3 Base Award?

[mcrowder]

I guess, depending on who is asked... everyone is right... and wrong.

I spoke with the Texas rules guy last night - and was told the 3-base award referred to using a glove that was illegal for the purpose of fielding a ball, and that the penalty for having an illegally colored glove is "fix it", even if said glove is used to field a ball.

Having read the response from Tee above, I've left an additional voicemail with him to ask him to consult his higher ups, as there is obviously contradictory information being spread by different FED guys.

[Rich Ives]

Ok, so far I've seen reports from NJ, TX, and GA that say their interpreter says it should not be a 3 base award and one from FED that says it should be.

Maybe FED should check for reaction with the state guys and clear the matter up before some umpire gets killed for enforcing it.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Ok, so far I've seen reports from NJ, TX, and GA that say their interpreter says it should not be a 3 base award and one from FED that says it should be.

Maybe FED should check for reaction with the state guys and clear the matter up before some umpire gets killed for enforcing it.

Maybe we should just enforce the stupid thing as written and tell the coaches "If you don't like it, contact your State Representitive. It's not our fault - chief!"

[mcrowder]

Those of us not making this a 3-base award feel like we ARE calling it as written, and that the other faction is mixing two rules that were not meant to be mixed.

You're in essence telling me to call this in opposition to my state guy, and then tell a coach that complains to contact said state guy, and which point state guy agrees with the coach and wonders why the hell I can't understand simple instructions from him, especially in light of a specific phone call.

Hmm.

Can you say Career Limiting Decision?

[Tim C]

I don't think I am missing a point but there appears to be the following disconnect:

1) An umpire working a game sanctioned by the NFHS has every right to tell a pitcher that his glove is illegal because it has white/grey laces, white/grey piping or "one thread" of white/grey in the logo. That all seems clear. It also seems clear that FED even endorses handing a "Sharpie" to the pitcher and tell him to color in the greatly offending white/grey areas. It also seems quite clear that the umpire can simply tell the pitcher that the glove is illegal and cannot be worn in the current condition.

2) So a pitcher can select to wear an illegal glove, change gloves to another glve that is legal, or make editorial changes to his glove to make it conform.

3) If the umpire either does not notice the das"turd"ly glove that is in violation or does not require any tailoring to the offensive "defensive weapon" then the pitcher has opened himself up to the penalty phase of the trial.

4) When a ball is fielded by a pitcher with an illegal glove "2003 Situtaion 14" clearly has esablished precedence that the play is illegal and the penalty phase is death (well three base award)and that ruling has never been challenged to the best of my memory.

5) Since Smitty did not fix the issue when he could have we now default to the 2003 ruling and after the award all he11 will break lose.

Soooo, for this discusion let's assume that McNeely is correct, an umpire should just be a traffic cop and ALWAYS check the pitcher's glove, not allow "one thread" of white, and circumvent the enitre issue.

I can't wait until tomorrow night when I get to tell 11 head coaches that we will be training our umpires from this day forward to check and deem legal (or illegal) each glove a pitcher may wear.

Stay tuned, this is gonna get to be fun.

As one of my best friend umpires just e-mailed me:

"FED has proven again that they are among the dumbest people on earth."

Can't really argue that right now.

I have sent a formal question to Eliot Hopkins.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Those of us not making this a 3-base award feel like we ARE calling it as written, and that the other faction is mixing two rules that were not meant to be mixed.

What two rules do you think are being mixed?

[Rich]

Originally posted by Tim C
My original e-mail did detail those exact two questions.

I am constantly being referenced to the 2003 Situation 14 as discussed by both Bob Jenkins and Luke. The National Federation of High Schools does not consider a pitcher who fields a ball after pitching with an illegal glove to be anything but a "continuation of being a pitcher" for this specific example.

I am not, in any way, defending the ruling or the NFHS on this specific issue. I am simply saying, as PWL intoned earlier, I will check gloves and not allow them to be used if there is "one thread" of white showing.

It appears that this is what "the client" wants.

My client is the state office, not the NFHS.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

What two rules do you think are being mixed?

One rule tells us what to do when a fielder fields a ball with an illegal glove.

The other rule tells us that a certain minor stitching problem is illegal for pitching only, and that the penalty for pitching with it is "fix it".

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but common sense tells me that despite a 2003 ruling to the contrary, the rule writers did not intend for these two to go hand in hand. The penalty (3 bases) doesn't fit the crime.

