|
Another example of a situation that can be argued several ways. Fed's wording gives ammunition to practically any position.
The play occurs in the second inning. Doesn't that imply that the pitcher has been using the glove and catching throws from the catcher all along? Wouldn't Fed have a case book play that gives runners bases when the pitcher uses an illegal glove to catch a throw from the catcher?
What if F1 catches the line drive barehanded? The point of banning the colored glove is to prevent the batter from being distracted by it, not, as with a first-base mitt in the outfield, to prevent the pitcher from gaining an advantage in fielding the ball.
Impossible to be sure without a ruling, I think.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
|