SITUATION 3:

With a runner on third, the defensive coach waits until the substitute pitcher has delivered a pitch for ball one to complain that the pitcher’s black and tan glove is illegal and wants a balk declared, thereby scoring his runner. The glove has a small amount of white thread in the manufacturer’s logo.

RULING:

The glove is illegal, not because it is multi-colored, but because of the white contained in the manufacturer’s logo. The pitcher must either replace the glove or darken the white threads in the logo with a dark pen that is not distracting. There is no additional penalty. (1-3-6, 6-2-1f,h Penalty)


Seems a little much for a small amount of white thread.


Tim.

I agree. I think I'll carry a sharpie for just those occasions.

hmmm,
 

I have always carried a Sharpie for my lineup card changes.

It just becomes a multiple use tool.

By making this ruling FED has given a guidleline that they will not accept white on a glove. Seems silly at first view but again follows FED thinking of making judgements a non-necessary tool for poorly trained umpires.

Re: hmmm,
 

I agree. Otherwise, we get into the arguments of "what is an acceptable amount of white?" -- Is the White Rawlings "R on a red background okay? What if it was a red "R" on a white background (about the size of a quarter)? What if part of the lace was white? ...

Also of interest, I think, are:

#10 -- a situation that has been discussed here many times. FED has chosen an answer that is contrary to other codes.

#13 -- A good clarification, imo -- especially since #12 and #13 are the same play, the ruling shows the logic and clarifies the rule.

#14 -- A rule change, but supports the unannounced significant change to case 9.1.1M. Again, FED has gone away from the other codes.

#19 -- Again, a play that has been discussed here. I'll have to check my files, but I think this is a change to a previoulsy issued interp.

The current interpretation seems to remove umpire judgment. The coach cannot tell us what is distracting, but neither can we when it comes to white on the glove. I was in a meeting this week and the NJ state rules interpreter went over this interpretation. He emphasized that we were talking about white thread, not just a big logo. Given what has been diseminated, if you told a coach that a minimum amount of white thread was not distracting, you could be creating a protestable situation. Of course, not having that option puts us in a position of being overly officious if we remove the glove. I like the idea of carrying a small sharpie; it provides a reasonable compromise.

Mike

Do the provisions of 1-4-3 apply if F1 fields a batted ball and the illegal glove is brought to the umpires attention?


Tim.

Tim,
 

I don't see how.

We are talking about a distraction . . . the glove is legal for every other position than F1.

The glove is distracting not illegal.

Re: Tim,
 

The rule states "...shall be illegal."

To me, that sounds like a 3 base award would be correct if the pitcher fielded a batted ball.

Re: Tim,
 

While I agree that *should* be the rule, it's certainly not clear, Tim.

Wasn't there an interp a couple of years ago that had a three-base award on a multi-color glove?