being Joe West. Or traditionalists being upset. So a pitcher goes through video / reports and writes some notes down with his coaches, he should memorize that instead of taking a few crib notes? Long as he remains within the time window what's the big deal?

 

[keninten]

This eventually needed to be addressed. Don`t necessarily like Joe West but it will now be addressed during the off season and everyone will know the rules however this gets decided.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Could have sworn it was addressed on the prior page.

Unless you mean something other than "approved" by "addressed"

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm surprised that anyone would consider the note card a " foreign substance."
west is doing this because he's Joe West. But this is definitely part of his whole, "the nerds are ruining the world" mindset.

If MLB wants to make these things illegal for any reason, go for it. "foreign substance" isn't



You and Joe West are.



The point isn't that its hard.

No, neither Joe West nor I are equating a scouting report with seeds or a band aid on the ankle; that was the poster I responded to. Don't take things out of context.

Joe West equated it with a foreign substance or used the rule as a means to say what I'm saying - that it shouldn't be allowed because it's ridiculous on premise. I don't really care what loophole he used to do it, I agree with him they shouldn't be allowed. I also agree with the others who have stated he should have gone about it in a better fashion. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you're conflating two stances.

 

[keninten]

Could have sworn it was addressed on the prior page.

Unless you mean something other than "approved" by "addressed"

No, I mean specifically written into the rules.

 

[BroodsSexton]

No, neither Joe West nor I are equating a scouting report with seeds or a band aid on the ankle; that was the poster I responded to. Don't take things out of context.

Joe West equated it with a foreign substance or used the rule as a means to say what I'm saying - that it shouldn't be allowed because it's ridiculous on premise. I don't really care what loophole he used to do it, I agree with him they shouldn't be allowed. I also agree with the others who have stated he should have gone about it in a better fashion. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you're conflating two stances.

OK, so you and Joe West get to decide what's "ridiculous on premise" and we'll just use those rules and call it baseball, sound good?

You and others staked out the position that a notecard was a "foreign substance" because it is not part of the uniform. If that's the criteria, then explain how that notecard is a foreign substance, but a band-aid on the knee or a pack of seeds or a magical necklace are not foreign substances. The logical implication of your position--and Joe West's--is that all are equivalent. That is what was being pointed out to you, and it was perfectly in context.

As Justice Frankfurter wrote (at 2-3), in matters of statutory construction "it makes a great deal of difference whether you start with an answer or with a problem." You started with an answer. Your answer is you don't like note cards, so they're a foreign substance. Yeah, well I don't like the strike at the knees. Hopefully I'll never be behind the plate.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

OK, so you and Joe West get to decide what's "ridiculous on premise" and we'll just use those rules and call it baseball, sound good?

You and others staked out the position that a notecard was a "foreign substance" because it is not part of the uniform. If that's the criteria, then explain how that notecard is a foreign substance, but a band-aid on the knee or a pack of seeds or a magical necklace are not foreign substances. The logical implication of your position--and Joe West's--is that all are equivalent. That is what was being pointed out to you, and it was perfectly in context.

As Justice Frankfurter wrote (at 2-3), in matters of statutory construction "it makes a great deal of difference whether you start with an answer or with a problem." You started with an answer. Your answer is you don't like note cards, so they're a foreign substance. Yeah, well I don't like the strike at the knees. Hopefully I'll never be behind the plate.

I don't have any problem with how West handled this. I think he was trying to avoid having to make a judgment about what the intent of the rule was -- just like every ump is taught to do and is taught at umpiring schools. Everyone acknowledges that umpires have to use some discretion, but the entire object of having a 200 page rule book is to try to avoid it to the greatest extent possible. Everyone also acknowledges that there is a gloss on the rule book -- for example where the strike zone is called versus where the book has it demarcated -- but these are matter of longstanding tradition for which there is precedent. You call the precedent, not the intent.

West was confronted with a problem that was new to him, and would have been new to most umpires. What you're supposed to do in that circumstance is try to interpret the text of the rule the best you can on the fly and to make the expected not unexpected call. You're exactly not supposed to try to divine the intent of the rule and make the call accordingly.

