Gloves

[sawer19]

2 parts....

i didnt realize this was an umpire forum lol but now that im here.... what is the rule on 2 toned gloves for pitchers... do laces count?

second part... i throw left handed and im looking for a new glove but dont know whats out there now so if anyone could help that would be cool

[tibear]

Multi-coloured gloves are OK as long as the colours don't include white or grey.

As for the different types of gloves, we're umpires and don't use gloves so not sure if our recommendation would be of any use.

Originally Posted by sawer19

2 parts....

i didnt realize this was an umpire forum lol but now that im here.... what is the rule on 2 toned gloves for pitchers... do laces count?

second part... i throw left handed and im looking for a new glove but dont know whats out there now so if anyone could help that would be cool

FED Rules - ANY part of glove that is white or gray is illegal for the pitcher to use. Two toned is legal subject to above, OR if glove is deemed to be distracting. Most two toned gloves today would NOT be deemed distracting as I doubt anyone is making them in flourescent colors. There are some two toned that have a significant amount of gray in them so be careful.

Given what I have said, I have never personally seen an umpire reject a glove for white stitching or white on the mfgrs logo.

[Tim C]

White stitching and laces are legal UNLESS the umpire deems them to be a distraction. (See 2005 NFHS Interpretations)

We have two umpires in our group that reject "white on logo" gloves EVERY TIME they see them.

Regards,

Originally Posted by Tim C

White stitching and laces are legal UNLESS the umpire deems them to be a distraction. (See 2005 NFHS Interpretations)

We have two umpires in our group that reject "white on logo" gloves EVERY TIME they see them.

Regards,

Tim,

They changed it in the 2006 rules interps to include any part of the glove including the manufacturers logo. It was on the 2006 Part I Test. It's not a popular topic with HS coaches, especially at the Frosh/Soph level.

[Tim C]

It is still legal to have white laces and threads.

We know the issue with the logo (however there is a document from the NFHS somewhere that says something along the lines that "the logo must resemble a baseball" for the white to be illegal.)



Regards,

Tim Christensen

National Federation of High Schools
Publication Committee

Originally Posted by Tim C

It is still legal to have white laces and threads.

We know the issue with the logo (however there is a document from the NFHS somewhere that says something along the lines that "the logo must resemble a baseball" for the white to be illegal.)



Regards,

Tim Christensen

National Federation of High Schools
Publication Committee

If you have a copy of "Referree" from last year, it was a point of emphasis and at our rules iterps it was clearly stated NO WHITE ANYWHERE ON THE GLOVE. If there are other documents that refute that, please cite reference. If there is something else about the logo please cite that as well.

Also, see 1-3-6D from this years CB.

1.3.6 SITUATION D: F1 prepares to pitch and is wearing a glove that has (a) white laces, (b) gray piping, (c) manufacturer's white logo. RULING: Illegal in (a), (b), (c). Gloves/mitts worn by pitchers shall not include the colors white or gray.

[Tim C]

"If there is something else about the logo please cite that as well."

I guess my writing skills have evaded me on this beautiful Friday morning.

LOGO = I was trying to convey that I have read the ruling but have NOT been able to locate the source. It is driving me crazy as I know I read it somewhere.

A question back to you on the white on a logo:

"If a player rubs dirt on the white stiching in the logo is the logo still white?"

Regards,

PS: I cannot beleive we are spending this much time on a rule that is flawed at best. But we must remember that the white logo makes the glove an "illegal glove" and the penalty for that is it is used in making a play is a three base award for the batter.

Situation:

Bases loaded and the batter hits a one bouncer back to F1 who throws to first for the inning ended third out.

BUT WAIT!

Coach comes out and notes the illegal glove so you award the Batter third base . . . my, oh my!

Maybe we should all toss those terribly illegal bad gloves.

T

[UmpJM]

Tim,

If FED has issued a ruling that the white thread in the logo has to be shaped like a baseball to be deemed illegal, they've done an awfully good job of keeping it secret.

If the pitcher rubs dirt on the "white-threaded" logo, it certainly doesn't look white to me anymore if I'm the umpire - kind of looks like "burnt sienna".

I could have sworn I read a FED ruling that if a pitcher was discovered (after the fact) to have used a glove with a white-threaded logo to make a fielding play, the play would stand and the pitcher would simply not be subsequently allowed to use the glove while pitching. No 3-base award. Rationale being that the pitcher's glove is perfectly legal for fielding, it's just overly distracting (& therefore illegal) for pitching.

Of course, I can't find that ruling now, either. I believe it was posted on the FED website in their annual "official interpretations" section in 2005 - mysteriously vanished from the FED website.

JM

Originally Posted by Tim C

"If there is something else about the logo please cite that as well."

I guess my writing skills have evaded me on this beautiful Friday morning.

LOGO = I was trying to convey that I have read the ruling but have NOT been able to locate the source. It is driving me crazy as I know I read it somewhere.

A question back to you on the white on a logo:

"If a player rubs dirt on the white stiching in the logo is the logo still white?"
I always figured this was a real stretch. I do remember the Referree magazine saying something about the pitcher coloring it with a black magic marker.

Regards,

PS: I cannot beleive we are spending this much time on a rule that is flawed at best. I agree But we must remember that the white logo makes the glove an "illegal glove" and the penalty for that is it is used in making a play is a three base award for the batter.


Situation:

Bases loaded and the batter hits a one bouncer back to F1 who throws to first for the inning ended third out.

BUT WAIT!

Coach comes out and notes the illegal glove so you award the Batter third base . . . my, oh my!

Maybe we should all toss those terribly illegal bad gloves. Maybe just toss the stupid rule!!

T

Now if we could just get the rule book changed, Hmmm

[bluehair]

PU: You can't use a white glove if you're going to pitch.
F1: It's not white, its burnt sienna.
PU: Nice try kid.

Next game: Bases loaded and the batter hits a one bouncer back to F1 who throws to first for the game ended third out. BUT WAIT! Coach comes out and notes that white gloves are illegal (you missed seeing it this time) and wants you to award the batter third base.

PU: Coach, that glove isn't white, its burnt sienna.

Originally Posted by bluehair

PU: You can't use a white glove if you're going to pitch.
F1: It's not white, its burnt sienna.
PU: Nice try kid.

Next game: Bases loaded and the batter hits a one bouncer back to F1 who throws to first for the game ended third out. BUT WAIT! Coach comes out and notes that white gloves are illegal (you missed seeing it this time) and wants you to award the batter third base.

PU: Coach, that glove isn't white, its burnt sienna.

Ahhhhhh...the humor of a really, really, ridiculous rule. When do we start in on the balk jokes?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I could have sworn I read a FED ruling that if a pitcher was discovered (after the fact) to have used a glove with a white-threaded logo to make a fielding play, the play would stand and the pitcher would simply not be subsequently allowed to use the glove while pitching. No 3-base award. Rationale being that the pitcher's glove is perfectly legal for fielding, it's just overly distracting (& therefore illegal) for pitching.

Of course, I can't find that ruling now, either. I believe it was posted on the FED website in their annual "official interpretations" section in 2005 - mysteriously vanished from the FED website.

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)

[UmpJM]

Luke,

2 questions:

1. What year is this interp from?

2. Where did you find it?

I used to be able to find a few years worth of interps on the NFHS website, but now when I look I can only find the 2007 interps.

Thanks.

JM

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Luke,

2 questions:

1. What year is this interp from?

2. Where did you find it?

I used to be able to find a few years worth of interps on the NFHS website, but now when I look I can only find the 2007 interps.

Thanks.

JM

It is from 2003. It is no longer on the NFHS website.