Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
But, your theory of not enforcing the base award because F1 was not touching the plate when he fielded the ball is not correct, shown by this interp from 2003.
"SITUATION 14: The pitcher is wearing a red, white, and blue fielding glove. In the second inning, the batter hits a line drive that is caught by the pitcher. RULING: This is an illegal glove for the pitcher to use. The out is cancelled and the batter is awarded third base. Had the pitcher been told prior to the catch, all he would have needed to do is replace the glove with a legal one. (1-3-5, 1-4-3, 6-2-1-h penalty, 8-3-3b)"
This situation is almost exactly the same as the one we are discussing. Unless there is some other ruling that I am missing, I don't see how this ruling should not be enforced.
|
To add to this ...
The wording / organization of the rule in 2003 was nearly the same as it is now. That is, it specified that a glove was illegal if it had a tacky substance added, was too large, or , for the pitcher was multi-colored.
They've changed the 'multi-colored" part, of course.
So, does the ruling still apply? If FED issues an interp in one year, but does not put it in the book the next year, is the interp still valid? IF FED wants to change / negate an interp, shouldn't they issue a contrary opinion (e.g., the same play with the notation, "this is legal")?