West was confronted with an unknown situation, and his analysis was probably that over a million pitches have been thrown in MLB without the use of a card, he couldn't know what MLB would say about it and whether it was a "foreign substance" or not, and MLB could literally correct him in a day if he called it wrong in the 8th inning of a lopsided game, which it did.

The "do no harm" call is to let the game play on without allowing the highly unusual thing, where the rule was debatable, instead of allowing the unusual thing.

I know he's Joe West, so fuck him. But I really have no problem with how he handled it. If a team legitimately tries to take advantage of a loophole in the rules and surprise the other team and an umpire on a matter that's clearly legal, you don't want to discourage that. Even if it's unchartered territory. But that's not really what this was. I know it sounds absurd, but we really do NOT want umpires to think they have authority to make decisions based on common sense or intent of the rules. We want them to call the rules, to have the mindset that 99.9999 percent of the time the rules answer the question without regard to whether it gives a team an advantage or seems "unfair," and in the .000001 percent of the time they don't, to have a "do no harm" or "make the expected" call method of decisionmaking to guide them.

 

[BroodsSexton]

@DennyDoyle'sBoil I don’t think you need to divine the intent of the rule to determine that a notecard is not a “foreign substance” as it is used in the rules, i.e., a substance to be applied to the ball for purposes of giving the pitcher an edge. The best (only?) evidence of intent is the expression of intent as found in the language of the rules. As noted up thread, as used in the rules, the intent is to bar the application of foreign substances to the ball.

Within the rules, can you honestly argue for any reasonable interpretation, as they are written and in context, that a notecard is a foreign substance? If not then there is no credible argument here. It’s just an umpire being the show. This time it was harmless, I guess. But umpires aren’t common law trial court judges. Joe West doesn’t need to be creating test cases for appellate review.

Moreover, the implicit (or explicit) value underlying your view is that nobody should try to do things differently within the rules of the game—or nothing that offends Joe West’s sensibilities I guess—lest the umpire decide they’re going too far and make up a review to bar it. This creates a presumption of invalidity to innovation, such that if we can torture the rules one way or another to come up with a way of denying it, the umpire should do so. That’s lame—and not a good way of applying the rules. Why not let team object to innovation if they find it to be a problem? Or propose a rule to address it. This guy—and apparently at least one other—have been carrying cards all season with nary a peep. So be it. It’s not a foreign substance. It may be something else baseball wants to ban, but it’s not a foreign substance.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

@DennyDoyle'sBoil I don’t think you need to divine the intent of the rule to determine that a notecard is not a “foreign substance” as it is used in the rules, i.e., a substance to be applied to the ball for purposes of giving the pitcher an edge. The best (only?) evidence of intent is the expression of intent as found in the language of the rules. As noted up thread, as used in the rules, the intent is to bar the application of foreign substances to the ball.

Within the rules, can you honestly argue for any reasonable interpretation, as they are written and in context, that a notecard is a foreign substance? If not then there is no credible argument here. It’s just an umpire being the show. This time it was harmless, I guess. But umpires aren’t common law trial court judges. Joe West doesn’t need to be creating test cases for appellate review.

Moreover, the implicit (or explicit) value underlying your view is that nobody should try to do things differently within the rules of the game—or nothing that offends Joe West’s sensibilities I guess—lest the umpire decide they’re going too far and make up a review to bar it. This creates a presumption of invalidity to innovation, such that if we can torture the rules one way or another to come up with a way of denying it, the umpire should do so. That’s lame—and not a good way of applying the rules. Why not let team object to innovation if they find it to be a problem? Or propose a rule to address it. This guy—and apparently at least one other—have been carrying cards all season with nary a peep. So be it. It’s not a foreign substance. It may be something else baseball wants to ban, but it’s not a foreign substance.

By your earlier citation, from Judge Hotdog, I’m guessing you’re a lawyer, so it kind of strikes me as notable that you can’t acknowledge the difference between the spirit and the letter here. I assume you can discern it, but are refusing to acknowledge it. I could be missing something though.

