NFHS Interpretation #3

[BigUmp56]

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.

[2rad4u]

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

[Tim C]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Tim C
follows FED thinking of making judgements a non-necessary tool for poorly trained umpires.

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.

[Mike Walsh]

Originally posted by PWL

Generally, they are talking about a big NIKE logo on the finger of a glove for example.

A coach cannot tell you what is distracting in this situation. You are the judge.
[Edited by PWL on Feb 8th, 2006 at 02:59 PM]

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

[BigUmp56]

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 C]

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.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Tim C
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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Tim C
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.

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?