NFHS Interp. 2, Questions 1 & 3

nickrego · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 02:24am

I see a problem here...

2006 Interpretation #2 States:
S1 comes in to pitch for the starting pitcher. As S1 begins his warm-up pitches, the opposing coach complains that his red and blue glove is illegal and must be removed. RULING: The glove is legal as long as it does not contain the colors white and/or gray. If the plate umpire determines that the glove is distracting, the pitcher would be required to change it. (1-3-6, 6-2-1h)

Rule 1-3-6 States: ..."The Glove/Mitt worn by the Pitcher shall be UNIFORM in color"...

Rule 6-2-1h States:...Illegal acts include: "h) wearing a glove/mitt that is white, gray or MULTI-COLORED ."

So everywhere in the rule book, quoted in the interpretation, says a MULTI-COLORED Glove is ILLEGAL !

Yet the interpretation says a Red & Blue glove is Legal ???? Last time I checked, a Red & Blue glove was multi-colored. i.e., two colors. I believe 2 qualifies for MULTI, and does not qualify as UNIFORM.

So, since Test Questions 1 & 3 deal directly with the Multi-Colored glove issue, and since the Interpretation is in direct conflict with the Rules, how do you answer ?

Based on the Rules, or based on the Interpretation ?

Did I ever tell you the NFHS Rules Committe is less than capable of doing it's job ? Well, it is ! They should try reading the rules, prior to writing an interpretation. Or better yet, change the rule so you don't need an interpretation. Or even, just simply follow the rules as written. Whoa...What a concept !

Rich · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 05:47am

Quote:

Originally posted by nickrego
I see a problem here...

2006 Interpretation #2 States:
S1 comes in to pitch for the starting pitcher. As S1 begins his warm-up pitches, the opposing coach complains that his red and blue glove is illegal and must be removed. RULING: The glove is legal as long as it does not contain the colors white and/or gray. If the plate umpire determines that the glove is distracting, the pitcher would be required to change it. (1-3-6, 6-2-1h)

Rule 1-3-6 States: ..."The Glove/Mitt worn by the Pitcher shall be UNIFORM in color"...

Rule 6-2-1h States:...Illegal acts include: "h) wearing a glove/mitt that is white, gray or MULTI-COLORED ."

So everywhere in the rule book, quoted in the interpretation, says a MULTI-COLORED Glove is ILLEGAL !

Yet the interpretation says a Red & Blue glove is Legal ???? Last time I checked, a Red & Blue glove was multi-colored. i.e., two colors. I believe 2 qualifies for MULTI, and does not qualify as UNIFORM.

So, since Test Questions 1 & 3 deal directly with the Multi-Colored glove issue, and since the Interpretation is in direct conflict with the Rules, how do you answer ?

Based on the Rules, or based on the Interpretation ?

Did I ever tell you the NFHS Rules Committe is less than capable of doing it's job ? Well, it is ! They should try reading the rules, prior to writing an interpretation. Or better yet, change the rule so you don't need an interpretation. Or even, just simply follow the rules as written. Whoa...What a concept !

Did I ever tell you that you are incapable of picking up the right year's book?

2006 rule 1-3-6 says: "The glove/mitt worn by the pitcher that includes the colors white and gray shall be illegal." 6-2-1h was changed in a similar fashion, as well.

Both the NFHS and NCAA are allowing multi-colored gloves this season. Pitchers can not wear white/gray, including the manufacturer's label (including the stitching).

nickrego · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 12:07pm

I grabbed my 2005 book.

Excuse me, I have to go wipe some egg off my face !

Sorry everyone...And NFHS Rules Committee.

BigUmp56 · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 01:17pm

I don't see how a Rawlings glove could be legal. The interpretation says the glove is illegal because "a small amount of white thread" is contained in the logo.

That would make their standard logo illegal.

Here's a link to quite a few of their gloves and by rule none of them would be legal now.

http://www.baseballsavings.com/custo...Sporting+Goods

Here's a link to Wilson gloves and as you can see quite a few of them now have yellow stitching in the logo.

http://www.ballglovewarehouse.com/pr...?search=wilson

Another manufacturer who will be having quite a few of their gloves removed is TPX.

