I totally agree, and thats coming from a Yankee fan. That was definitely pine tar though. I used to pitch and that is %100 tar. Oh well, it is what it is and he still won the rest of the game with clean hands.Naughty_Om wrote:
He wiped it off in the first inning. still won the game. if it was wiped in the 8th. different Story.
My guess is shitty pitchers throw perfect games all the time. Like the Rangers game I was at when he threw a perfect game.Jenkinsbball wrote:
I'm sorry, but Rogers has been a shitty pitcher for fucking years. It's been proven, just look at ALL of his service for the Rangers the past few years and his time with the Yankees. Now, suddenly, he has a 0.00 ERA in the playoffs? Something stinks.
Exactly. Al Leiter returns to the Yankees two years ago and throws 7 perfect innings for a win against the Red Sox (the season theywon 2004). Older pitchers are very streaky. Red hot or ice cold.Pug wrote:
My guess is shitty pitchers throw perfect games all the time. Like the Rangers game I was at when he threw a perfect game.Jenkinsbball wrote:
I'm sorry, but Rogers has been a shitty pitcher for fucking years. It's been proven, just look at ALL of his service for the Rangers the past few years and his time with the Yankees. Now, suddenly, he has a 0.00 ERA in the playoffs? Something stinks.
He's streaky.
Yes it is.jonsimon wrote:
Even if there was pine tar on his hand, that doesn't break any rules. The rules are against scuffing or altering the ball's aerodynamics. If anyone can provide evidence that rodgers smears pine tar into the seams, then he should immediately investigated.
But using pine tar simply to increase traction with the ball is not a violation of regulation.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-10-25 19:34:17)
Good call, bringing up a game like fucking 10 years ago. That was a freak game, like most perfect games. Using the same logic as that, I'm sure that rookie, or unknown pitcher, in Flordia who threw the no-hitter is a godlike pitcher, just because he threw one.Pug wrote:
My guess is shitty pitchers throw perfect games all the time. Like the Rangers game I was at when he threw a perfect game.Jenkinsbball wrote:
I'm sorry, but Rogers has been a shitty pitcher for fucking years. It's been proven, just look at ALL of his service for the Rangers the past few years and his time with the Yankees. Now, suddenly, he has a 0.00 ERA in the playoffs? Something stinks.
He's streaky.
Or just good call.Jenkinsbball wrote:
Good call, bringing up a game like fucking 10 years ago. That was a freak game, like most perfect games. Using the same logic as that, I'm sure that rookie, or unknown pitcher, in Flordia who threw the no-hitter is a godlike pitcher, just because he threw one.Pug wrote:
My guess is shitty pitchers throw perfect games all the time. Like the Rangers game I was at when he threw a perfect game.Jenkinsbball wrote:
I'm sorry, but Rogers has been a shitty pitcher for fucking years. It's been proven, just look at ALL of his service for the Rangers the past few years and his time with the Yankees. Now, suddenly, he has a 0.00 ERA in the playoffs? Something stinks.
He's streaky.
I'm sorry, but I've never trusted Rogers. It may be a streak, but I want the Tigers to lose now because of him.
But he didn't apply it to the ball, it was just on his hand. There's a difference, the rule is to prevent altering the aerodynamics of the ball. None of the batters reported odd movement in the ball until after the fact, and no one ever noticed anything on the ball. He didn't cheat.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes it is.jonsimon wrote:
Even if there was pine tar on his hand, that doesn't break any rules. The rules are against scuffing or altering the ball's aerodynamics. If anyone can provide evidence that rodgers smears pine tar into the seams, then he should immediately investigated.
But using pine tar simply to increase traction with the ball is not a violation of regulation.
edit:
8.02
The pitcher shall not --
(a) (1) Bring his pitching hand in contact with his mouth or lips while in the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitching rubber. EXCEPTION: Provided it is agreed to by both managers, the umpire prior to the start of a game played in cold weather, may permit the pitcher to blow on his hand. PENALTY: For violation of this part of this rule the umpires shall immediately call a ball. However, if the pitch is made and a batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a hit batsman or otherwise, and no other runner is put out before advancing at least one base, the play shall proceed without reference to the violation. Repeated offenders shall be subject to a fine by the league president.
(2) expectorate on the ball, either hand or his glove;
(3) rub the ball on his glove, person or clothing;
(4) apply a foreign substance of any kind to the ball;
(5) deface the ball in any manner; or
(6) deliver a ball defaced in a manner prescribed by Rule 8.02(a)(2) through (5) or what is called the “shine” ball, “spit” ball, “mud” ball or “emery” ball. The pitcher is allowed to rub the ball between his bare hands.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-10-26 12:57:26)
No, that's the NBA.IRONCHEF wrote:
now it's a drug infested, lawless abandon full of thugs and overpaid losers.
