Here's one that happened last night in a high school game in the Houston area, as reported by the Houston Chronicle (and I picked up the glove colors from a discussion board).

The pitcher was using a multi-colored glove; predominately black with two fingers a dark tan. Hitting team gets a runner on first; next batter bunts a popup to the pitcher, who catches the ball and doubles the runner off first. Batting team's coach then goes out and protests the pitcher's glove. The umpiring crew takes away the outs, awards R1 home and the batter three bases because the batted ball was fielded with an illegal glove.

Comments?

The umpires are stuck here, to be quite honest, especially if the state recognizes protests.

The rule is clear in FED -- a pitcher's glove, to be legal, must be uniform in color. The pitcher's glove was not legal.

If the umpire discovers the illegal glove, he can order it removed AT ANY TIME. But if the player plays with an illegal glove the offense can appeal a catch made with an illegal glove until the next pitch.

Fielding a batted ball with an illegal glove? Penalty -- offense can take the result of the play or the award, which is three bases (delayed dead) or four bases if the illegal glove prevented a home run.

There is a case play where the pitcher deflects a batted ball with an illegal (too big) glove. The award was the same.

I'm glad I wasn't one of the umpires. And once word of this gets back to the NFHS, expect there to be an exception to this rule.

--Rich

Given that the umpires declared the glove to be illegal, they made the correct ruling, as Rich pointed out. Last year, the FED issued an interp on a very similar play (except the glove was "red, white and blue" or something) with the same results (three base awards).

That said, this year I would have let the glove go (that is, decalred it legal), using the following case plays:


SITUATION 5: The pitcher is using a fielding glove that is light brown outside and dark brown inside on the pocket of the glove. RULING: This is legal. Only if in U1’s judgment that this is distracting to the batter would F1 not be allowed to play with the glove. (1-3-7, 6-2-1h)

SITUATION 6: The pitcher is using a black fielding glove that has white lettering on it. RULING: If the umpire judges the white lettering on the glove to be distracting, he would instruct the pitcher to replace the glove. (1-3-7, 6-2-1h)

SITUATION 7: The pitcher is using a dark glove that has a white imprint of a baseball on the outside of the glove. RULING: This glove is illegal for use by a pitcher. (1-3-7, 6-2-1h)

I think you got it all wrong. It says illegal acts (by the pitcher)include: wearing a glove/mitt that is white, gray or multicolored. This is different than touching a live or batted ball with an illegal mitt. Is the mitt illegal? It can be worn by any other player. It meets all of the glove specifications in 1-3.7 It is the ACT that is illegal 6.2.1h., not the glove. Even in the penalty section, it says the infraction must be corrected before the next pitch. No base awards on anything else.

Ed H

I agree with you that this is how it *should* be called -- but I'm not convinced this is how the FED *wants* it called.

Last year's case was clear (if, imho, too literal and over-officious) -- it's an illegal glove because it doesn't meet the specifications of 1-3-7. It can be removed without penalty if discovered in time, but there's a penalty if it's not discovered in time (it's similar to an illegal bat -- discover it before the batter enters the box -- get it replaced; discover it after -- it's an out).

So, we're back to the never ending FED question -- if they publish an interp on the web-site one year, but the interp doesn't make it into the case book the next, is the interp still valid?

Knowing the FED's way of thinking, I don't think they would look at the multicolored glove any differently. The fielder played a ball with what the FED considers an illegal glove.

Like Bob, I would try to find a way out of it. I may even encourage a protest in this situation. But I don't think it can be dismissed, because the pitcher did (1) commit an act with (2) what the FED considers an illegal glove.

Assuming it IS illegal, which seems to be in question based on the plays Bob listed.

--Rich

If I remember the New York State Interpreter at this year's interpretation, he said that there is no penalty for having the pitcher use a glove that he is not allowed to use, just remove it. I know he said that if the glove was different shades of the same color (i.e., brown and tan) he would not remove the glove unless he felt it was distracting. He would consider it the same color.