I'll be honest. Absent that 2003 ruling, I'd dismiss this as buffoonery - the glove with the offensive thread is illegal because it (supposedly) is distracting to a batter, and our remedy is the multipurpose Sharpie ... and it's illegal to PITCH with for that reason (distraction), while the penalty for fielding a ball with a glove that is too big, has 8 fingers, and is covered with glue SHOULD be a serious base-award. But I see no benefit in fielding a ball with a glove that was possibly previously distracting to the batter.

Logically the two don't combine.

Except for that 2003 ruling and nothing (other than word of mouth from my boss's boss's boss) tells me the 2003 ruling should be cast aside.

A pickle, I say.

[Tim C]

Rich wrote:

"My client is the state office, not the NFHS."

I agree that there can be separate rulings for this in different states. I have asked my State Rules Interpreter for a direct and concise answer.

We have seen that a minimum of three states have decided that it is NOT a three base award.

Now, how do you get the information in Wisconsin? Will it be consistent within nothing more than your state?

I am sure that each state puts a different value on the "how" they determine a FED ruling . . . you are in a state that is not dominated by local associations so will this issue be handled consistently in your state?

Thanks,

[David B]

Originally posted by Tim C
I just received the following e-mail from Kyle McNeely:

-----------------------------------------

"Tim, there are now three things that make a pitcher's glove illegal. Illegal means it is subject to the awards provided for one using an illegal glove/detached equipment; three bases when used on a batted ball and two on a thrown ball. (Doesn't mean when the catcher throws the ball back!)

"As you know:

"1) Glove having a tackified surface or having an illegal substance put on the glove.
2) Does not meet the size specifications per the rule.
3) Has any (even one thread) of white and/or gray on the glove.

"This last part is easily corrected by Sharpie pens. The illegal glove would need to be replaced until the situation could be corrected. We could do that at any time.

"We would only award bases if the illegal glove was discovered after it was used during play when the ball was batted or thrown.

"Hope it helps.

k"

------------------------------------------

So it appears that, in fact, a three base award would be the correct penalty in the eyes of FED.

If you do not like this ruling please refer to this year's Point of Emphasis concerning "The Umpire" . . .

I personally do not like the interpretation. As soon as I receive a second confirmation that this is, indeed, what the NFHS wants I will call it as they see it.

Unlike some, I will check pitcher's gloves at every stop and deem illegal any glove that has white/grey lacing, white/grey piping or white/grey logo. I will do this until my local area tells me to do otherwise.

I agree with Tim, a very strange interpretation.

As often when dealing with FED, make me wonder what in the world they are trying to accomplish.

But as Tim states, if that's what they want, that's what I'll call until it changes.

Thansk
David

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL

They were unaware of some other rule changes. The head coach and team captains having to be at the pregame.

I just wanted to remind you that the team captains may attend the plate conference, but they're not required.


"SITUATION 4: As the umpires gather at home plate for the pregame conference, the head coach of the visiting team is present, but the head coach of the home team refuses to attend, stating he is busy with last minute preparations. He sends his assistant coach and a team captain to represent his team at the conference. RULING: The pregame conference will not take place until both head coaches are in attendance. Only if the head coach is absent or ill may the assistant coach attend on his behalf. Team captains, while not required, may attend the pregame conference. (4-1-3)


Tim.

[fmsc]

I just got a response from our state office (SCHSL). No 3 base award, correct glove.

[DG]

I have received a response for my association, which I assume means my state since it took 10 days to get a ruling - 3 base award if pitcher fields a batted ball with an illegal glove.

So I guess I will go on defensive and check all pitcher's gloves so I don't have to make this call.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
I have received a response for my association, which I assume means my state since it took 10 days to get a ruling - 3 base award if pitcher fields a batted ball with an illegal glove.

So I guess I will go on defensive and check all pitcher's gloves so I don't have to make this call.

DG -- what state was this? Thanks

[Tim C]

PWL wrote:

"They were saying team captains were to be at the plate conference in our earlier association meetings. Maybe it is a state to state thing."

1- There is no requirement that a team captain be named by any team. What would your group do then?

2- Team Captain is also the starting pitcher . . . whould your umpire group actually force him to quit warming up, therefore risking career ending injury, to go to a meeting that the rule clearly says, "may attend"?

Just wondering?????