Catcher's Mitt vs. Fielder's Glove

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I'm glad you qualified that as your answer. It isn't the rule, nor is it what is taught at proschools, nor is it the answer professional umpires give.

If a catcher starts the game with a regular fielder's glove, exactly what rule are you intending to use to prevent him from doing so?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If a catcher starts the game with a regular fielder's glove, exactly what rule are you intending to use to prevent him from doing so?

1.12 The catcher may wear a mitt.

A glove isn't a mitt.

Anyone claiming they don't know the difference is yanking your chain.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1.12 The catcher may wear a mitt.

A glove isn't a mitt.

Anyone claiming they don't know the difference is yanking your chain.

And you, as well as just about anyone here, are aware of numerous spots in the rulebook that say MAY, and others that say MUST. MAY does not equal MUST. The catcher MAY wear a mitt. This in no way says that he cannot, instead, wear a glove.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

And you, as well as just about anyone here, are aware of numerous spots in the rulebook that say MAY, and others that say MUST. MAY does not equal MUST. The catcher MAY wear a mitt. This in no way says that he cannot, instead, wear a glove.

He may wear a mitt in lieu of going barehanded.

1B may wear a glove or mitt in lieu of going barehanded.

Other fielders may wear a glove in lieu of going barehanded.

The "may" in the hand-covering rules is there to allow them to wear the device in the first place. The game was originally played bare-handed and so there had to be a rule to allow hand-coverings after the traditionalists objected.

The different rules specify which type of device is allowed at which position. The catcher may wear a mitt. If the rules wanted to allow a mitt or glove they would say so, as they do for F3.

I'm headed to the ballpark now - prep for opening day.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Bunch of friggin pansies using gloves and mitts! Play barehanded like the Good Lord intended!

[devdem]

I don't see how you could say a catcher can't wear a glove when the rule says

1.12 The catcher may wear a mitt.

To me that does not prevent them from wearing a glove.
It certainly makes no sense that you would let them go bare-handed, but not wear a glove.

Besides MLB UMP 2.11 says may not substitute a fielder's glove or first baseman's mitt during progress of a game implies that he can wear a glove as long as it is not substituted.

We often have kids in Pony wear a glove - usually occurring when a catcher is lefty and has no catcher's glove.

Pat

[SAump]

"As the evolution of the glove progressed, the National League and American Association of Base Ball Clubs instituted a rule in 1895 which stated, "The catcher and the first baseman are permitted to wear a glove or mitt of any size, shape or weight. All other players are restricted to the use of a glove or mitt weighing not over ten ounces, and measuring in circumference around the palm of the hand not over fourteen inches." This would be the rule for the rest of the 19th century. Also in 1895, Cincinnati Reds second baseman Bid McPhee, the last of the bare-handed players, opened the season on April 16, wearing a glove."

A catchers mitt will outlast, outprotect and outperform a fielders glove over the course of a game and a season. That said, catching w/out a mitt is like bowling with an 8 or 10 ounce bowling ball, playing tennis with an old wood racquet, and going fishing with a cane pole. An average adult would probably choose the latest available standards of modern sporting equipment. Get that fielder's glove outta there.