Question 49

rwest · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 16, 2005, 09:48am

Bases loaded, no outs, batter hit a pop up that either the F6 or F5 can catch with ordinary effort, the umpire rules infield fly, the ball is caught by F5. The third base coach informs the umpire that F5 is using an illegal glove/mitt.

My question is does the IFR take precedence over the illegal glove?

Furthermore, when will ASA remove this rule!?!?!?! That was really more of a rhetorical question. I don't understand the need to restrict the catcher/first baseman to the use of a mitt. Is there an advantage gained? Anyone know why this is a restriction?

mcrowder · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 16, 2005, 09:57am

This question was discussed below (thread started by Irishmafia).

To answer your other question ... because it gives them an advantage. If you want to allow this glove to be used all over the field, why not allow gloves that are 2-feet across? 3-feet? etc. It has to stop at some point, and the point at which it stops in today's rules makes sense. I guess I'd ask you the converse - why would you want to allow these fielders to use enormous gloves?

rwest · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 16, 2005, 10:02am

Are mitts that much bigger that they give the fielder an advantage? If so, point taken and I remove my objection.

What is the title of the thread started by IrishMafia?

rwest · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 16, 2005, 10:03am

I found the thread.