Talk:Spitball

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spitball article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dry spitter

I wonder if you guys know there's a pitch called the dry spitter? It's in the Mechanics of a Fastball page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.136.16 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 October 2004

I hadn't heard of that until now. I'll try to add a bit, but you can also feel free to add anything about it. —siro χ o

Actually, after some research into it, I think dry spitter might actually just be slang for the knuckleball. Anyone else know for sure? —siro χ o

RAY CHAPMAN

In the article on the "spitball" the author indicates that the banning of such pitches was in reaction to the death of Ray Chapman. Actually I believe the rule banning the "spitball" as well as other substances and alterations was passed by MLB before the 1920 season, and Chapman was killed in August of the 1920 season. If true, the conclusion is spurious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TraderHank (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 March 2006

Regarding the Chapman death, last year I discussed this with a local baseball guru whose dad as an MLB ump prior to WWII. His take is that after the rule was passed, mainly to stop pitchers from using copious tobacco use to darken and make the ball slick, enforcement of the rule was lax in both leagues until hapless Chapman was fatally hit by a pitch. So, his death may have played a role in putting an end to spitters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.114.2 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 January 2007

More info is needed in this subject. The problem in the Chapman case was mainly that the ball was too dark. It's not so much the banning of the spitball that was prompted by Chapman's death, but more frequent substitution of a new ball. The main problem is that a baseball starts out white and gets darker, thus nullifying the effect of the batter's background screen. In cricket, the ball is dark (usually red) and the batsman's screen is white. The ball may get beat up, but it's going to stay dark, and visible. The other side effect of banning the spitball and substituting new balls more often was essentially what Cobb was complaining about, i.e. that it enabled more home run hitting. Cobb, of course, considered that a bad thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchers accused of throwing a spitball

Would this section be appropriate? Of course, citations would be of the utmost importance, but this is an important part of baseball lore IMO. Citations are needed in the rest of this article anyway. TexasMathetes (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in regards to cricket comparison

In the introduction, it says "Preparing a spitball is distinct from ball tampering in cricket, where the use of saliva and sweat as well as the shining of one side of the ball is not only legal but an integral part of the game. The altering of the ball's state by the use of artificial substances such as sun block, dirt or degradation by fingernails or other hard substances is illegal tampering."

However, if one goes to the article on ball tampering, its says "Under Law 42, subsection 3 of the Laws of Cricket, the ball may be polished without the use of an artificial substance, may be dried with a towel if it is wet, and have mud removed from it under supervision; all other actions which alter the condition of the ball are illegal. These are usually taken to include rubbing the ball on the ground, scuffing with a fingernail or other sharp object, or tampering with the seam of the ball."^[1] That means that saliva and sweat are not legal, according to the exact wording of the law. Perhaps the comparison statement ought to be removed. 128.8.8.96 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, saliva and sweat are not 'artificial substances' for the purpose of law 42 s.3. the comment accurately reflects the law and the way umpires in practise enforce it.Stagiran (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html

Not just spitters?

Right now the article has quite a bit about scuffing balls - maybe we should move the article to more all-encompassing, like Illegal pitches or Doctored baseballs or something? I'm not sure a separate article is warranted for scuffballs, but that would be another option. Thoughts? 99.235.223.170 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names-wrong

applying Vaseline or saliva =a spitball, scuffing with sandpaper or emery board =an emery ball, rubbing vigorously to create a shiny area of the ball =a shineball.

shine ball and and emery ball are not alternative names for spitball (as is stated in the article). They are different kind of doctored balls. 213.149.51.252 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html

[1]