1st Baseman mitt at 2nd base?

[FomerUmpire]

Hello,

I stopped umpiring about ten years ago and did mostly HS ball back then.

Tonight, I was watching my nephew's 14u game-MLB Rules being used. The second baseman for the Wart Hogs(I am not joking...they are really called that! LOL) was wearing a 1st Baseman's mitt.

I am pretty sure that High School Baseball rules allow a player to wear a mitt anywhere. I thought that MLB Rules prohibit it. Is there an online version of the rules? Can you help an old guy out?

I think I am the only one that noticed and I doubt anyone on either team cared but, now it is one of those things bothering me and NOW, I just have to know what that stinking rule is.

Thanks!

Uncle Bill

[TussAgee11]

You are right on both accounts. Mitts and gloves are the same in HS ball. In pro, only the first baseman and catcher can wear mitts. And of course all mitts and gloves must fit the proper criteria measurement wise.

There is an online version of the Official Baseball Rules on MLB.com. Just a simple Google search will find it for you.

Cheers,

[UmpJM]

FormerUmpire,

You can find a downloadable PDF of the OBR rules here, courtesy of MLB:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y20...eballRules.pdf

I believe that any mitt or glove that conforms to the dimensional and construction constraints defined in 1.14 would be legal for an F4 - even if it "looked like" a 1st baseman's mitt.

Other might have a different opinion on the question.

You are correct that HS rules (explicitly) do not distinguish between a glove and mitt, and there is no difference in the constraints for what is legal for a first baseman vs. other fielders as there is in OBR.

JM

[FomerUmpire]

On the side question of why this knucklehead wanted to wear a 1st baseman's mitt there...I gave up wondering why 14 year olds do things LONNNNNG ago.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

FormerUmpire,

You can find a downloadable PDF of the OBR rules here, courtesy of MLB:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y20...eballRules.pdf

I believe that any mitt or glove that conforms to the dimensional and construction constraints defined in 1.14 would be legal for an F4 - even if it "looked like" a 1st baseman's mitt.

Other might have a different opinion on the question.

You are correct that HS rules (explicitly) do not distinguish between a glove and mitt, and there is no difference in the constraints for what is legal for a first baseman vs. other fielders as there is in OBR.

JM

Under OBR F4 has to wear a glove. The rules definitely distinguish it.

1.14 says: "Each fielder, other than the first baseman or catcher, may use or wear a leather glove".


FYI 1.13 says: "1.13 The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt . . ."

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Under OBR F4 has to wear a glove. The rules definitely distinguish it.

1.14 says: "Each fielder, other than the first baseman or catcher, may use or wear a leather glove".


FYI 1.13 says: "1.13 The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt . . ."

Rich,

Where YOU been? Can't believe it took you so long.

Could you please point me to the text in the rules that defines the "technical legal difference" between a "glove" and a "mitt"?

Besides, maybe it was actually a "first baseman's 'glove' " that FormerUmpire saw the F4 wearing (rather than a "mitt") and he was just speaking colloquially.

JM

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Rich,

Where YOU been? Can't believe it took you so long.

Could you please point me to the text in the rules that defines the "technical legal difference" between a "glove" and a "mitt"?

Besides, maybe it was actually a "first baseman's 'glove' " that FormerUmpire saw the F4 wearing (rather than a "mitt") and he was just speaking colloquially.

JM

You know darn well what the difference is and so does any 3 year old. Darn, do we need to define every word in the rule book?

[Simply The Best]

UmpJM (nee CoachJM) wrote: Could you please point me to the text in the rules that defines the "technical legal difference" between a "glove" and a "mitt"? Besides, maybe it was actually a "first baseman's 'glove' " that FormerUmpire saw the F4 wearing (rather than a "mitt") and he was just speaking colloquially.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You know darn well what the difference is and so does any 3 year old.

Are you speaking colloquially?

Darn, do we need to define every word in the rule book?

No but a rulebook definition of a mitt and glove isn't an improper request.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Could you please point me to the text in the rules that defines the "technical legal difference" between a "glove" and a "mitt"?

Besides, maybe it was actually a "first baseman's 'glove' " that FormerUmpire saw the F4 wearing (rather than a "mitt") and he was just speaking colloquially.

Are you speaking colloquially?No but a rulebook definition of a mitt and glove isn't an improper request.

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

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

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

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

[bob jenkins]

I agree. And, since the rules are written for MLB, and the realtively few teams and few umpires have no issue, and since no MLB F4 would wear a first baseman's mitt, it's not going to get changed.

Sometimes you just need to umpire.

(FED has this one right, imo.)

[FomerUmpire]

For the record:

The glove was a big ol' 1st baseman's MITT...no doubt about it.

[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?

[FomerUmpire]

For the record, I did not ask for a definition. I know what a mitt is and what a glove is...I was unsure of the rule.

After reading it online, it seems to be quite obvious that Mitts are not allowed anywhere on the infield or outfield except for First Base. They even show a drawing!

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

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

A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by FomerUmpire

For the record, I did not ask for a definition. I know what a mitt is and what a glove is...I was unsure of the rule.

After reading it online, it seems to be quite obvious that Mitts are not allowed anywhere on the infield or outfield except for First Base. They even show a drawing!

FormerUmpire,

Now that you've read the rule, were you the umpire, would you allow a catcher to wear a "fielder's glove" under OBR rules?

JM