FED reasoning

[smoump]

can anyone enlighten me as to why FED changed the pitcher's glove color rule? Last year they were concerned with multi-color glove, now they want us to remove a glove that has white lettering. So, if the kid has a Rawlings glove that is blue and red, it is okay except for the Rawlings logo on the front? Why the need for the change? It seems to me that a red and blue glove would be more distracting than the fine print of the company name.

[BigUmp56]

I've never understood how a multi-colored glove could be considered disracting unless one of the colors was white or gray. I do understand how the color white can be considered distracting and the new rule on white stitching helps remove individual interpretation as to how much is distracting. Now, it's simple. Any white at all, even a little stitching is illegal.

Tim.

[Justme]

Maybe it's taking the rule to the extreme not allow a glove with the Rawlings logo on it? Our association does not go to that extreme.

[briancurtin]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
I do understand how the color white can be considered distracting and the new rule on white stitching helps remove individual interpretation as to how much is distracting.

while this is merely personal opinion and rules arent even considered in what im saying, but the white company logos have never once been a distraction to me as a batter, catcher, or umpire.

has anyone actually been distracted as a player, or umpire, by a glove that would now be considered illegal according to FED rules?

[smoump]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
I've never understood how a multi-colored glove could be considered disracting unless one of the colors was white or gray. I do understand how the color white can be considered distracting and the new rule on white stitching helps remove individual interpretation as to how much is distracting. Now, it's simple. Any white at all, even a little stitching is illegal.

Tim.

while I agree about the multi-colored glove not being a distraction, a little white logo is distracting?? If you can see the word Rawlings from behind the plate, WOW. Now I understand this is an extreme example, but are you going to go out to the pitcher at the begining of the game and ask him to remove his glove if the only white of this glove is the Rawlings logo?

[SanDiegoSteve]

I can barely read "Rawlings" on the baseball when I'm inspecting it, much less on a glove over 60 feet away!

To me, it's just another example in a long line of examples of how the FED goes just a bit overboard at times.

[phillips.alex]

just remember it is up to your discretion....in my assn, a little tiny bit of white on a company logo isn't going to get a glove removed....also, they can just color it in with a sharpie....

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by smoump
while I agree about the multi-colored glove not being a distraction, a little white logo is distracting?? If you can see the word Rawlings from behind the plate, WOW. Now I understand this is an extreme example, but are you going to go out to the pitcher at the begining of the game and ask him to remove his glove if the only white of this glove is the Rawlings logo?

Of course I don't find a little white in the logo distracting, but I do understand how quite a bit of white like a large Nike swoop could be considered distracting. That's why I feel the new rule was put in place. That is, to take out the judgment on how much is too much and just say any white is now illegal.

Originally posted by phillips.alex
just remember it is up to your discretion....in my assn, a little tiny bit of white on a company logo isn't going to get a glove removed....also, they can just color it in with a sharpie....

I don't see this as being discretionary. I think they've made it pretty clear that any white is illegal. I think it sucks, but I don't believe it can be ignored.

Here is the clarification again.


SITUATION 3:

With a runner on third, the defensive coach waits until the substitute pitcher has delivered a pitch for ball one to complain that the pitcher’s black and tan glove is illegal and wants a balk declared, thereby scoring his runner. The glove has a small amount of white thread in the manufacturer’s logo.

RULING:

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. (1-3-6, 6-2-1f,h Penalty)


Tim.

[Tim C]

Change situation #3 (as FED should have) to say:

F1 after fielding a ground ball back to the mound and he has successfully thrown the batter-runner out at first, the offensive coach points out that the pitcher's glove has white in the logo.

What is the ruling according to the NFHS?

[BigUmp56]

This also sucks, but we have direction that if we allowed the glove in the first place and the pitcher fields a batted ball with it, it's a three base award.


Tim.

[mcrowder]

And we have the opposite. Our association (Texas) points to the "there is no additional penalty" part of the similar (but not identical) caseplay, and tells us that the intended penalty for a glove that is illegal for PITCHING is "fix it or remove it", even if said glove is used for fielding. The 3-base award is (in their opinion, and thusly my opinion) intended for the use of a glove that is illegal for FIELDING purposes actually being used while fielding.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Tim C
Change situation #3 (as FED should have) to say:

F1 after fielding a ground ball back to the mound and he has successfully thrown the batter-runner out at first, the offensive coach points out that the pitcher's glove has white in the logo.

What is the ruling according to the NFHS?

According to 6-2-1(h), the prescribed penalty is still that the item must be corrected prior to the next pitch. No additional penalty.

[D-Man]

I understand NFHS's quest to eliminate all instances where an umpire must use judgment. I even agree with most of them. I can't, in my wildest dreams, ever justify a three base award for use of a distracting glove. There has been no performance modification made to a glove containing the color white. This glove is not the same as one that exceeds the size limits or has a tacky substance applied to it. We cannot hide behind the term "illegal glove" in this instance. Please, use the penalty pointed out by SDS. You will not lose a protest. Especially in CT where they are not allowed.

D-MAN

[LDUB]

Originally posted by D-Man
I understand NFHS's quest to eliminate all instances where an umpire must use judgment. I even agree with most of them. I can't, in my wildest dreams, ever justify a three base award for use of a distracting glove. There has been no performance modification made to a glove containing the color white. This glove is not the same as one that exceeds the size limits or has a tacky substance applied to it. We cannot hide behind the term "illegal glove" in this instance. Please, use the penalty pointed out by SDS. You will not lose a protest. Especially in CT where they are not allowed.

D-MAN

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.

[DG]

Originally posted by Tim C
Change situation #3 (as FED should have) to say:

F1 after fielding a ground ball back to the mound and he has successfully thrown the batter-runner out at first, the offensive coach points out that the pitcher's glove has white in the logo.

What is the ruling according to the NFHS?

The penalty for touching a batted ball with an illegal glove is a 3 base award. A pitcher's glove with any white on it is illegal, by definition. The penalty for having an illegal glove is different than using one to field a batted ball. The penalty is listed on the NFHS powerpoint we viewed at the state meeting. The FED intent seems clear. I don't think they have a clue of the potential mis-use by a coach who clearly understands, and is an a**hole.