I’ll refer to my post upthread about missing the forest for the trees. The card shouldn’t be allowed or needed. Whatever rule West cited, I could really care less. I’m not the one comparing a note card to a bandaid or a necklace. I’m saying he shouldn’t be allowed to use it. If Joe West wants to equate it to an HGH needle sticking out of his butt on the mound, until he can get a ruling on it from his superiors, so be it.

 

[doc]

Shouldn't this be the catchers job anyway? A cheat sheet on the sleeve a la Brady's play list for recommended pitches/location for each batter would be easy to put on the glove side forearm. Pitchers shouldn't be thinking too much anyway.

 

[Boggs26]

By your earlier citation, from Judge Hotdog, I’m guessing you’re a lawyer, so it kind of strikes me as notable that you can’t acknowledge the difference between the spirit and the letter here. I assume you can discern it, but are refusing to acknowledge it. I could be missing something though.

I’ll refer to my post upthread about missing the forest for the trees. The card shouldn’t be allowed or needed. Whatever rule West cited, I could really care less. I’m not the one comparing a note card to a bandaid or a necklace. I’m saying he shouldn’t be allowed to use it. If Joe West wants to equate it to an HGH needle sticking out of his butt on the mound, until he can get a ruling on it from his superiors, so be it.

This sounds an awful lot like you want umps to make up rules from whole cloth if anything occurs that you don't like. That seems like a terrible precedent to set.

Also, you mention not being able to differentiate between the spirit and the letter if the rule. The letter clearly refers to making alterations to the ball with any item that can be applied to or rubbed against it. It seems that you believe the spirit of the rule to be aimed at preventing anything that might give the pitcher an advantage. Is that accurate? If so, could you defend they interpretation with anything in the text of the rule or any previous on field rulings?

Edit: removed some snark to better focus on the discussion.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

This sounds an awful lot like you want umps to make up rules from whole cloth if anything occurs that you don't like. That seems like a terrible precedent to set.

Also, you mention not being able to differentiate between the spirit and the letter if the rule. The letter clearly refers to making alterations to the ball with any item that can be applied to or rubbed against it. It seems that you believe the spirit of the rule to be aimed at preventing anything that might give the pitcher an advantage. Is that accurate? If so, could you defend they interpretation with anything in the text of the rule or any previous on field rulings?

Edit: removed some snark to better focus on the discussion.

I’ll be as clear as I can.

I don’t think pitchers should need a note card on hitter’s strengths/weakness.

I think said note card is akin to the Apple Watch issue last year, as an example you requested for comparison on unfair advantage.

I don’t care what rule was cited for that, either.

I don’t think pitchers should be allowed to carry said notecard and that it’s somewhat pathetic they need them.

I could give two shits as to what rule is cited to prevent it, in the moment it presented for (to my knowledge) the first time.

I agree it should be addressed in a better way, by higher ups and the umps in unison to reach a defined rule.

I have no problem with it being addressed on the fly as it was to eliminate what I think shouldn’t be allowed.

I think Joe West tends to try to take over the show from time to time, but I do not believe that was the case here, which is why the thread was started.

If you want to argue specifically about the exact rule he cited, I’m not going to engage in that. No one is arguing that the note card was scuffing the ball and I don’t think everything need to be expressly listed. Whatever green gook Lester got busted for a few years ago wasn’t in the book either, by name, and I doubt it is now.

Create an ‘unfair advantage’ rule if you want to get that specific on stuff. Otherwise, you leave some ambiguity to the umps’ discretion.

 

[BroodsSexton]

What if he didn’t like gyroballs because he had never seen one and he thought they it was unfair to import such wild pitching techniques from the Japan league?

And @Papelbon's Poutine, as for the “spirit” and the “letter,” both are clear in this case—to prevent doctoring the ball. If there’s some other rule that covers a pitcher looking at a notecard, i’m happy to look at that and consider its spirited letter. But I kind of think it’s on you and Joe to make the case.

 

[Boggs26]

Ok, it seems the discussion is over. If you believe that umps should just make things up on the fly with no basis in the rule book I really have no way to counter that.

I will however note that this was not the first time a pitcher used a note card (someone cited a few examples up thread) and no other ump felt that it needed to be immediately addressed.

