3 Base Award?

[LDUB]

Originally posted by mcrowder

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY!!!

What more do you want to overturn some vaguely referred to interp from 2 years ago?

Did you read the play? The pitcher did not field a batted ball. Of course there is no additional penalty. I would like a play which addresses a pitcher fielding a batted ball with an illegal glove.

[Tim C]

Luke:

A question followed by my answer:

In a "big boy" game have you ever seen pitcher field a ball while in contact (with his original contact) of the pitcher's plate?

I mean even the hardest, fastest line drive back to F1 would get there after his forward momentum moved him off the pitcher's plate.

So if a glove with "white threads" is legal for all infielders (given: not for pitcher's while in contact with the pitcher's plate) why would there be a special penalty for a player that started the play as a pitcher but is actually an infielder when the play is made?

With all respect to Bob Jenkins this is the problem we run into when umpires subscribe to the "string theory" (the combining of several rules to come to an endall answer, first developed by Nick Bremigan and now strongly related to Rick Roder) to come to answers.

If an umpire can't win (whichever decision we make appears to be wrong) . . . which would be more equatable and more along the intent of the rule:

1) Give a three base award on a ball hit back to the pitcher that is fielded or,

2) Make the pitcher either color in the greatly offensive white threads or rub dirt on them?

I can defend #2 easily . . . #1 makes me scratch my head.

Remember what I said initially:

The white on the glove is a "distraction" not an additive way to make a play. We need a case of common sense here -- even if FED failed to use that same common sense I am asking for us to use.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Tim C
Luke:

A question followed by my answer:

In a "big boy" game have you ever seen pitcher field a ball while in contact (with his original contact) of the pitcher's plate?

I mean even the hardest, fastest line drive back to F1 would get there after his forward momentum moved him off the pitcher's plate.

So if a glove with "white threads" is legal for all infielders (given: not for pitcher's while in contact with the pitcher's plate) why would there be a special penalty for a player that started the play as a pitcher but is actually an infielder when the play is made?

With all respect to Bob Jenkins this is the problem we run into when umpires subscribe to the "string theory" (the combining of several rules to come to an endall answer, first developed by Nick Bremigan and now strongly related to Rick Roder) to come to answers.

If an umpire can't win (whichever decision we make appears to be wrong) . . . which would be more equatable and more along the intent of the rule:

1) Give a three base award on a ball hit back to the pitcher that is fielded or,

2) Make the pitcher either color in the greatly offensive white threads or rub dirt on them?

I can defend #2 easily . . . #1 makes me scratch my head.

Remember what I said initially:

The white on the glove is a "distraction" not an additive way to make a play. We need a case of common sense here -- even if FED failed to use that same common sense I am asking for us to use.

I agree that #1 makes more sense, and would be a lot easier to sell. I also think there should be some some sort of difference between a glove which is illegal because it is too large and a glove which is illegal because of its color, as the color does not have any effect on how the ball is fielded.

But, your theory of not enforcing the base award because F1 was not touching the plate when he fielded the ball is not correct, shown by this interp from 2003.

"SITUATION 14: The pitcher is wearing a red, white, and blue fielding glove. In the second inning, the batter hits a line drive that is caught by the pitcher. RULING: This is an illegal glove for the pitcher to use. The out is cancelled and the batter is awarded third base. Had the pitcher been told prior to the catch, all he would have needed to do is replace the glove with a legal one. (1-3-5, 1-4-3, 6-2-1-h penalty, 8-3-3b)"

This situation is almost exactly the same as the one we are discussing. Unless there is some other ruling that I am missing, I don't see how this ruling should not be enforced.

[Rich Ives]

Luke - that was 2003, this is 2006.

At one time it was 5 strikes and 9 balls too.

Things change.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Luke - that was 2003, this is 2006.

At one time it was 5 strikes and 9 balls too.

Things change.

Last time I checked the rule book said 3 strikes. I don't see anything which would make this ruling no longer valid. If you have it, then please post it.

