|
OK,
Luke:
A question followed by my answer:
In a "big boy" game have you ever seen pitcher field a ball while in contact (with his original contact) of the pitcher's plate?
I mean even the hardest, fastest line drive back to F1 would get there after his forward momentum moved him off the pitcher's plate.
So if a glove with "white threads" is legal for all infielders (given: not for pitcher's while in contact with the pitcher's plate) why would there be a special penalty for a player that started the play as a pitcher but is actually an infielder when the play is made?
With all respect to Bob Jenkins this is the problem we run into when umpires subscribe to the "string theory" (the combining of several rules to come to an endall answer, first developed by Nick Bremigan and now strongly related to Rick Roder) to come to answers.
If an umpire can't win (whichever decision we make appears to be wrong) . . . which would be more equatable and more along the intent of the rule:
1) Give a three base award on a ball hit back to the pitcher that is fielded or,
2) Make the pitcher either color in the greatly offensive white threads or rub dirt on them?
I can defend #2 easily . . . #1 makes me scratch my head.
Remember what I said initially:
The white on the glove is a "distraction" not an additive way to make a play. We need a case of common sense here -- even if FED failed to use that same common sense I am asking for us to use.
|