Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
IMO you may be overthinking it. The question asks for a condition of a helmet which would cause the helmet to not be legal. It did not ask for the umpire to define an illegal catcher's helmet. Obviously, a matte surface meets the requirement of the rule. But I wouldn't doubt for a minute that some coach out there has or will try to convince an umpire that anything other than a helmet with a matte finish is illegal because of a potential glare. Personally, I think the rule is a joke.
|
That's like saying "A bat is considered legal if..." "It has a barrel." That doesn't make it legal. It is a criteria for its legality. It's a poor question, plain and simple.