I'm fine with your contention that the card should be outIawed, but to follow that up with a believe that umps should rewrite the rules mid-game on their own without any basis in an existing rule is, frankly, stunning to me.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

So, let’s say a pitcher starts wearing an ear piece? Like, CIA style, hardly noticeable, that allows the coaches to talk to him the entire game and avoid making a mound visit. They could call every pitch quite easily, use their charts and iPads to sequence, etc. They could even eliminate catcher signs or use them to confuse the opponent. Is their a rule against that? If the ump caught on and there’s no rule, he should just kind of throw his hands up?

 

[AB in DC]

If there's no rule against it,* then yes, the ump should let it go. That seems like an easy answer. Let the MLB front office deal with it later.


*I have no idea if this is true for this specific example -- my guess is that there is some other rule that would apply here.

 

[Boggs26]

Quick Google search says that a Sandy Alderson memo in 2000 essentially covered this issue.

"While there is no official rule against electronic devices, then-MLB operations chief Sandy Alderson effectively laid down the law with a memo distributed in 2000:

Please be reminded that the use of electronic equipment during a game is restricted. No club shall use electronic equipment, including walkie-talkies and cellular telephones, to communicate to or with any on-field personnel, including those, in the dugout, bullpen, field and-during the game-the clubhouse. Such equipment may not be used for the purpose of stealing signs or conveying information designed to give a club an advantage."

https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/187787/mlb-okays-apple-watch-for-use-in-the-dugout-cell-phones-still-banned

 

[Boggs26]

Also, if there weren't a memo on it, I would agree that the ump should leave it alone during the game and then request clarification from the league office for future games. Umps are supposed to enforce the rules, not create them. Yes, there's some need for umps interpreting rules, but you are asking for them to have unilateral authority to create rules that aren't supported by the rule book.

 

[charlieoscar]

You want rules that aren't enforced? Try Rule 4.06 No Fraternization
Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game. No manager, coach or player shall address any spectator before or during a game. Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Also, if there weren't a memo on it, I would agree that the ump should leave it alone during the game and then request clarification from the league office for future games. Umps are supposed to enforce the rules, not create them. Yes, there's some need for umps interpreting rules, but you are asking for them to have unilateral authority to create rules that aren't supported by the rule book.

So, let’s go extreme here.

It’s game 7 of the WS. Two outs, bases loaded, ninth inning. Home team up by one. They call in a new reliever. He’s armed with something crazy that’s not in the rule book as being outlawed, because, well, no one has ever thought of it before. A bionic arm. A glove with LED lights to distract the hitter. A flask of some kind of super human cocktail that puts him into Hulk state.

The ump is supposed to just say ‘well, what am I gonna do? There’s no rule against that! Play ball!!’

?

 

[Reverend]

I don't have any problem with how West handled this. I think he was trying to avoid having to make a judgment about what the intent of the rule was -- just like every ump is taught to do and is taught at umpiring schools. Everyone acknowledges that umpires have to use some discretion, but the entire object of having a 200 page rule book is to try to avoid it to the greatest extent possible. Everyone also acknowledges that there is a gloss on the rule book -- for example where the strike zone is called versus where the book has it demarcated -- but these are matter of longstanding tradition for which there is precedent. You call the precedent, not the intent.

West was confronted with a problem that was new to him, and would have been new to most umpires. What you're supposed to do in that circumstance is try to interpret the text of the rule the best you can on the fly and to make the expected not unexpected call. You're exactly not supposed to try to divine the intent of the rule and make the call accordingly.

West was confronted with an unknown situation, and his analysis was probably that over a million pitches have been thrown in MLB without the use of a card, he couldn't know what MLB would say about it and whether it was a "foreign substance" or not, and MLB could literally correct him in a day if he called it wrong in the 8th inning of a lopsided game, which it did.

The "do no harm" call is to let the game play on without allowing the highly unusual thing, where the rule was debatable, instead of allowing the unusual thing.