Ed H

Just one man's opinion. It may carry weight in NY, but that's about it.

I don't like the interpretation that requires the award of three bases for an illegal glove. How about this: the glove is legal because the person wearing it is no longer a PITCHER - he is a FIELDER and there is nothing wrong with any FIELDER wearing a multi-colored glove. Have the PITCHER replace it before the next pitch, but no other penalty. This is analogous to the pitcher being allowed to feint to first after he disengages from the rubber because he is no longer a pitcher, but a fielder.

I asked our assignor about this and a few other Pitcher related questions for Fed. He said this about the balk rule and the glove question:

"However, it is a rule and rules were written for us to enforce. Hopefully, the deal with the glove will be addressed before we start passing out three-base awards. If I let him pitch with it, I surely am not going to penalize him for using it when a bullett is headed toward his person. That's my two cents on that play."

I agree with his assessment though a bit contradictive. One is saying to enforce all of the balk rules as written and the other is if you let him wear the glove don't penalize him when he makes a play.

The key is catching the glove before the first pitch. It's hard to catch a balk before it happens. Pregame it with "If we see a balk, we call a balk and the P cannot wear a multicolored glove."

I brought this topic up last night after my game with my partners and here's some interesting questions that we threw around:
1. Rule 6 states that a pitchers glove may not be multi-colored. How many is multi...2, 3, 4? But, in Rule 1, the book states that a pitcher's glove must be uniform in color. I interpret "uni" as 1, "bi" as 2, and "multi" as more than 2.
2. Rule 6 never refers to the mulit-colored glove as an illigal mit...rather only a infraction by the pitcher that must be corrected before the next pitch. Rule 2 outlines an illegal mit only by measurements and an illegal mit warrants the 3-base award.

The way I interpret this is that if the pitcher pitches with a "multi"-colored glove, it simply must be removed before the next pitch. If this "multi"-colored glove is used in a play, the glove meets the specifications outlined in Rule 1 and therefore is not an illegal mit. I like TxUmp's statement that when he fields the ball, he is no longer a pitcher, but rather a fielder. So, If I was the umpire working this game, I would let the play stand, and have the pitcher remove the glove (if I believed that it may indeed be distracting to the batter). I think the rulebook is written vaguely enough that an umpire can justify his ruling with the "multi-colored" statement by saying, "hey coach, the pitching rule states that he can't have a multi-colored glove, multi to me means many, not just two."

According to Webster:
Multi - many: multiple: many times over

OK, I can't resist . . .
 

The easy man's way out:

I guess we're talking about the glove many of us see that is tan and a darker brown. Lots of players have them.

So now we have F1 wearing one of those, you don't make him take it off and now he makes a play and out comes Skipper from the Offense:

Skippy: "Hey Blue, that glove's illegal!"

Me: "Gosh Skip, Why?"

Skippy: "It is a muti-colored glove which the rule book says is illegal."

Me: "What do you mean Skip, what's wrong with the color?"

Skip: "Gosh are you color blind, this is tan and this is dark brown!"

Me: "Thanks coach, the glove is ONE COLOR, it is brown, what you are showing me are two 'SHADES' of the same color.

"This glove is totally legal under the rules, what eles would you like to talk about?"

Tee

Sometimes, the reason for some rules, gets hidden in the wording. The reason the pitcher is not allowed to have white, grey or multi-colored is that these could distract the batter and provide unfair advantage. If a coach is not going to complain about a black and dark tan glove on the first pitch, but waits for an opportune time then he is making a travesty of the game and all I will give him at that point is to ask the pitcher to change gloves. What if he had waited till the bottom of the 7th, with score tied to pull that stunt? That's it, the play stands, the glove is removed. That's all you get coach!

There is only one way, by rule, to make a travesty of the game; and that is by running the bases in reverse order.

Correct, by rule, travesty of the game is only mentioned under running the bases backwards, but there are many ways in which coaches, and umpires, can create travesties that are not mentioned in the rulebook. This example is one. If a coach does not complain until convenient for him to do so then he should not expect much.