FED reasoning

[BigUmp56]

PWL and I are actually in agreement. Will wonders never cease.
I agree that the wording will most likely be changed. I know of a few states that say to award the three bases, and most others that do not. This causes a dilema on these forums when we're all getting different directives from our local or state interpreters.


Tim.

[DG]

Originally posted by PWL
I would bet dollars to donuts the wording on this rule/ruling is changed next year. This is the main reason I don't require anyone to black out their glove with a Sharpie. Why mess up a $200.00 glove when by some rule interpretations it is legal and some it is not.

If I were a HS pitcher, and my coach explained the rule and the possible penalty to me, I would not think twice about taking a Sharpie to the white around the logo of my glove. I might not use black, any color other that white or grey would do. And doing so would not mess up the glove. It will still be highly functional.

[D-Man]

Originally posted by LDUB

In 2003 there was an interpretation in which the pitcher fielded a batted ball with a then illegal multi-colored glove. The penalty was listed as a 3 base award. Obviously the Federation does approve of awarding bases when illegally colored gloves are used for fieldeing balls.

If the 2003 interpretation is true, this rule is clearly not written in the spirit of fair play. The "why is white (or gray) distracting?" debate goes nowhere. Everyone has an opinion and mine is this. Uniforms can be white and/or gray. What does a little white on the glove do in an advantage/disadvantage situation. Unless there is a big, white ball shaped design on the back of a glove, I can see no possibility for sufficient distraction to cause a disadvantage to the batter. If a bat that constantly marks the ball is deemed to be removed, we don't apply the illegal bat penalty. If a pitcher wearing a white batting glove under his fielding glove makes a catch, we don't apply the illegal glove penalty. What's the difference? I am a big proponent of most of the NFHS rules. I normally do what B.E. Hopkins and my state interpreter say. Like I said before, I believe by not awarding bases for contacting a batted or thrown ball an umpire should still be able to win a protest based on the sheer absurdity of the rule. This isn't purely opinion, it's fact backed up by nearly every post and verbal reaction to hearing the rule. Technically, if a catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher (with an "illegal" glove) with runners on base, we can award each runner two bases, so long as the ball is live.

Dead ball balks...maybe NFHS thinks that saves lives, I can get behind that.

FPSR...real good, kids have futures, amateurs have day jobs

DH for any fielder...I like that too, and the rule is easy.

White on the glove??? Flourescent pink is way more distracting...and it's legal. Why to we have to enforce NFHS's oversights?

D-MAN