Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
What I'm saying is that the Mizuno glove is a black glove with yellow logo and markings. That is different from saying it is a black and yellow glove, like the Jenny Finch glove is black and pink. No part of the body of the glove is yellow; it is black with a very minor yellow marking.
Take, as a point of comparison, the ASA powder blue uniform shirt. Would you not agree that it is powder blue? Or would you say it is multicolored, because it has about 1% navy blue in the ASA logo and trim, and 0.5% white trim? KR is saying that glove is multicolored, despite the multiple efforts to match interpretations with NCAA and NFHS, both of which more clearly state that the color of a glove does NOT include logo's, laces, or other minor markings.
|
Steve, not arguing against you for the rule. I think it is ridiculous. However, in the June clarifications, the "rule of thumb" and reasoning contradict each other.
A good rule of thumb would be to hold the game ball next to the glove in question and see if they are the same color. If they are, then the PITCHER can not use that glove. The intent of the rule is to not have a glove that appears to have a ball in it or that can be a distraction to the batter by having the game ball color on it.
The "rule of thumb" seems to clearly state that if the colors are the same through comparison, the pitcher cannot use the glove. However, I think the final sentence muddies the waters more than helps clarify it. After all, who cares if it seems there is a ball in the glove? What difference does that make in the pitching game?
Quote:
|
I have always questioned how running/crashing into a player not making a play can also be interference, when every other interpretation of interference makes it clear there must be a play to be interfered with. USC, sure; interference, only because they say so.
|
I agree. Then again, I would like to see clearer language to address the no-ball collision situations.