Deliberately removing glove

[Daryl H. Long]

Had this in a high school game last Friday.

First batter in top of 5th inning hits a screamer back toward pitcher who lunges toward first base line and snags the ball off the first bounce. He runs a few steps toward first and instead of taking the ball out of the mitt and throwing to the F3 who is covering first the pitcher deliberately removes his glove and throws it to F3.

I awarded the batter 2nd base (per 8-3-3b ie thrown ball touching detached player equip). Luckily the home team was ahead 10-0 so the only argument we got was they can do it in the major leagues.

OBR has specific language which deals with mitts coming off due to the force of a hit and so is not detached player equipment but neither OBR nor NF has such language about deliberately removing mitt with ball in it.

I have read everything in NF rule book dealing with detached player equip; NF 8-3-3, NF Rule 5 and table, etc and really find no support/non-support for my ruling.

In retrospect, just thinking of the philosophy of the game and the spirit and intent of rules and why penalties are given to remedy a situation I think I may in future just take the result of the play. I can not see how the batter was HARMED or put at a Disadvantage when the pitcher threw mitt with ball in it to retire the runner.

Your thoughts would be appreciated for both OBR and NF.

[cowbyfan1]

I would say you are right in giving the award. How do you know if the ball is really stuck or not? If he is tossing the entire thing then logic says the ball got stuck.

[UmpJM]

Daryl,

The most relevant thing I have been able to find in regards to your situation is the following from the MLBUM:

"The new interpretation goes on to emphasize that a ball stuck in a fielder's glove is not to be considered out of play; the ball remains live. It is legal for one fielder to throw the glove with a live ball stuck in it to another fielder. A fielder who possesses the ball/glove combination in his own hand or glove can complete a tag of a runner or base, just as if he were holding only the
ball."

It was not clear to me from your post whether or not the ball had become "stuck" in the pitcher's glove, but it certainly seems plausible that it had.

Obviously, this is an OBR rather than FED interpretation. There may be a FED principle that would render this OBR ruling moot; I honestly don't know. Absent any such principle, I would follow the OBR precedent.

JM

[Daryl H. Long]

CoachJM

Immediately after the play was over I called time and awarded the batter the bases. The pitcher claimed the ball was stuck but when I had first baseman open up the pitcher's mitt it was not stuck.

Maybe it was stuck but I am only saying that upon inspection it was not stuck. No evidence to suport pitcher's claim.

(I liken it to the following situation: Long fly ball hit to outfield fence. F9 raises hand that ball is stuck in the fence. Batter runs the bases for inside the park home run. Base umpire hustles out to inspect but when he gets there the ball is laying on the ground and easily picked up. Unfortunately play stands and umpire cannot invoke lodged ball rule.)

[UmpJM]

Daryl,

I guess the way I look at it is that I would be inclined to not award bases to the offense, even if the ball was not stuck in the pitcher's glove.

As I understand the rules regarding illegal use of detached equipment, they penalize the defense for such use in gaining posession of the ball. Doing so is explicitly attempting to gain an advantage not intended by the spirit of the rules. Once the defense has gained posession of the ball, they are actually disadvantaging themselves if they choose to transfer posession of the ball by throwing the mitt holding the ball rather than just the ball itself (assuming it's not "stuck" in the mitt). So, I don't see how it's appropriate to "reward" the defense with base award(s).

However, if I thought the defensive player was "showing up" his opponents in throwing the glove, I would have no qualms about deeming this "unsportsmanlike conduct". Absent any indications of "hot-dogging", I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense that the ball was stuck at the time the player started to remove his glove, even if the ball was "loose" in the mitt after the play.

JMO.

JM

[Daryl H. Long]

The last sentence in my original post indicated I am leaning toward not awarding bases but not entirely sure my ruling was wrong.

Yes, 8-3-3 is clear about gaining possession using detacted player equipment. I am struggling with no specific rule which addresses what to do after possession and the ball is in contact with or lodged in detached player equipment because the player deliberately removed such equipment.

I am looking for specific rule references to this fact not just philosophy.

In the absence of specific rule prohibiting the action I must rule the batter-runner out per Rule 2-24-1, 2-24-4, or 2-24-5.

[ozzy6900]

Under FED, the ball is dead and there is a 1 base award. The FED disagrees with the MLBUM in allowing F1 to throw the mitt to F3. If F1 removes the glove to throw it, we are to assume that the ball is stuck and kill the play. We had to go over this in detail before the start of the HS season.

