Catcher's Mitt vs. Fielder's Glove

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Gotta disagree here, Rich.

I think that a catcher may wear no glove/mitt at all, or if he wears a mitt, it must be within the size specs for catcher's gloves--and note that any other type of glove fits those size requirements.

But if he starts the game with a catcher's mitt, he needs to keep using that type while he is playing the catcher position.

One obvious time that he might want to switch is during an intentional base on balls.

I agree he may go bare handed.

Yes, the basic 1.12 rule says mitt so that means it can't be a fielder's glove. That would still allow a first baseman's mitt.

Then the MLBUM - which is the official interpretation - says it has to be a catcher's mitt, not a glove ot 1B mitt. I didn't make it up, I did a copy/paste.

So therefore it's a catcher's mitt if you don't go bare-handed.

[Dave Reed]

Then the MLBUM - which is the official interpretation - says it has to be a catcher's mitt, not a glove ot 1B mitt. I didn't make it up, I did a copy/paste.

But the MLBUM says nothing about what a catcher may use when he starts the game--only that he can't substitute part way through the game.

Again, I suppose the reason for this interp is to keep catchers from using a regular glove during intentional walks. A paragraph requiring a MLB catcher to use a catcher's mitt while receiving ordinary pitches would seem to me to be a waste of ink.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

But the MLBUM says nothing about what a catcher may use when he starts the game--only that he can't substitute part way through the game.

Again, I suppose the reason for this interp is to keep catchers from using a regular glove during intentional walks. A paragraph requiring a MLB catcher to use a catcher's mitt while receiving ordinary pitches would seem to me to be a waste of ink.

OBR 1.12 limits the options to barehanded or a mitt.

OBR 1.13 allows the firstbaseman to use a glove or mitt.

Don't you think if they wanted the catcher to have the same option they would have mentioned it?

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Don't you think if they wanted the catcher to have the same option they would have mentioned it?

Well, if 1.12 limits the catcher to using a catcher's mitt, then the MLBUM entry would be either redundant or insufficently proscriptive. And if "they" had wanted to restrict a catcher to a catcher's "mitt" and to not allow him to use a glove or 1st baseman's mitt, wouldn't they bother to explain the difference between the three types?

Other than the dimensions, how would you go about differentiating between a mitt intended for catchers and one intended for F3? What rule would you use?
I don't really expect an answer to these questions--they are mostly rhetorical.

However, I will offer my opinion based on direct observation of the mitts being sold in this era that the difference (besides size) between mitts intended for F2 and F3 is just the amount of padding in the glove. And the amount of padding is up to the discretion of the player.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Well, if 1.12 limits the catcher to using a catcher's mitt, then the MLBUM entry would be either redundant or insufficently proscriptive. And if "they" had wanted to restrict a catcher to a catcher's "mitt" and to not allow him to use a glove or 1st baseman's mitt, wouldn't they bother to explain the difference between the three types?

Other than the dimensions, how would you go about differentiating between a mitt intended for catchers and one intended for F3? What rule would you use?
I don't really expect an answer to these questions--they are mostly rhetorical.

However, I will offer my opinion based on direct observation of the mitts being sold in this era that the difference (besides size) between mitts intended for F2 and F3 is just the amount of padding in the glove. And the amount of padding is up to the discretion of the player.

Slow day?

Your kid wants to wear a fielder's glove?

Youi don't care it the catcher's hand is protected sufficiently?

You own a sporting goods store that only sells fielders gloves and first base mitts?

[Dave Reed]

None of the above. I am however trying to help answer the OP original question: [Is a] "catcher required to wear a catcher's mitt or can he catch with a fielder's glove?"

My answer is that in OBR, including the interpretation of the MLBUM, is that he may catch with a fielder's glove-- provided that he starts the game with it.

I also think he would be crazy to do so.

[SAump]

Phil Niekros catcher was reported to have used the largest catcher's mitt in MLB.

Martinez Uses First Baseman's Mitt to Catch Knuckleballer - NYTimes.com

R.A. Dickey provides communal knuckle mitt for his catchers - Big League Stew - MLBBlog - Yahoo! Sports

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

My answer is that in OBR, including the interpretation of the MLBUM, is that he may catch with a fielder's glove-- provided that he starts the game with it.

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.