I know he's Joe West, so fuck him. But I really have no problem with how he handled it. If a team legitimately tries to take advantage of a loophole in the rules and surprise the other team and an umpire on a matter that's clearly legal, you don't want to discourage that. Even if it's unchartered territory. But that's not really what this was. I know it sounds absurd, but we really do NOT want umpires to think they have authority to make decisions based on common sense or intent of the rules. We want them to call the rules, to have the mindset that 99.9999 percent of the time the rules answer the question without regard to whether it gives a team an advantage or seems "unfair," and in the .000001 percent of the time they don't, to have a "do no harm" or "make the expected" call method of decisionmaking to guide them.

@DennyDoyle'sBoil I don’t think you need to divine the intent of the rule to determine that a notecard is not a “foreign substance” as it is used in the rules, i.e., a substance to be applied to the ball for purposes of giving the pitcher an edge. The best (only?) evidence of intent is the expression of intent as found in the language of the rules. As noted up thread, as used in the rules, the intent is to bar the application of foreign substances to the ball.

Within the rules, can you honestly argue for any reasonable interpretation, as they are written and in context, that a notecard is a foreign substance? If not then there is no credible argument here. It’s just an umpire being the show. This time it was harmless, I guess. But umpires aren’t common law trial court judges. Joe West doesn’t need to be creating test cases for appellate review.

Moreover, the implicit (or explicit) value underlying your view is that nobody should try to do things differently within the rules of the game—or nothing that offends Joe West’s sensibilities I guess—lest the umpire decide they’re going too far and make up a review to bar it. This creates a presumption of invalidity to innovation, such that if we can torture the rules one way or another to come up with a way of denying it, the umpire should do so. That’s lame—and not a good way of applying the rules. Why not let team object to innovation if they find it to be a problem? Or propose a rule to address it. This guy—and apparently at least one other—have been carrying cards all season with nary a peep. So be it. It’s not a foreign substance. It may be something else baseball wants to ban, but it’s not a foreign substance.

I think you're both right: just apply the literature on judges behaving strategically when possible and treat the league office as the legislature.

Basically, Joe West was in the position of a judge able to make his own test case to figure out what he wanted to (and to hell with anyone else, if you like that read of Joe West).

If he does nothing, he still doesn't know how the league wants this handled. If he enforces a strict interpretation, if he's wrong he will be overruled by the legislature and if he's not that's implicit approval until the change the rule. Either way, it's resolved for him going forward.

 

[Reverend]

I will however note that this was not the first time a pitcher used a note card (someone cited a few examples up thread) and no other ump felt that it needed to be immediately addressed.

Division among the lower circuits!

 

[Reverend]

So, let’s go extreme here.

Like Arthur Irwin?

Edit: Is there a uniform exception for eye glasses?

 

[The Needler]

Like Arthur Irwin?

Edit: Is there a uniform exception for eye glasses?

Who could forget Roger getting thrown out of the ALCS by Terry Cooney for having a foreign substance (eye black)?

 

[AB in DC]

So, let’s go extreme here.

It’s game 7 of the WS. Two outs, bases loaded, ninth inning. Home team up by one. They call in a new reliever. He’s armed with something crazy that’s not in the rule book as being outlawed, because, well, no one has ever thought of it before. A bionic arm. A glove with LED lights to distract the hitter. A flask of some kind of super human cocktail that puts him into Hulk state.

The ump is supposed to just say ‘well, what am I gonna do? There’s no rule against that! Play ball!!’

?

In that case I'm sure Rob Manfred would be at the game and can be called down for an immediate ruling.

 

[Reverend]

Who could forget Roger getting thrown out of the ALCS by Terry Cooney for having a foreign substance (eye black)?

Woof--I could apparently. But now I remember!

Great call.

 

[joe dokes]

So, let’s go extreme here.

It’s game 7 of the WS. Two outs, bases loaded, ninth inning. Home team up by one. They call in a new reliever. He’s armed with something crazy that’s not in the rule book as being outlawed, because, well, no one has ever thought of it before. A bionic arm. A glove with LED lights to distract the hitter. A flask of some kind of super human cocktail that puts him into Hulk state.

The ump is supposed to just say ‘well, what am I gonna do? There’s no rule against that! Play ball!!’

?

Pitchers can't even use white gloves or sleeves or have hanging strings or jewelry which "distract a hitter." So at least that's covered.

In that case I'm sure Rob Manfred would be at the game and can be called down for an immediate ruling.

