We briefly discussed the new interpretation on the color white in any form on a pitchers glove earlier in the week. I made an off-the-cuff remark about what would happen if the illegal glove was brought to our attention after the pitcher fielded a batted ball. Tee mentioned that he didn't see how it would be a problem and Bob J mentioned an older interpretation where the use of a multi-colored glove resulted in a three base award.

Common sense would say that once the pitcher disengages the rubber the restriction on the color white will no longer apply. The problem is, common sense it not always the best thing to use when making a ruling. Most of the time common sense and good judgment will suffice. Then there are those times where the letter of the rule makes the call completely cut and dry. Right now I feel this situation on the pitcher fielding a batted ball with the illegal glove falls somewhere in between the two.

Absent a definitive interpretation either way I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this.


Tim.

If there was such a thing this situation would be listed in the "More Than 100 Problems With the Official NFHS Baseball Rules". On the one hand we have a penalty for wearing an illegal glove that includes white, which is to remove it from play before the next pitch. On the other hand we have a penalty for having touched a batted ball with an illegal glove which includes awarding bases, or offense accepting the play instead.

The latest Fed Interp says (Situation 3, from the 2006 Interps) "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." But we know that FED defined a glove with white on it as illegal in 1-3-6, but the penalty for wearing an illegal glove while making a pitch is to remove it, but to use it to catch a ball requires bases to be awarded? Could this really be the FED intent? Who knows what they are thinking.

I think the appropriate thing to do is to remove the glove if it is discovered before or after a pitch. That is all.

Amen.

I feel we have more than common sense to defend not awarding 3 bases. Fed.6-5 states that "When a pitcher is attempting to field a batted ball --- , his status is that of an infielder", so I interpret that for fielding the glove is legal. Therefore, I will simply require fixing or changing the glove before the next pitch.

<i>He shows you where the pitcher used an illegal glove. You say you know your right. Now what are you going to do?</i>

Have him change the glove or cober the white. The ruling says there is no other penalty.

I also buy the <i>"When a pitcher is attempting to field a batted ball --- , his status is that of an infielder", so I interpret that for fielding the glove is legal. Therefore, I will simply require fixing or changing the glove before the next pitch.</i> argument.

Rich:

There's no additional penalty for delivering a pitch with the illegal glove. I'm still not so sure about fielding a batted ball.


Tim.

Why don't you buy into

<i>"When a pitcher is attempting to field a batted ball --- , his status is that of an infielder"</i>

An infielder doesn't have the white/gray restriction.

An "Illegal Glove" is illegal for anyone to use... thus the 3 base award for using one.

A glove that happens to have white or grey on it is not, by definition, an "Illegal Glove". It is a glove that you are not allowed to pitch with, and the penalty for pitching with is clearly identified as "Fix the glove, no other penalty." You guys are overlapping two rules that were not meant to be used together.

Since it's discussed in 1-3-6, and since that's the only place gloves are defined, it seems that it *IS*, by definition, an "illegla glove."

Quote:

It is a glove that you are not allowed to pitch with, and the penalty for pitching with is clearly identified as "Fix the glove, no other penalty." You guys are overlapping two rules that were not meant to be used together.

There's only one rule. THe first part ("adhesiv, sticky, tacky surface" and the last part (the size parameters) clearly describe what's legal and not. Why wouldn't the middle part (white or gray for a pitcher) also describe that?

(Please note that I agree with you that it *shouldn't* be this way -- it's a pitching restriction, not a fielding restriction. But, the wording / arrangement of the rule could be used to support the base award.)

It may be illegal but just what part of "there is no other penalty" is so hard to inderstand?

What part of "when fielding a batted ball he has the status of an infielder" (with no color restrictions) is so hard to understand?

You can wordsmith this to pieces if you choose. It is OBVIOUS, both from common sense and from the descriptions in the "Ruling" that the powers that be did not intend for a glove that illegal to pitch with necessarily be illegal to field with, and they did not intend the penalties to be the same.

If you feel you need to use lawyerese here, then YES, the rule was worded poorly - perhaps even stupidly. But the ruling clears up their intent, and gives us (the umpires with common sense) the backing needed to stand up to protest should you come across a lawyer coach.

Use your brain, folks. If they intended what you say they intended, they would not have worded the ruling the way they did. We're hired to be smart enough to know the difference.

It works for me. I'd much rather argue with a coach who wants 3 bases he ain't gonna get that argue with one who can't understand why I'd award 3 becasue of a few white threads. Who do you think is gonna be madder?

Mike

Sometimes you just have to look at the intent of the rule.

I swear I read an interp that said fielding a batted ball with a glove which is illegal results in a three base award. I wish I could find this play, but I cannot. It is no longer on the NF site, and I can't find it using Google.

I did come up with this thread from 2004. Check out the posts at the top from Rich and Bob Jenkins. They support the fact that there was an interpretation that said there is a 3 base award for this infraction. Unless there is a new interp which overrules this one I don't see how one cannot enforce the 3 base award.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/12862

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY!!!

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