Batting Gloves In Pocket

[UmpJM]

gruberted,

First let me apologize to you for the uncalled for sarcasm in my earlier remarks on this thread. I realize it was immature of me - but i just couldn't resist. ;-)

On to your question. It is certainly within the umpire's authority, by rule, to instruct you to tuck in your gloves so that they are not hanging outside of your pockets.

The most relevant rules are: (these are from OBR)

"9.01 ...(b) Each umpire is the representative of the league and of professional baseball, and is authorized and required to enforce all of these rules. Each umpire has authority to order a player, coach, manager or club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything which affects the administering of these rules, and to enforce the prescribed penalties. (c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

Since there is no rule which grants you the "right" to have gloves hanging out of your pockets, the umpire is clearly within the bounds of his juridstiction in instructing you to tuck them in.

While reasonable people could hold opposing positions on the question of whether or not the umpire was being "picky" in so instructing you, there is no legitimate basis for not complying with the instruction.

JM

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by TwoBits
It's preventative officiating. Telling a batter to tuck in his gloves prevents the inevitable argument that will occur if he his gloves are touched by a pitched ball and he is put back into the box or if he is called out for being tagged on the gloves.

It is OOO officiating. In 2000 games, I have never seen a player get hit only on the batting glove in his rear pocket. Let us assume that he did get hit there, however. This would mean that the pitcher had thrown a pitch BEHIND the batter.

For that bad of a pitch, I would give him first base. But this is all conjecture. We are debating a once in a lifetime situation. The only reason to demand that a player remove his batting gloves from his pockets is to be an OOO.

Being on a power trip is one of the motivations for becoming an umpire, so if it suits you, go do it. Do not call it preventative officiating, however. You are fooling no one but yourself. The players and coaches will hold you in silent contempt.

Peter

[LMan]

silent??

[jicecone]

Originally posted by scyguy
preventative? Argument? I guess if you want to say something that is your choice, but I could care less if the batter wants to have gloves in his pocket.

If a coach wants to come out and discuss why I did not give his batter first, then come on down.

A. "preventative?" Why not

B. "Argument?" There should be none if A. took place.

Coach, "that hit my batter"

Umpire, "No, it hit his gloves"

Yadi yada yada.

Coach as he leaves, "your wrong and your strike zone is still too small"

Why give the coach a chance to say anything?

[mbyron]

Originally posted by jicecone

Coach, "that hit my batter"

Umpire, "No, it hit his gloves"

Next line should be:

Coach, "The gloves are part of his a$$."

[GarthB]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

It is OOO officiating. In 2000 games, I have never seen a player get hit only on the batting glove in his rear pocket. Let us assume that he did get hit there, however. This would mean that the pitcher had thrown a pitch BEHIND the batter.

For that bad of a pitch, I would give him first base. But this is all conjecture. We are debating a once in a lifetime situation. The only reason to demand that a player remove his batting gloves from his pockets is to be an OOO.

Being on a power trip is one of the motivations for becoming an umpire, so if it suits you, go do it. Do not call it preventative officiating, however. You are fooling no one but yourself. The players and coaches will hold you in silent contempt.

Peter

Peter:

You left off your other point:

And it's a conspiracy by the "big dogs" to keep the "small dogs" in their place.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by jicecone
A. "preventative?" Why not

B. "Argument?" There should be none if A. took place.

Coach, "that hit my batter"

Umpire, "No, it hit his gloves"

Yadi yada yada.

Coach as he leaves, "your wrong and your strike zone is still too small"

Why give the coach a chance to say anything?

You're right. You shouldn't give the coach a chance to say anything. That's why you should stop being an OOO and forcing gloves to being completly tucked into a player's pocket. What makes you think the coach won't get mad at you for going on a power trip?

[TwoBits]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

It is OOO officiating. In 2000 games, I have never seen a player get hit only on the batting glove in his rear pocket. Let us assume that he did get hit there, however. This would mean that the pitcher had thrown a pitch BEHIND the batter.

For that bad of a pitch, I would give him first base. But this is all conjecture. We are debating a once in a lifetime situation. The only reason to demand that a player remove his batting gloves from his pockets is to be an OOO.

Being on a power trip is one of the motivations for becoming an umpire, so if it suits you, go do it. Do not call it preventative officiating, however. You are fooling no one but yourself. The players and coaches will hold you in silent contempt.

Peter

Wow. I've never been called an "OOO" before. I must really be bad since I was called that by someone who calls himself "His High Holiness".

I stick by my opinion. If ever asked why they must tuck in there gloves (or, as someone else has brought up, their back pockets), I simply tell them it is for their benefit. If they are tagged on their gloves/pockets, they are out. The batter gives no argument, case closed, everyone his happy. Play on!

[GarthB]

"It's also for style points as well."

I've alwasy been curious, exactly who awards these points? Is the criteria published somewhere? Is there a a commiteee of junior rats or girl friends or fashion designers somewhere who rule on whether one player gets 12 style points while a teammate gets only 9?

And what's the prize for the most style points? A keg? A date? An "A" on the next Psych 101 "Look at Me, Look at Me" quiz?


[Edited by GarthB on Apr 21st, 2005 at 01:30 PM]

[scyguy]

nice try jcone.

[mick]

Originally posted by GarthB

Peter:

You left off your other point:

And it's a conspiracy by the "big dogs" to keep the "small dogs" in their place.

Garth,
How does this apply to what Peter wrote?
Thanks.
mick

[mcrowder]

My only comment on this is that if I was playing, and an umpire actually told me that, I'd be SURE to tug them and say, "Sorry bout that, sir", as I know this umpire is a 3rd degree OOO, and even the slightest nothing is going to set this guy against me. It's hard enough to get on base without pissing off the umpire, right?

If my PU told me, as BU, that he'd had to warn a player about this, though, I'm sure my comment would be, "You did WHAT?!?! You're kidding, right?"

[GarthB]

Originally posted by mick

Garth,
How does this apply to what Peter wrote?
Thanks.
mick

For you, it doesn't. For Peter and I, who have bantered, mostly in a friendly way, back and forth for almost eight years now, it applies to everything.

[Tim C]

So mick, are we a little short on the humor meter today?

Refer to HHH's latest article on the PAID PORTION OF THIS SITE where Garth and trs trly are listed by name.

[mick]

Originally posted by Tim C
So mick, are we a little short on the humor meter today?

Refer to HHH's latest article on the PAID PORTION OF THIS SITE where Garth and trs trly are listed by name.

Tim C,
Nope. didn't think I was short that. Probably just short of wit.

So, are you saying that Garth is saying that Peter is saying that a Big Dog will tell a little dog that hanging 10 outa the pocket is a bad thing, but then the Big Dog will then make fun of the little dog for making the batter tuck them in?

BTW, I enjoyed your "Yeah, I'm a Big Dog . . . right!" thread.
mick