[Thom Coste]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
Under FED, the ball is dead and there is a 1 base award. The FED disagrees with the MLBUM in allowing F1 to throw the mitt to F3. If F1 removes the glove to throw it, we are to assume that the ball is stuck and kill the play. We had to go over this in detail before the start of the HS season.

...except that it is a two base award. Here is the 2005 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretation from the website:

SITUATION 6: B1 hits a slow roller down the first-base line. F1 rushes over to field the ball, but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes his glove with the ball still in it, and shovels the glove to the first baseman, who is in contact with the base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it just before B1 touches the base. RULING: When F1 removes his glove with the ball lodged in it and shoveled it to the first baseman, the umpire should declare “Time,” and award all runners, including the batter-runner, two bases. This is a ball that is lodged in a player’s equipment. (2-9-1, 8-3-3c, 5-1-1f-5)

[bigwes68]

Originally posted by Thom Coste

...except that it is a two base award. Here is the 2005 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretation from the website:

SITUATION 6: B1 hits a slow roller down the first-base line. F1 rushes over to field the ball, but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes his glove with the ball still in it, and shovels the glove to the first baseman, who is in contact with the base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it just before B1 touches the base. RULING: When F1 removes his glove with the ball lodged in it and shoveled it to the first baseman, the umpire should declare “Time,” and award all runners, including the batter-runner, two bases. This is a ball that is lodged in a player’s equipment. (2-9-1, 8-3-3c, 5-1-1f-5)

Even though I would be bound to call it this way if it happened in a game, I think this is the stupidest rule I've ever seen. It seems like you're penalizing the defense for something that's not completely their fault and a pitcher (or whoever) for making a tremendous play, and you're rewarding the offense for basically nothing.

[akalsey]

On the other hand, you're also preventing the offense from taking advantage of a lodged ball. The rules have you kill the play so that other runners aren't able to advance while the defense is trying to figure out how to get the ball dislodged. The base award isn't there to penalize the defense, it's to ensure that the offense attains extra bases as a counterbalance to the advantage the defense may receive as a result of killing the play.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Thom Coste

...except that it is a two base award. Here is the 2005 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretation from the website:

SITUATION 6: B1 hits a slow roller down the first-base line. F1 rushes over to field the ball, but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes his glove with the ball still in it, and shovels the glove to the first baseman, who is in contact with the base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it just before B1 touches the base. RULING: When F1 removes his glove with the ball lodged in it and shoveled it to the first baseman, the umpire should declare “Time,” and award all runners, including the batter-runner, two bases. This is a ball that is lodged in a player’s equipment. (2-9-1, 8-3-3c, 5-1-1f-5)

I knew I had read the play somewhere. I printed out the Fed 2005 interpretations way back in March. I went back through previous casebooks and never thought to reread the 2005 interps again.

While the FED interp shows I got the play right I think they need to readdress the rule to include the 'ball stuck in mitt' language that OBR has adopted.

Rereading the rules that were cited to prove the ruling one can readily see that it is a stretch to say the least.

5-1-1f-5 Does anyone on this cite really think this rule includes the mitt? I said earlier the purpose of the mitt is to secure the ball (lodge ball it in). Even interp says that the ball does not dead until the equipment becomes detached. Dead ball immediately.

8-3-3 penalty for detached player equipment is a Delayed dead ball 8-3-4) and is a form of obstruction (see also 5-2-b). All the examples cited by the rule only involve trying to gain posession or trying to prevent the ball from going farther by touchig it with the detatched equip.

I agree with Akelsey on the reason why we kill the play. The rules are written in an effort to balance offense and defense. 2 bases seem to be extreme for the case although it is consistent with the ground rule double.

A one base award to batter and runners (whether forced or not) seems appropriate. That would make it consistent with all other obstruction awards. One base minimum and then additional bases which in umpires judgement would nullify the act.

[thumpferee]

FED needs to wake up!

IMO there is no way this sitch is the same as a batted ball bouncing over the CF fence, or a thrown ball going into DB territory.

The fielder made a play where the BR would have been out, but because the ball got lodged in his glove, we now award all runners 2 bases when there is no way in he!! they would have got them otherwise!

Is FED really trying to distiguish themselves to that extent?

[DG]

Fed is pretty clear on this. If you throw the glove to make a play, the ball was lodged, whether it actually was or not. 2 Base award. In OBR you can throw a glove with ball in it to make a play. Clearly, FED does not want gloves being thrown around.