Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
You can wordsmith this to pieces if you choose. It is OBVIOUS, both from common sense and from the descriptions in the "Ruling" that the powers that be did not intend for a glove that illegal to pitch with necessarily be illegal to field with, and they did not intend the penalties to be the same.
If you feel you need to use lawyerese here, then YES, the rule was worded poorly - perhaps even stupidly. But the ruling clears up their intent, and gives us (the umpires with common sense) the backing needed to stand up to protest should you come across a lawyer coach.
Use your brain, folks. If they intended what you say they intended, they would not have worded the ruling the way they did. We're hired to be smart enough to know the difference.
|
I swear I read an interp that said fielding a batted ball with a glove which is illegal results in a three base award. I wish I could find this play, but I cannot. It is no longer on the NF site, and I can't find it using Google.
I did come up with this thread from 2004. Check out the posts at the top from Rich and Bob Jenkins. They support the fact that there was an interpretation that said there is a 3 base award for this infraction. Unless there is a new interp which overrules this one I don't see how one cannot enforce the 3 base award.
http://www.officialforum.com/thread/12862