Most of their logo's contain white thread.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 13th, 2006 at 01:28 PM]

piaa_ump · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 01:37pm

At the PA state rules meeting we were informed the following:

"The umpire is faced this season with the decision on how much of a logo that is white will be allowed on the pitchers glove. To lessen confusion due to maufacturers logos on gloves for players, regardless of the level of play, the umpire is to use his discretion in judging how much white appears on the glove.

Umpires are to use the word "sizable amount" in thier critieria when judging how much white will be allowed for a manufacturers logo.

Has anyone else gotten that direction?

Stan

BigUmp56 · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 02:41pm

I wonder if that's why they didn't start to use the yellow stitching on the Wilson. That's the glove my oldest son uses and his has yellow stitching on it. You're right, they used to be all white stitching on the gloves logo.

Tim.

largeone59 · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 02:48pm

Quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump
At the PA state rules meeting we were informed the following:

"The umpire is faced this season with the decision on how much of a logo that is white will be allowed on the pitchers glove. To lessen confusion due to maufacturers logos on gloves for players, regardless of the level of play, the umpire is to use his discretion in judging how much white appears on the glove.

Umpires are to use the word "sizable amount" in thier critieria when judging how much white will be allowed for a manufacturers logo.

Has anyone else gotten that direction?

Stan

I dunno, but i can tell you thrusday after i come back from MY piaa meeting.

Mike Walsh · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump
At the PA state rules meeting we were informed the following:

"The umpire is faced this season with the decision on how much of a logo that is white will be allowed on the pitchers glove. To lessen confusion due to maufacturers logos on gloves for players, regardless of the level of play, the umpire is to use his discretion in judging how much white appears on the glove.

Umpires are to use the word "sizable amount" in thier critieria when judging how much white will be allowed for a manufacturers logo.

Has anyone else gotten that direction?

Stan

At the NJ meeting, they told us that even a few threads meant the glove had to be replaced. Must be a geographical thing

Mike

piaa_ump · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 04:10pm

Mike,
This is where we get in a mess...........one says sizeable amount and another says zero tolerance....Fortunately we do not have a lot of cross-state line match ups to trip us up, but isnt that the reason for NFHS, to make the rules uniform in application?.......

Stan

Mike Walsh · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 04:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BigUmp56

That would make their standard logo illegal.

I think if an offensive coach complains I'll just spit on my hand, grab a little infield mix, and rub my thumb in it. Then I'll ask the pitcher for his glove, and tell the coach that it just looks like some of the kids pre-game milk might have spilled on it. I'll rub the milk off and find out that the threads are tan. Play ball.

Mike

briancurtin · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 06:37pm

there are few gloves out there that are even legal by this new rule. i just looked at 3 of my own gloves, and 6 other gloves between my roommates, and they all contain a decent amount of white in them that would have to be dealt with (if we still played in high school).

Macaroo · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2006, 11:36pm

A Sharpie will do the trick here.

WhatWuzThatBlue · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2006, 04:41am

Had to pee...couldn't sleep, so I checked in to the ol' board to see what's shakin'.

Do you ever wonder why I say that the NFHS Rules people are in self perpetuating jobs. Apparently the equipment people didn't cough up enough coin for Hopkins' liking. Next year they will have a clarification and in 2008 we'll see a different ruling about logos and white altogether.

If I'm on the field and one of the coaches from the opposition is complaining about a little white being visible, I'm likely to see that every kid on his squad is compliant in uniform and equipment. I can't imagine that any coach I'll see will question my concept of acceptable playing equipment. But if it happens, I'm now well armed.

The NFHS never ceases to amaze with their wisdom and clarity.

cowbyfan1 · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2006, 06:00am

Not going to worry about the logo unless a coach complains. Then I will break out a black marker and have the kid color it in.

WhatWuzThatBlue · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2006, 06:45am

The team has the responsibilty to ensure that everyone is properly equipped. If they want to mark up the mitt to comply, let them have at it. Unless you want to start carrying ice packs, tape and extra cups, don't provide the tools to the teams. Keep the Sharpie in your bag and save it for the groupies!