[DG]

A glove worn by a pitcher is an illegal glove, by definition, if it has any white on it.

An illegal glove that touches a batted ball is a 3 base award.

The penalty for a pitcher who throws a pitch, but does not field a ground ball afterwards, while wearing an illegal glove is to remove it. That is the only penalty.

Bottom of 7th no outs, starting pitcher walks the first batter and coach makes a pitching change. First pitch is bunted back to the pitcher to move the runner into scoring position. Offesnive comes out with the white on glove complaint because the pitcher did not quite cover up all the white surrounding the Rawlings R. Does the FED really want us to end the game by awarding 3 bases to the batter and the runner on 2b? I doubt it, but who knows.

I have asked for an official interpretation from my association's interpreter because absent that this ia 3 base award, by rule. I can't believe FED would want to turn umpires into white letter policeman to ensure they don't miss one and get caught into a this situation.

[Edited by DG on Feb 13th, 2006 at 11:23 PM]

[Mike Walsh]

Originally posted by DG


I have asked for an official interpretation from my association's interpreter because absent that this ia 3 base award, by rule. I can't believe FED would want to turn umpires into white letter policeman to ensure they don't miss one and get caught into a this situation.

[Edited by DG on Feb 13th, 2006 at 11:23 PM]

My association had a meetng last night and our interpreter brought this up. He said he went to the state's (NJ) interpreter and was told that the only thing you do is fix or remove the glove, with no base awards. That settles it for me, anyway.

Mike

[DG]

Originally posted by Mike Walsh

My association had a meetng last night and our interpreter brought this up. He said he went to the state's (NJ) interpreter and was told that the only thing you do is fix or remove the glove, with no base awards. That settles it for me, anyway.

Mike

Sensible. I hope my state does likewise.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by LDUB
But, your theory of not enforcing the base award because F1 was not touching the plate when he fielded the ball is not correct, shown by this interp from 2003.

"SITUATION 14: The pitcher is wearing a red, white, and blue fielding glove. In the second inning, the batter hits a line drive that is caught by the pitcher. RULING: This is an illegal glove for the pitcher to use. The out is cancelled and the batter is awarded third base. Had the pitcher been told prior to the catch, all he would have needed to do is replace the glove with a legal one. (1-3-5, 1-4-3, 6-2-1-h penalty, 8-3-3b)"

This situation is almost exactly the same as the one we are discussing. Unless there is some other ruling that I am missing, I don't see how this ruling should not be enforced.

To add to this ...

The wording / organization of the rule in 2003 was nearly the same as it is now. That is, it specified that a glove was illegal if it had a tacky substance added, was too large, or , for the pitcher was multi-colored.

They've changed the 'multi-colored" part, of course.

So, does the ruling still apply? If FED issues an interp in one year, but does not put it in the book the next year, is the interp still valid? IF FED wants to change / negate an interp, shouldn't they issue a contrary opinion (e.g., the same play with the notation, "this is legal")?

[Tim C]

Bob your points are correct and well thought out.

I have sent an e-mail to Kyle McNeely (the same Kyle McNeely that WWTB does not accept as an official FED mouthpiece) asking for a clarification.

In Oregon we have ruled that the glove may be considered illegal but does not carry the three base award.

We sometimes try to "fill in the blanks" when the NFHS is unclear as long as the refinement of the rule does not concern player safety.

I will post if Kyle returns my e-mail.

[BretMan]

For what it's worth, I presented this question to my local association's rule interpreter last night.

The answer I got: NO three base award.

My state meeting isn't for another two weeks. We'll see if we're given the same interp.

[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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

You need to ask two more things.

1) Why does the interp regarding white/gray say "There is no additional penalty" if, in fact, there are others?

and

2) If the pitcher has the status of an infielder when fielding, why isn't the glove then legal as there are no color restrictions on fielder's gloves?

[BigUmp56]

Believe me when I say that Kyle is suffieciently intelligent and experienced enough to have taken those things into consideration before he responded.


Tim.

[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.