Quote:
Originally posted by edhern
I think you got it all wrong. It says illegal acts (by the pitcher)include: wearing a glove/mitt that is white, gray or multicolored. This is different than touching a live or batted ball with an illegal mitt. Is the mitt illegal? It can be worn by any other player. It meets all of the glove specifications in 1-3.7 It is the ACT that is illegal 6.2.1h., not the glove. Even in the penalty section, it says the infraction must be corrected before the next pitch. No base awards on anything else.
Ed H
|
I agree with you that this is how it *should* be called -- but I'm not convinced this is how the FED *wants* it called.
Last year's case was clear (if, imho, too literal and over-officious) -- it's an illegal glove because it doesn't meet the specifications of 1-3-7. It can be removed without penalty if discovered in time, but there's a penalty if it's not discovered in time (it's similar to an illegal bat -- discover it before the batter enters the box -- get it replaced; discover it after -- it's an out).
So, we're back to the never ending FED question -- if they publish an interp on the web-site one year, but the interp doesn't make it into the case book the next, is the interp still valid?