I was at the playoff game in 1988 when NL President Giamatti threw Jay Howell out of the game for pine tar in the glove.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/10/sports/sports-of-the-times-giamatti-hangs-em.html

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

@DennyDoyle'sBoil I don’t think you need to divine the intent of the rule to determine that a notecard is not a “foreign substance” as it is used in the rules, i.e., a substance to be applied to the ball for purposes of giving the pitcher an edge. The best (only?) evidence of intent is the expression of intent as found in the language of the rules. As noted up thread, as used in the rules, the intent is to bar the application of foreign substances to the ball.

Within the rules, can you honestly argue for any reasonable interpretation, as they are written and in context, that a notecard is a foreign substance? If not then there is no credible argument here. It’s just an umpire being the show. This time it was harmless, I guess. But umpires aren’t common law trial court judges. Joe West doesn’t need to be creating test cases for appellate review.

Moreover, the implicit (or explicit) value underlying your view is that nobody should try to do things differently within the rules of the game—or nothing that offends Joe West’s sensibilities I guess—lest the umpire decide they’re going too far and make up a review to bar it. This creates a presumption of invalidity to innovation, such that if we can torture the rules one way or another to come up with a way of denying it, the umpire should do so. That’s lame—and not a good way of applying the rules. Why not let team object to innovation if they find it to be a problem? Or propose a rule to address it. This guy—and apparently at least one other—have been carrying cards all season with nary a peep. So be it. It’s not a foreign substance. It may be something else baseball wants to ban, but it’s not a foreign substance.

Sorry for the late response. I think our entire disagreement is whether the idea that the card might qualify under the foreign substance rule is debatable or absurd. You think absurd. I think debatable. It's kind of the same argument that judges apply when they are trying to figure out whether a contract term is or isn't ambiguous. If it is, you bring in a host of other considerations, so the threshold is important.

Here, it seems like we're not ever going to convince each other on that threshold question other than you saying, "really, you think it's a foreign substance" and me saying, "really, you don't see how it might be what the rules have in mind," and we're really never going to agree.

But the point worth discussing, it seems to me, is if you assume my premise -- that it was debatable -- whether West's method of handling it thereafter was the right way to go. We could debate that too, but the do the least harm and do the expected thing is pretty drilled into these guys' heads.

 

[BuellMiller]

The band-aid on the left ankle might still help the pitcher influence the ball under the inter-joint commerce clause.

Good thing Joe West didn't think that 3 sutures on right ankles are foreign substance.

 

[The Needler]

Sorry for the late response. I think our entire disagreement is whether the idea that the card might qualify under the foreign substance rule is debatable or absurd. You think absurd. I think debatable. It's kind of the same argument that judges apply when they are trying to figure out whether a contract term is or isn't ambiguous. If it is, you bring in a host of other considerations, so the threshold is important.

Here, it seems like we're not ever going to convince each other on that threshold question other than you saying, "really, you think it's a foreign substance" and me saying, "really, you don't see how it might be what the rules have in mind," and we're really never going to agree.

But the point worth discussing, it seems to me, is if you assume my premise -- that it was debatable -- whether West's method of handling it thereafter was the right way to go. We could debate that too, but the do the least harm and do the expected thing is pretty drilled into these guys' heads.

Can you cite to some rulebook or umpires manual, or league memo that drills this “do the least harm” thing into these guys’ heads? Because I thought following the written rulebook was drilled into them. And the rulebook says if he has a foreign substance, the penalty is ejection and suspension. It’s not ambiguous, and it’s not discretionary. Once you determine there is a foreign substance, you don’t get to confiscate it; you eject the pitcher.

(d) PENALTY: For violation of any part of (c)(2) through (7):
(1) The pitcher shall be ejected immediately from the game and shall be suspended automatically.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

West told the pool reporters after the game that he decided not to eject the player because the foreign substance had not been applied to the ball. Presumably, if pushed, he would have relied on a very dubious reading of the comment to (c)(7). I agree that West did not comply with the rules by not ejecting the player. I did not think that was the point being discussed.

