Did Rogers Cheat

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

(b) Have on his person, or in his possession, any foreign substance.

He appears from the photos we've seen to have a foreign substance on his palm. A clear violation of the rule.

Uh, it can't be a "clear violation of the rule" if it only APPEARS to be a foreign substance. Until an umpire inspects and rules definitively that it is a foreign substance and enacts punishment according to the rules, it's nothing but speculation and supposition.

It APPEARS to be a violation of the rules. The jury is out on whether it actually WAS a violation of the rules. And since the umpires didn't rule it a rules violation, then strictly speaking it wasn't.

Of course, facts tend to make for a less interesting story than do speculation, supposition, and assumption.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by mikev

That's the problem though. He's not having to deal with the consequences, even though he was caught.

That last part is where the train skips the track. He wasn't caught. Thus, no punishment.

[APujols5]

It's too late tonight and I'm too lazy to read everyone else's comments, but all the same here's my 2 cents....

I'd bet my life it was pine tar. I've seen it quite a few times in my years of playing ball. and I don't care what anyone has to say, having had pine tar on my hands in the past. Just because he washed off his hand and the spot appears to be gone? doesn't mean the affect is gone. To completely remove pine tar from your hands, you would have to wash multiple times. The umpires totally blew the call on it, Rogers should have been immediately ejected from the game.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Uh, it can't be a "clear violation of the rule" if it only APPEARS to be a foreign substance. Until an umpire inspects and rules definitively that it is a foreign substance and enacts punishment according to the rules, it's nothing but speculation and supposition.

It APPEARS to be a violation of the rules. The jury is out on whether it actually WAS a violation of the rules. And since the umpires didn't rule it a rules violation, then strictly speaking it wasn't.

Of course, facts tend to make for a less interesting story than do speculation, supposition, and assumption.

Uh, if it was pine tar, it's uhhhh clear violation of the rules. With everything we've read and the photos we've seen, (past and present) there is uhhhh no reason to believe it was anything else. If you can't uhhh trust your eyes then uhhh you can't trust nuthin'.

And since you are uhhh likely to be the type that would uh sweep it under the rug, then uhhh of course you'd uh say it APPEARS to be a violation, but might not have been.

You can't walk uh around your whole life blind to everything LGO. Sometimes, people cheat. And sometimes, nothing is uh done about it. Like this time.

uh

[phenom]

Originally Posted by APujols5

It's too late tonight and I'm too lazy to read everyone else's comments, but all the same here's my 2 cents....

I'd bet my life it was pine tar. I've seen it quite a few times in my years of playing ball. and I don't care what anyone has to say, having had pine tar on my hands in the past. Just because he washed off his hand and the spot appears to be gone? doesn't mean the affect is gone. To completely remove pine tar from your hands, you would have to wash multiple times. The umpires totally blew the call on it, Rogers should have been immediately ejected from the game.

From what I can gather, it was LaRussa's responsibility to ask the umpires to inspect Rogers' hand. LaRussa even said he brought it up to the umpire and basically asked the ump to tell Rogers to wash it off, and if that didn't work, he'd take it further.

Originally Posted by Jayson Stark's article on espn.com

"Now," La Russa said, "I have a decision to make, and I decided that I was not going to be part of the BS where I was going to ask the umpire to go to the mound and undress the pitcher. Now, what was I going to do? I alerted him. I said, 'I hope it gets fixed. If it doesn't get fixed, then I'll take the next step.' "

Don't blame the umps for failing to thoroughly inspect Rogers; blame LaRussa.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playof...t&lid=tab1pos1

[phenom]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

(b) Have on his person, or in his possession, any foreign substance.

He appears from the photos we've seen to have a foreign substance on his palm. A clear violation of the rule.

The umps didn't press the issue, but the rule is clear.

Is deodorant a foreign substance?

What about gum?

Toothpaste?

Chapstick?

[mikev]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Uh, if it was pine tar, it's uhhhh clear violation of the rules. With everything we've read and the photos we've seen, (past and present) there is uhhhh no reason to believe it was anything else. If you can't uhhh trust your eyes then uhhh you can't trust nuthin'.

