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?

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.

OK,
 

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.

Re: OK,
 

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.

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.

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]

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.

Re: Re: OK,
 

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")?

Yes,
 

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.

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.

And,
 

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.

Re: And,
 

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?

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


Tim.

Rich,
 

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.

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.

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!"

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? :)

Hmmm,
 

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.

What two rules do you think are being mixed?

Re: Rich,
 

My client is the state office, not the NFHS.

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.

Hmmm,
 

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,

Re: And,
 

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

Re: What's An Ump To Do?
 

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.

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

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

Hmmm,
 

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?????

I enjoy your posts, PWL, except that at the end of each I keep seeing "Stengal" instead of "Stengel."

The Revised Rule 2-10-2 says that the pre-game conference is with the umpires, both head coaches, and the team captains (if available) near home plate. The rationale for the revision is to reinforce the importance of the head coach attending the meeting. Previously, it was either the head coach or the captain.

So, as Tee said, if the pitcher is the captain and is warming up in the bullpen, it isn't necessary to drag him over to the plate for the conference.

Hope this clears it up.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Feb 22nd, 2006 at 02:31 PM]