 

[Zedia]

Can you cite to some rulebook or umpires manual, or league memo that drills this “do the least harm” thing into these guys’ heads? Because I thought following the written rulebook was drilled into them. And the rulebook says if he has a foreign substance, the penalty is ejection and suspension. It’s not ambiguous, and it’s not discretionary. Once you determine there is a foreign substance, you don’t get to confiscate it; you eject the pitcher.

Not getting into the whole “do no harm” thing, but if West thinks the question of “what is a foreign substance” is ambiguous, he can make whatever ruling he wants:

Rule 9.00 - 9.05: The Umpire
9.01

C. Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

 

[The Needler]

Huh? It’s what you said you wanted to discuss.

But the point worth discussing, it seems to me, is if you assume my premise -- that it was debatable -- whether West's method of handling it thereafter was the right way to go.

 

[The Needler]

Not getting into the whole “do no harm” thing, but if West thinks the question of “what is a foreign substance” is ambiguous, he can make whatever ruling he wants:

But the point is specifically covered. He may have the authority to determine whether a notecard is a foreign substance, because it’s not specifically covered; but once he makes that determination, the penalty is unambiguous.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Huh? It’s what you said you wanted to discuss.

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I feel as though I've been pretty clear in the thread.

If the question you're asking is whether I think that West erred in not taking the ruling he made -- which I've explained my defense to pretty clearly -- to its rule-based conclusion of ejection, the answer I believe I gave is yes. I think he erred. If you're asking me whether I give a shit or think that judgment exercised in that fashion here is going to undermine the game, my answer is no. I think West did ok here.

 

[Zedia]

But the point is specifically covered. He may have the authority to determine whether a notecard is a foreign substance, because it’s not specifically covered; but once he makes that determination, the penalty is unambiguous.

Ah, I misrembered West’s initial reasoning, I thought it was basically “I don’t know, the league has to clarify.” Sorry.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Woof--I could apparently. But now I remember!

Great call.

Wait until you remember what shoelaces he had on.

 

[Reverend]

Wait until you remember what shoelaces he had on.

oh shit.

 

[Boggs26]

So, let’s go extreme here.

It’s game 7 of the WS. Two outs, bases loaded, ninth inning. Home team up by one. They call in a new reliever. He’s armed with something crazy that’s not in the rule book as being outlawed, because, well, no one has ever thought of it before. A bionic arm. A glove with LED lights to distract the hitter. A flask of some kind of super human cocktail that puts him into Hulk state.

The ump is supposed to just say ‘well, what am I gonna do? There’s no rule against that! Play ball!!’

?

No part of this is really extreme in terms of causing rule problems:

All medical devices from insulin pumps to shin guards have to be okayed before have use, no way that bionics don't fall under that language.

Glove with LEDs is clearly covered by rule 3.07(a) banning gloves with too many colors or which are "distracting in any way".

And your Hulk Formula is clearly a performance enhancing drug, again, pretty well covered.

It turns out that MLB had done a fairly good job of covering competitive advantage with language just vague enough as to prevent egregious cheating.

 

[BroodsSexton]

West told the pool reporters after the game that he decided not to eject the player because the foreign substance had not been applied to the ball. Presumably, if pushed, he would have relied on a very dubious reading of the comment to (c)(7). I agree that West did not comply with the rules by not ejecting the player. I did not think that was the point being discussed.

Good thing he didn’t rub the ball with that index card! Joe West would have tossed him right out of there! I mean, this is absurd, isn’t it? It’s so obviously not a “foreign substance.” This guy didn’t like it because....because! And so since he could find a rule that applied he called the tail a leg. Asking if he handled it well is totally missing the point. No, I don’t think he handled it well because his ruling was idiotic. If he wants to raise a question as to the propriety of note cards, just ask the league after the game.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

No part of this is really extreme in terms of causing rule problems:

All medical devices from insulin pumps to shin guards have to be okayed before have use, no way that bionics don't fall under that language.

Glove with LEDs is clearly covered by rule 3.07(a) banning gloves with too many colors or which are "distracting in any way".

And your Hulk Formula is clearly a performance enhancing drug, again, pretty well covered.

It turns out that MLB had done a fairly good job of covering competitive advantage with language just vague enough as to prevent egregious cheating.