And since you are uhhh likely to be the type that would uh sweep it under the rug, then uhhh of course you'd uh say it APPEARS to be a violation, but might not have been.

You can't walk uh around your whole life blind to everything LGO. Sometimes, people cheat. And sometimes, nothing is uh done about it. Like this time.

uh

Ken Macha posts here now? Wow dude, you type just like you talk. BTW, I hate you for ruining the A's postseason chances all those times.

[MuertoDesagradecido]

Originally Posted by ESPN

Said Tigers first-base coach Andy Van Slyke, "It had no bearing on how he pitched, at all. The camera can zoom in the hair in your nose. They created this issue. There's a plaque in Cooperstown right now of a guy [Gaylord Perry] who wrote a book about how he cheated, and I'm not accusing Kenny of cheating, that's not what I'm saying. To me, it's like yesterday's breakfast. I want to throw it back up."

And the award for most inexplicable analogy goes to....

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Uh, if it was pine tar, it's uhhhh clear violation of the rules. With everything we've read and the photos we've seen, (past and present) there is uhhhh no reason to believe it was anything else. If you can't uhhh trust your eyes then uhhh you can't trust nuthin'.

And since you are uhhh likely to be the type that would uh sweep it under the rug, then uhhh of course you'd uh say it APPEARS to be a violation, but might not have been.

You can't walk uh around your whole life blind to everything LGO. Sometimes, people cheat. And sometimes, nothing is uh done about it. Like this time.

uh

I don't think he's walking around blind to everything. And he knows people cheat. He just has a higher threshold for proof than you apparently have. He is more open to a Type I error, while you are more open to a Type II error. Either way, the confidence level in the answer can't be all that great.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I don't think he's walking around blind to everything. And he knows people cheat. He just has a higher threshold for proof than you apparently have. He is more open to a Type I error, while you are more open to a Type II error. Either way, the confidence level in the answer can't be all that great.

Following the rules of MLB is what it's all about and clearly Rogers violated the one about using a foreign substance.

It's apparent La Russa didn't want to make a stink about it after Rogers cleaned if off.

I know LGO isn't blind to EVERYTHING. He just loves playing devil's advocate. It has nothing to do with thresholds of proof. All one needs for proof is to see the photos of Rogers palm in different games and know he's been using something to get a better grip on the ball.

It's fine if you and others feel the need to excuse cheaters, but I'm not so easy.

Have a nice day.

[Roundin Third]

Originally Posted by phenom

From what I can gather, it was LaRussa's responsibility to ask the umpires to inspect Rogers' hand. LaRussa even said he brought it up to the umpire and basically asked the ump to tell Rogers to wash it off, and if that didn't work, he'd take it further.


Don't blame the umps for failing to thoroughly inspect Rogers; blame LaRussa.

Actually LaRussa did about all he could. It is the responsibility of the umpires to inspect Rogers for a foreign substance. It is not an appeal play - like batting out of order or leaving early when tagging up. If the umpire feels there is an illegal substance he is to follow through with an ejection, regardless of what the opposing manager does.
In this case it appears that the umpires did not investigate the situation very thoroughly, or chose to overlook it once Rogers washed his hands. Had they had the insight of similar instances in prior games, I am guessing their investigation would have taken a different turn.

About all LaRussa could have done differently was make a bigger deal of it (waiving hands, jumping up and down) when he brought it to the umpire's attention. This would have brought even more scrutiny from Palermo, MLB officials and the broadcast, which would likely have resulted in the plate umpire going to the mound immediately. Instead LaRussa was low-key and the umpires reacted in kind.

[<Pion>]

Don't know if this has been posted, but it lists what they've chosen as the 10 biggest cheaters or cheating incidents in baseball

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6...T=HCP&GT1=8705

[phenom]

Originally Posted by Roundin Third

Actually LaRussa did about all he could. It is the responsibility of the umpires to inspect Rogers for a foreign substance. It is not an appeal play - like batting out of order or leaving early when tagging up. If the umpire feels there is an illegal substance he is to follow through with an ejection, regardless of what the opposing manager does.
In this case it appears that the umpires did not investigate the situation very thoroughly, or chose to overlook it once Rogers washed his hands. Had they had the insight of similar instances in prior games, I am guessing their investigation would have taken a different turn.

