SPEAKING ASA

Bases loaded, no outs, batter hits a pop-up that either F6 or F5 can catch with ordinary effort, the umpire rules infield fly and the ball is caught by F5. Offense then complains that F5 was using an illegal glove/mitt.

Your call is...

A The manager has the option of taking the results of the play, or the batter is awarded first and all runners forced receive one base.

B The glove is rmoved and the batter bats again with the bases loaded.

C The ball is dead, the batter is out and all runner are awarded one base

D The play stands, but the fielder must change gloves.

?????

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 2nd, 2005 at 11:41 PM]

e. None of the above?

Provided the glove is illegal, the offended team coach has the option of nullifying the entire play (B answer) or take the results of the play and disregard the illegal act (D answer).

If the glove is legal, the play stands, 1 out bases loaded, next batter.

First I question the sanity of the defensive player or coach who complained about the defense's equipment.

Second, depending on whether the person complaining was a player or coach, either ignore the player or eject the coach for not asking for and receiving timeout before coming on to the field.

Third, if the question was made by the offensive team and done properly, I'd examine the glove before ruling on A-D.

:)

Assuming the glove is illegal, I agree with Tex.

A) is not correct, since awarding bases is not an effect of using an illegal glove.

B) might be correct if the OFFENSIVE coach made that choice

C) is not correct (see A)

D) might be correct if the OFFENSIVE coach made that choice

Is there a trick in the "glove is removed" v. "must change gloves" wording?

No "trick"

A key word <font size = 5> IFR </font>

Ahhh... I see. (Said the blind man)

Good catch. I fell to the wrong side of the "fense" on that one. Of course, I should have typed "offense".

Thanks

Why is that that key? ;)

IFR takes precedence over the illegal mitt. Batter
would be out and mitt removed from game.

CaseBook Play8.9-14 2004 CB

I know I answered none of above, but did not really see that
you had the correct answer among the "fenses"



[Edited by whiskers_ump on Feb 3rd, 2005 at 12:01 AM]

I'd go with D . My only logic is the IFR was called before the use of the illegal glove. Brian

I blew that one. It was on the test we're supposed to throw out, too. Hadn't remembered my case book.

What if the fielder using the illegal glove then proceeded to make a play and retire a runner?
I guess then you invoke the glove rule.


[Edited by greymule on Feb 9th, 2005 at 07:49 PM]

That would be true. The key to this is that the BR is already out. The options are null. The result of the play would be an out and no one advanced. The BR was declared out prior to the illegal glove coming into play, therefore there is no BR to award 1B.

One clarification. If the call was "Infield fly if fair", and the ball was over foul ground when caught, we simply have a foul ball, right?

"One clarification. If the call was "Infield fly if fair", and the ball was over foul ground when caught, we simply have a foul ball, right?"

I'm thinking we now have a glove issue.