1st Baseman mitt at 2nd base?

[Simply The Best]

-but a rulebook definition of a mitt and glove isn't an improper request.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Well, we manage to handle obstruction and interference without have a definition of "impede" in the book.

It isn't an improper request to ask for one though regardless of the fact that we often have rules and terms that have no definitive meaning.

We say a fielder can reach over a fence to catch the ball without needing to define "fence".

We say a runner touched a base without needing to define "base".

There are a lot of words in the book that don't get defined in the book.

I am glad you agree with me on that. Why does it upset you when FomerUmpire wants definitions for those terms. What harm has been done? Much good could be accomplished if the rules and their terms were better defined, you do agree?

Some things are obvious. Mitt and glove fall into that category.

In order for it to be obvious, there must be some obvious visual cues, what are those iyo?