Catcher's Mitt vs. Fielder's Glove

[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.

[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