Distracting Socks?
 

15 year-old tournament time. Met my partner for the first time in the parking lot tonight - he has the dish... As we're entering the playing field, the home manager calls my new buddy over and engages in a little pregame "butter". We do a quick but thorough pregame and off we go.

In the middle of the first, the visitors' F1 is warming up when my partner walks out to the mound and instructs him to "adjust your socks"... F1 is wearing one "high sock" (pants pushed up to his knee) and one "low sock" (pants cuff at his ankle). Pitcher asks why, partner replies,"It's distracting"... Here comes the visiting manager, ready to rumble.

Two Questions:
1. When did we become arbiters of style?
2. Why do some of us feel compelled to control the most trivial aspects of the game?

Scoured the OBR - could find a single mention of socks, fashion or even "pants"...

OOO sighting.

JM

A style popularized by L. L. Cool J.

The only reason I can think of for F1 to be so attired, is to distract. There is a rule about sleeve lengths being equal, so as not to distract, and pants/sock length would be an issue not covered, so 9.01C would seem appropriate to rule on issue not covered. I don't think I have ever seen this, for good reason.

I can think of at least one other reason--he's representing to the right or to the left (even though I don't know how likely this is.)

No

http://www.adhaiku.com/images/dosequis_interesting.jpg

Uniforms are covered by rule 1.11, so it would be inappropriate to invoke 9.01(c).

1.11(a)3 states: "No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game." This is the provision that prevents wearing caps sideways, etc. If there is rules support for this ump's move, that would be it. :shrug:

In pro ball, however, some guys wear long pants and some use the stirrup socks. So obviously "conformity" under 1.11 does not entail wearing the same pants and socks at that level.

I would not pick that particular booger.

Because some officials actually believe that everyone came to watch THEM.

Who'd he pitch for?

So it wouldn't be appropriate to saunter out to the mound, slowly eye that pitcher top to bottom, and casually ask, "Does it get girls?". :rolleyes:

So it wouldn't be appropriate to saunter out to the mound, slowly eye that pitcher top to bottom, and casually say, "That just flat looks ridiculous." :D



So it wouldn't be appropriate to saunter out to the mound, slowly eye that pitcher top to bottom, and casually ask, "Who dressed you, your coach?" :p

So it wouldn't be appropriate to saunter out to the mound, slowly eye that pitcher top to bottom, and casually ask, "Lose a bet?" :o

etc, etc, etc....

JJ

"Oh, these are the worst-looking sock I've ever seen. What, when you wear socks like this I bet you get a free bowl of soup, huh?"

Pitcher looks dumbfounded, and doesn't understand.

"Oh, it looks good on you though." :eye roll:

JJ,

No, any of those sounds appropriate to me. I mean, if you can't have a little fun out there, what's the point?

I would probably substitute "your Mom" or "your girlfriend" for "your Coach" on the "Who dressed you" question, but that's really a matter of personal preference.

I think I liked "Lose a bet?" the best.

JM

Me too, perhaps because it's the most likely to elicit a confounded stare.

Who are you kidding JJ? You wouldnt saunter anywhere, you would yell it from the plate so all could here, and enjoy, it.......:D

I have used that line before -- I think when commenting on some haircut.

I make sure to say it loud enough for teammates to hear. It always gets a laugh from them.

I have also used something like, "We usually only see that kind of thing in Girls' softball."

And nobody else on the team wears one pant leg high and one low. If F8 wants to do it fine, the only reason for F1 to do it is to distract.

If a batter is getting distracted by F1's socks, he's got bigger issues than you can fix.

F1 can't wear white shirt that shows, can't wear one one long sleeve and one short, can't wear distracting sunglasses, can't wear multi-colored distracting glove, can't use glove with long strings on it, can't wear a batting glove. All of these are to prevent pitcher from distracting batter by his appearance. Why do some of us want to allow one pant leg up and one down?

DG,

Uhhh.....

Because it's not "distracting"?

Playing "fashion police" doesn't much interest me.

JM

Because the ball never comes near the calves.

What JM said .... I'll start worrying about F1's pants when he starts throwing the ball with his feet. And I've NEVER seen sunglasses I found "distracting" on a pitcher... EVER.

I have a new one: College boy playing summer 18-U wood bat. He goes out to pitch with that foil New Balance sticker on the bill of his cap. Mid-day sun reflecting off of foil equals distraction.

http://homepage.mac.com/rlmorel/.Pub...yboardSpit.jpg

No, that's not me

DG-

I will give you the benefit of a fairly substantial doubt as to whether the conditions where you work are such that the sun could ever cause enough "glare" off of sunglasses, mirror or otherwise, to be actually distracting ... I'll merely repeat my assertion that I have NEVER seen sunglasses I found "distracting" .... EVER.

As for other "distractions": all the stuff that we are supposed to, BY RULE, care about being "distracting" are either on/around F1's pitching "equipment" [hands, arms, glove], or capable of being visually mistaken for [a part of] the ball, or both - thus my comment that I will concern myself with the style in which the pants are worn on the day F1 pitches with his feet.

Putting aside those items which are "distracting" BY RULE, my experience is that most times "distraction" is raised either by OOO umpires eager to prohibit something for the same reason a dog licks himself .... or cheese-seeking rats looking to mess with the opposing pitcher. I'll tell you the same thing I tell them in my games --- I have unmedicated Attention Deficit [it's true] - if I didn't notice it/ get distracted by it, it ain't that distracting.

For clarification, he can't wear one at all, or he can't wear one if it is distracting?

Depends on the rules set.

According to section 189 of the BRD:
Fed - The pitcher may not wear an exposed batting gloveunder his fielding glove if - in the judgement of the umpire - it is distracting to the batter.
NCAA - The pitcher may not wear a batting glove under his fielding glove.
OBR - Point not covered (PBUC says to treat as NCAA).

If you are doing an OBR-based game, are you proactive and have it removed when you see it, or do you not "see" it until the opposing team brings it to your attention?

The latter.

:DIt's never appropriate to "saunter" out to the mound..... :D

How about disturbing?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...9UeQv/340x.jpg

The rule about wearing a batting glove on the glove hand as well as any white on the glove has always baffled me. Sometimes the home team is wearing ENTIRELY white uniforms. Yet the batter is possibly distracted by a white Nike swoosh on his glove? Give me a break A big break. I'd be a whole lot more concerned about fields that have zero batters eye on the fence in center if there even is a fence. Dont reach for the dark colored end of the stick. Just my dos pesos.

Does this mean white, long sleeved shirts, too?