I have a pair of gloves I keep in my back pockets when I bat. Is it right to have the umpire to tell me to tuck them in?

gruberted,
Allowable equipment should be worn properly.
Back pockets are not the customary place for gloves.

If, when at bat, your gloves are hit by pitch, please continue at bat, because your improper equipment was all that was hit, much like an untucked jersey.

Similarly, if you are are tagged on your gloves or your untucked jersey, please head to the dugout.

If you simply put the gloves in your pocket, this all goes away.

Have a good game. ;)
mick

gruberted,

Being a feeble-minded coach, I am incapable of discerning any moral dimension in your question. But, if the umpire so instructs you, <b>just do it</b>! Trust me on this.

In case no one ever explained this to you, those are typically worn on your <b>hands</b> when batting, and placed in your pockets at other times.

Thank you for your entertaining post.

JM

The hecklers at the college games in my town have this to say when an opposing player comes to the plate with batting gloves hanging out of their pockets:

THERE'S A MAN CRAWLING OUT OF YOUR PANTS!

Funny stuff.

My favorite is the sign that reads:

Dear Mom,
Be home soon. Can't throw strikes. Going to lose my scholarship.
Love,
[ pitchers name ]

Sorry for getting so off topic :)

[Edited by moorg on Apr 21st, 2005 at 08:43 AM]

Nope,
 

"Being a feeble-minded coach . . . "

And I do not believe ANY part of that statement.

As a former college player, I know exactly why you want to keep them dangling out of your pockets. The gloves are sweaty and dangling them out allows the gloves to blow in the breeze and air out. It also gets you style points and that is important for a young person :D

However, some umpires have nothing better to do than go on a power trip. It is best to indulge them in their fantasies and tuck the gloves in immediatley upon request. Failure to immediately indulge a certain type of umpire on a power trip might result in your strike zone being larger.

Many players give the gloves to the base coach after they get on base. This keeps them out of their pockets where they might rot in all of the dampness.

Peter

Peter,
Gruberted puts his on <U>after</U> he gets on base
[<I>ala Willie Mays Hayes, sliding gloves</I>].

Or, he just keeps 'em in his pocket. ;)

mick

it is right and proper for the umpire to tell you anything :)

Ive told pitchers to remove dangling batting gloves from their back pockets, but I could care less if any other position does that.

[Edited by LMan on Apr 21st, 2005 at 10:36 AM]

Who cares???? If he wants to wear them or put them in his pocket. Why would an umpire say anything to the batter about his batting gloves? Is there somewhere in the rulebook that prohibits this?

Mick, you are right. If the gloves are HBP then we stay here. If he is tagged on gloves, he is out. That is the end of it.

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.

The thing is I have two pairs one for batting and another for base running. It's also for style points as well. Is there an official rule though?

Yes, the official rule is that you have too many pairs of gloves. I'm not sure how having something black hanging from your butt adds style, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Seriously, though. There's no specific rule against it, but is this a battle you really want to fight with the umpire? Put them all the way in your pocket and bat.

Who cares if there is? What, are you going to tell the umpire "You can't make me -- there's no such rule?"

And the umpire, in all codes, has authority to rule on anything not covered in the rules. So if you need a rule, that's the one.

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.

Alright thats all I needed to know. But what about the pockets players hang out now?

Same thing?

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)

"<b>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. <i>Each umpire has authority to order a player, coach, manager or club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything</i> which affects the administering of these rules, and to enforce the prescribed penalties. (c) <i>Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.</i></b>"

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

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

silent?? ;)

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?

Next line should be:

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

Peter:

You left off your other point:

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

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?

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!

<b>"It's also for style points as well."</b>

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]

nice try jcone.

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

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?"

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. :D

Well,
 

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.

Re: Well,
 

Tim C,
Nope. didn't think I was short that. Probably just short of wit.http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/conf44.gif

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

Only joking

cool.

Re: Re: Well,
 

Not quite. Garth is saying that Peter most often seems to claim that a big dog's intent, with almost everything he does, is aimed at keeping the small dogs, small dogs. Sorry if the reference is too personal for you to get.

[Edited by GarthB on Apr 21st, 2005 at 05:32 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

Thanks, Garth.
No need to apologize for the "too personal" part.
I'm just a visitor on your site trying to "git it". :)
mick

Why?......
 

And I quote from Caddyshack

Judge Smaels, addressing a group of members
playing cards in the club's locker room:

Don't you have homes!?