About all LaRussa could have done differently was make a bigger deal of it (waiving hands, jumping up and down) when he brought it to the umpire's attention. This would have brought even more scrutiny from Palermo, MLB officials and the broadcast, which would likely have resulted in the plate umpire going to the mound immediately. Instead LaRussa was low-key and the umpires reacted in kind.

Did you read the article I linked?

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Roundin Third

Actually LaRussa did about all he could.

No, he could have taken it to 11.

[imation]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

Don't know if this has been posted, but it lists what they've chosen as the 10 biggest cheaters or cheating incidents in baseball

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6...T=HCP&GT1=8705

Kevin Hench is an idiot. How can he put BB at number 1 without him ever testing postive or having any proof other than the criminals who wrote a book.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by imation

Kevin Hench is an idiot. How can he put BB at number 1 without him ever testing postive or having any proof other than the criminals who wrote a book.

Thanks, Barry's mom.

You want to try and smear the messenger but the evidence presented by the reporters doing their jobs is damning for BB. Try to get past your devotion and look at the facts, man.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Dale And Eli's Dad

Thanks, Barry's mom.

You want to try and smear the messenger but the evidence presented by the reporters doing their jobs is damning for BB. Try to get past your devotion and look at the facts, man.

Though I agree totally, you're wasting your time with Jax.

[imation]

Originally Posted by Dale And Eli's Dad

Thanks, Barry's mom.

You want to try and smear the messenger but the evidence presented by the reporters doing their jobs is damning for BB. Try to get past your devotion and look at the facts, man.

Did the writers go to jail?

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by phenom

Did you read the article I linked?

Here's the key quote:

But then there he was in the first inning Sunday, and several of his players came sprinting down the tunnel from their spot in front of the clubhouse flat screen to inform him that the Fox TV cameras were zeroing in on a big brown splotch on Rogers' pitching hand.

Uh-oh. BS alert.

"Now," La Russa said, "I have a decision to make, and I decided that I was not going to be part of the BS where I was going to ask the umpire to go to the mound and undress the pitcher. Now, what was I going to do? I alerted him. I said, 'I hope it gets fixed. If it doesn't get fixed, then I'll take the next step.'

Here's my problem with this situation - since when did it become the opposing manager's job to police the activities of pitchers on the mound? Every Cards hitter saw it, it was easy to see on TV (and one would think for people standing 50 feet from him) and Steve Palermo could have easily got involved while Rogers was pitching. So, why is the home plate umpire (as well as all the other officials on the field) getting a pass for letting Rogers leave the mound and wash his hands off without being inspected?

It seems to me this would be akin to having a hitter foul off a pitch and splinter the bat with the appearance of cork. But, unless the opposing manager came out and told the umpire the check the bat, the ump would simply let the hitter continue with a new bat and not get involved. Then, after numerous video showed the appearance of cork a half inning later say "Well, the opposing manager didn't want me to check it so we can't do much now".

If an umpire can't see crap all over a pitcher's hand after a full inning of pitches, comments by the opposing hitters and an umpire supervisor seeing all the content on the TV, I worry a lot more about the competancy of the homeplate umpires than either manager.

It seems to be that the umps didn't want to deal with "the stench" of tossing a starting pitcher in game 2 of the series and chose to avoid getting involved until they had to. You shouldn't need the opposing manager to run out on the field and tackle the starting pitcher in order to investigate what was an obvious question on the substance on Rogers' hand. You have half a dozen umps out there and not one noticed the big splotch of crud on his pitching hand? And this is the vision/observation power we trust on close calls at each base?

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

If an umpire can't see crap all over a pitcher's hand after a full inning of pitches

That can't see a couple feet in front of them to call balls/strikes, what makes you think they can see something ~60 feet away?