There's a detailed and specific list of these, no?

 

[trs]

There's a detailed and specific list of these, no?

I hope the Hulk Juice doesn't contain anything from that list!

I think West's willful equivocation concerning the term "foreign substance" is what is causing this dilemma. If we want to allow umpires to use secondary or tertiary definitions of words in place of the primary definition as given by the rule, well then we are giving them quite a bit of latitude to commit various acts of informal fallacy. It seems that the rule defines "substance" as something that could be applied to a ball, not just any physical object. Changing the definition of a word mid-sentence or mid-argument seems disingenuous at best.

 

[Boggs26]

There's a detailed and specific list of these, no?

Yes, and it includes nearly every stimulant, steroid, and masking agent known to man as well as a ban on anything included as a federal schedule I, II, or III drug, inclusive of anything added at any time during the agreement.

Honestly, if a crazy powerful performance enhancing cocktail can be made without any of the included items, I'm completely fine with letting the agreement be amended after the fact. I mean it's a near certainty that there is a player tonight (probably multiple) violating the drug policy - should umps be able to eject a player for suspicion of steroid use?

 

[charlieoscar]

Honestly, if a crazy powerful performance enhancing cocktail can be made without any of the included items, I'm completely fine with letting the agreement be amended after the fact. I mean it's a near certainty that there is a player tonight (probably multiple) violating the drug policy - should umps be able to eject a player for suspicion of steroid use?

Let's flip this. Suppose the restriction against using PEDs of any form were to be overturned, wouldn't there still be a similar profile of players, just peaking higher. The bench players will still be bench players; the super stars will still be super stars...but the overall level of performance will go up.

And if you are serious about umpires ejecting players for suspicion of steroid use, don't we still have the concept of innocent until proven guilty in this country (even though there are politicians trying their darnedest to overturn that)?

 

[joe dokes]

And if you are serious about umpires ejecting players for suspicion of steroid use, don't we still have the concept of innocent until proven guilty in this country (even though there are politicians trying their darnedest to overturn that)?

That "concept" applies to courts and litigants and is virtually irrelevant here, except as some sort of potential aspirational guidepost.
But MLB can use any standard it pleases (assuming its not barred by a CBA). So if the rule is, "A player shall be ejected if an umpire has a suspicion that the player is using a banned substance," then so it goes.

People are overthinking this. Its Joe West. He likes being the center of attention. He hates nerdy nerds. There is no reasonable use of the English language under which "reading from a card" is "using a foreign substance." He just thinks its a bad thing so he put a stop to it.

 

[charlieoscar]

That "concept" applies to courts and litigants and is virtually irrelevant here, except as some sort of potential aspirational guidepost.

I strongly suspect that if an umpire were to eject a player because he suspected said player was using a banned substance that there would soon be 'courts and litigants" involved.

 

[joe dokes]

I strongly suspect that if an umpire were to eject a player because he suspected said player was using a banned substance that there would soon be 'courts and litigants" involved.

Not if the MLB rule in place, and not barred by the CBA, said that it was OK to do so. Would some player sue? Probably. But he'd lose, since he'd need a legal theory and "the umpire threw me out of the game in accordance with the rules of the game" doesn't qualify any more than "I got suspended for throwing at a guy's head but it was an accident" is the basis for a lawsuit.

We're obviously talking ridiculous hypotheticals here. But the bottom line is that sports leagues are not *required* to presume anyone's innocence if they don't feel like it.

 

[uncannymanny]

Would anyone’s opinion be different if the opposing team had asked for the card to be removed citing the same rule and Joe West complied?

 

[joe dokes]

Would anyone’s opinion be different if the opposing team had asked for the card to be removed citing the same rule and Joe West complied?

Not mine. IMO the only answer to "that's a foreign substance," is "no, its not."

 

[uncannymanny]

Not mine. IMO the only answer to "that's a foreign substance," is "no, its not."

Interesting. I'm neither here nor there on the original debate, but if a team flagged this – and while not unprecedented, it's probably not been officially discussed by MLB – I'd have no problem with an ump playing it safe and requiring the pitcher to play without it under "uncontested" circumstances.