Interesting Dilemma
 

There is a rather comical back story to this and a nice resolution to the situation that I will share after I've gotten a few responses to the situation I was involved in last night.

11-12 year old league with minimally modified OBR: The starting pitcher for the visiting team goes to the mound to warm up in the bottom of the first and the opposing coach notices that he is wearing a first baseman's mitt. The pitcher is left-handed and doesn't have a glove and the only other left-handed kid on the team is away at church camp.

As we all know the pitcher can't be removed until he's faced one batter unless he becomes ill or injured. Otherwise there are no exceptions and certainly not one that allows the pitcher to be substituted for because he doesn't have the proper equipment.

How would you guys handle this situation?

He doesn't have a glove? Really?

Borrow one from the other team.

Let his use the 1B mitt.

Look around. This isn't Yankee Stadium - it's the Podunk Youth Baseball League.

If the other coach objects too much ask him if wants to watch from the bench or his car.

I agree. Here is a situation were "Let them Play" trumps the rule of a truly recreational GAME.

Using "common sense" is still. NOT ole fashioned.

No dilemma here -- let him use the mitt. What advantage does he gain.

Ok...I guess by asking how everybody would have handled this I opened the door to the logical solution. The umpire was going to allow us to switch pitchers, although the ultimate solution was that the same coach that complained about it also loaned us a left-handed glove.

Now that we've gotten beyond the c'mon guys lets play just play ball issue (which is a philosophy I agree with), how would we reconcile the problem at hand within the limits of the rulebook?

I'd treat "not having a glove" as being the same as an injury and allow a new pitcher.

If we're playing it that way . . . what rule requires the pitcher to wear a glove?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule 3.06 (old rule 1.14) Each fielder, other than the catcher, may use or wear a leather glove.

That was actually the solution I was prepared to suggest if it came to to it. I'm actually serving as an assistant coach for this team, which is where the comical back story that I mentioned in the OP comes into play.

I've really scaled back the amount of games I call over the last couple of years so I could coach my son and enjoy the quality time with him before he gets to the point of playing school ball. In any case, knowing the rule, I brought this up with "mitt only" boy's father during practice before the season. I let him know that his son would only be able to play catcher or first base with his mitt. Otherwise, he would need a glove. I then had to explain the difference between a glove and a mitt, and finally I had to do my best to control my sarcastic wit when he asked me if that was "actually in the rules". It took every thing I had to not say, "No, it isn't really a rule, I just make stuff up because I hold the patent on baseball gloves and get a royalty for each one sold".

Our head coach didn't think anyone would have a problem with it, which bugged the part of me that believes in rules/order, but the let them play side of me was fine with this. I did tell him there was a decent chance someone would complain about it though. I also had to restrain the "I told you so" that was running through my head when it happened in just the second game of our season and the first time he played anywhere besides first base.

FYI the LL rule says "must wear a glove"

OBR - no requirement to use a glove... so if we're sticking to the rulebook here, he pitches with no glove to at least one batter.

There is no way in any youth game I am forcing, or even suggesting, and probably not allowing, a kid to play with no glove.

That's what I'd do if we're going by the book.

That's what I'd do if I did youth ball.

Rich, I've never worked LL and am not familiar with that rule set. Do they give specific requirements for the glove that must be worn. A batting glove is a glove and would meet the requirement of wearing a glove (unless the are additional requirements) but not violate the prohibition on using a mitt.

To Bob's point, I'm sure his concern is safety and I was prepared with a solution had it come to stalemate with nobody being willing to yield. I would have told him to intentionally walk the batter and then had the catcher walk the ball out to the pitcher after each pitch. He could also roll it back or we could just invoke one of the minor rule modifications that allows a team to intentional walk a batter upon a verbal request. Walking it back to the pitcher would have been a good way to show displeasure with the situation (can anyone say passive-aggressive?).

I agree. I was just participating in the exercise.

"Where's the nearest Walmart? Let's go get you a glove, Billy."

JJ