View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 02, 2012, 02:35pm
Rich Ives Rich Ives is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
And you, as well as just about anyone here, are aware of numerous spots in the rulebook that say MAY, and others that say MUST. MAY does not equal MUST. The catcher MAY wear a mitt. This in no way says that he cannot, instead, wear a glove.
He may wear a mitt in lieu of going barehanded.

1B may wear a glove or mitt in lieu of going barehanded.

Other fielders may wear a glove in lieu of going barehanded.

The "may" in the hand-covering rules is there to allow them to wear the device in the first place. The game was originally played bare-handed and so there had to be a rule to allow hand-coverings after the traditionalists objected.

The different rules specify which type of device is allowed at which position. The catcher may wear a mitt. If the rules wanted to allow a mitt or glove they would say so, as they do for F3.

I'm headed to the ballpark now - prep for opening day.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote