Ball lodged in glove: FED interpretation

[WindyCityBlue]

Quote from Jumpmaster:

To stir the pot even more - Windy, do you overrule your partner who has signaled out, the players have cleared the infield and you now know the correct interpretation?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Alan,
You knew exactly what you were doing with this question, but it was worthy bait.
I have a problem with the ruling as written. The play I described for all to discuss is not covered, since it is not apparent that the ball has become lodged until the players have left the field of play (abandoned the bases, etc.).

According to the Wizard, we took an oath to enforce all of the rules of the game. (I didnÂ’t, but thatÂ’s his fantasy.) If we must enforce the lodged ball rule and rule on anything not specifically covered by the rules, I could make very convincing arguments either way.

A couple of guys here are of the opinion “See no evil, hear no evil.” One even cited that he knew a kid had a game winning hit with an illegal bat, but because it was the thirteenth inning, he let it go when no one noticed. Others have said that we need to enforce the rules we detest even more than the rules we like. Make no mistake, I don’t like this rule interpetation. That said, if I am the PU and see it happen as described, I will probably announce as loud as I can, “Time, let me see that mitt.” That will get my partner(s) attention and we will get together. I will keep the players where they are and tell my partner(s) what I just saw.
If we agree that the ball became lodged after it hit the ground, we will announce the ruling according to Fed protocol. (dead ball advance) We will take the heat and look like schmucks for enforcing a sh*t rule. But, you asked what I would do and these are my thoughts. Letting the play stand would be easier, but we have to enforce a lot of other rules that make us look silly, so why should this one be any different.

Now, some of you will say, “He can’t over rule his partner. We talked about this before.” This is exactly what I’ve proposed all along. One guy made a call, without benefit of all of the information. His partner sees something (in this case an incorrect judgement call and ruling) and informs his partner(s) of the issue. I have said that I would ask for consensus and try to make the right call - no matter how ridiculous the FED interp. I’ve remained consistent, now, what would you do in this situation?