Wtf? Nfl is where the drugs are.cablecopulate wrote:
No, that's the NBA.IRONCHEF wrote:
now it's a drug infested, lawless abandon full of thugs and overpaid losers.
Okay, you said he simply used it to improve his traction with the ball. That is illegal. Now you are saying he didn't apply it to the ball. C'mon now. So he has pine tar on his hand to improve traction, but none got on the ball?jonsimon wrote:
But he didn't apply it to the ball, it was just on his hand. There's a difference, the rule is to prevent altering the aerodynamics of the ball. None of the batters reported odd movement in the ball until after the fact, and no one ever noticed anything on the ball. He didn't cheat.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes it is.jonsimon wrote:
Even if there was pine tar on his hand, that doesn't break any rules. The rules are against scuffing or altering the ball's aerodynamics. If anyone can provide evidence that rodgers smears pine tar into the seams, then he should immediately investigated.
But using pine tar simply to increase traction with the ball is not a violation of regulation.
edit:
8.02
The pitcher shall not --
(a) (1) Bring his pitching hand in contact with his mouth or lips while in the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitching rubber. EXCEPTION: Provided it is agreed to by both managers, the umpire prior to the start of a game played in cold weather, may permit the pitcher to blow on his hand. PENALTY: For violation of this part of this rule the umpires shall immediately call a ball. However, if the pitch is made and a batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a hit batsman or otherwise, and no other runner is put out before advancing at least one base, the play shall proceed without reference to the violation. Repeated offenders shall be subject to a fine by the league president.
(2) expectorate on the ball, either hand or his glove;
(3) rub the ball on his glove, person or clothing;
(4) apply a foreign substance of any kind to the ball;
(5) deface the ball in any manner; or
(6) deliver a ball defaced in a manner prescribed by Rule 8.02(a)(2) through (5) or what is called the “shine” ball, “spit” ball, “mud” ball or “emery” ball. The pitcher is allowed to rub the ball between his bare hands.
Don't see why not. It was only on the base of his thumb anyway/KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Okay, you said he simply used it to improve his traction with the ball. That is illegal. Now you are saying he didn't apply it to the ball. C'mon now. So he has pine tar on his hand to improve traction, but none got on the ball?jonsimon wrote:
But he didn't apply it to the ball, it was just on his hand. There's a difference, the rule is to prevent altering the aerodynamics of the ball. None of the batters reported odd movement in the ball until after the fact, and no one ever noticed anything on the ball. He didn't cheat.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes it is.
edit:
8.02
The pitcher shall not --
(a) (1) Bring his pitching hand in contact with his mouth or lips while in the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitching rubber. EXCEPTION: Provided it is agreed to by both managers, the umpire prior to the start of a game played in cold weather, may permit the pitcher to blow on his hand. PENALTY: For violation of this part of this rule the umpires shall immediately call a ball. However, if the pitch is made and a batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a hit batsman or otherwise, and no other runner is put out before advancing at least one base, the play shall proceed without reference to the violation. Repeated offenders shall be subject to a fine by the league president.
(2) expectorate on the ball, either hand or his glove;
(3) rub the ball on his glove, person or clothing;
(4) apply a foreign substance of any kind to the ball;
(5) deface the ball in any manner; or
(6) deliver a ball defaced in a manner prescribed by Rule 8.02(a)(2) through (5) or what is called the “shine” ball, “spit” ball, “mud” ball or “emery” ball. The pitcher is allowed to rub the ball between his bare hands.
So then if none got on the ball, how is having that there improving his traction? Stop trying to deny the truth.jonsimon wrote:
Don't see why not. It was only on the base of his thumb anyway/KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Okay, you said he simply used it to improve his traction with the ball. That is illegal. Now you are saying he didn't apply it to the ball. C'mon now. So he has pine tar on his hand to improve traction, but none got on the ball?jonsimon wrote:
But he didn't apply it to the ball, it was just on his hand. There's a difference, the rule is to prevent altering the aerodynamics of the ball. None of the batters reported odd movement in the ball until after the fact, and no one ever noticed anything on the ball. He didn't cheat.
I'm not denying the truth, heck, I'll admit I made up the traction thing. It's a possibility, but I have no reason to believe that's why it was on his hand. Further, pine tar is everywhere in that sport, it's not implausible he could have missed it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
So then if none got on the ball, how is having that there improving his traction? Stop trying to deny the truth.jonsimon wrote:
Don't see why not. It was only on the base of his thumb anyway/KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Okay, you said he simply used it to improve his traction with the ball. That is illegal. Now you are saying he didn't apply it to the ball. C'mon now. So he has pine tar on his hand to improve traction, but none got on the ball?