Recieved this from my state UIC from Kevin Ryan.

Dave and Staff,

There is apparently a new glove out on the market that has the fingers sewn together except for the last inch or so. After reviewing the web site data and picture it is my opinion this glove is not a glove but a mitt. Therefore it would be illegal for infielders, except first baseman and catchers in ASA Championship play. The glove is made by a company called Akadema and is called the reptilian infielder model. Please make your staffs and folks in your area aware of this. The web you can see this glove on is here. Click here and then click on the Akadema logo.





Thanks for the help;



Kevin G. Ryan

Associated Director of Membership Services

Director of Umpires

Unless I am looking at a wrong picture, this looks like a glove not a mitt to me. Dave

Dave,

You may be looking at the wrong picture. When you click on the link, you then have to click the Akadema link. Eventually you get to model ABU 73, and Crystal Bustos' pictures. You can then enlarge the mitt/glove, or whatever it is. It looks like a mitt to me though. Try this link, or maybe some of the compooter gurus could post the pic in this thread, (that's beyond me).

http://www.akademapro.com/fastpitch.html

As all the looks of a mitt....

Don't care that Akadema calls it a "glove", it looks like a mitt to me also.
Sam

Image from the website
 

Yeah.. I knew someone could put the picture here!

Way to go SRW, Thanks (show-off :-), j/k of course)



....bkbjones, uh-oh, thats 2 in the same week for SRW!

I better stop posting and just lurk for a while... my head might get too big for bkbjones' shoulders... :D

This glove is not new to the market. I've seen it used in PONY, NSA, FED, NCAA, NPF, and NCAA games since spring 2004. No umpire has ever questioned whether it is a glove. All anyone has to do is get one and put it on. It clearly is a glove. There is no way that anyone would ever call it a mitt.

I checked the NCAA site for rules and regulations (in the absence of this information on the ASA website). There are no NCAA rules, regulations, interpretations, umpire guidelines, etc. that would define this glove to be a mitt in disguise. So, it appear that some umpires are trying to convince others to make a judgment call on this glove. But, this is not a judgment call. It has to be a rules call. In the absence of definitive, clearly worded and publicly available rules, this glove cannot be thrown out of a game simply because some umpire mistakenly thinks it might be a mitt. JMO.

That may be true for some. NFHS of course should have no problem since either may be used. I haven't checked any others, cause I rarely call other leagues, I will check NCAA before next season starts up though.

The main point though, Kevin Ryan is not just "some umpire". he is the ASA Director of Umpires...The BIG BOSS! This Akadema thing may look like a shoe for all I care, but if the ASA ruling is as Duke's post stated, I won't allow it for any other than F2 and F3.

Agree with JEL on the basic point; if Kevin Ryan makes that interpretation, then it is a mitt. But, aside from that, it looks like a mitt to me, anyway.

There are no rulebook definitions of glove and mitt because the commom definitions of those terms are adequate. The difference between a glove and a mitt is defined by the fingers; a glove has a separate slot for each finger, whether the player uses them or not. A mitt has a thumb slot, and the rest of the fingers have one larger undefined area (short for mitten). This mitt shows only fingertip definitions so that it might appear like a glove, but certainly appears to have the one large space.

Simple test, EdJW; stick your hand in one. Separate fingers, glove; one large area, mitt. Anyway, in ASA championship play, will call per National Director of Umpires, even if it has fingers.

Taking you to be correct as to the common way to tell a glove from a mitt. Per what you said, separate fingers make it a glove. The Academa glove has separate fingers. Get one and put your hand into it. You will immediately see that it has full size separate fingers. It's nothing like your description of a mitt. Perhaps people should buy one of these gloves and check out the actual glove, before shooting off thier mouths. And spreading false information.

By the way, everyone should read the inital post in this string where the poster admits that he has never actually checked out this glove. He says that all he has done is check out information on the Academa website and has looked at a picture.

Based on the unambiguous statement made in the first post that the glove has never been examined, it is beyond believe that an umpire anywhere would throw this glove out if used anywhere other than 1B and catcher positions. Someone says he saw a picture and from the picture he thinks its a mitt. And others umpires jump on and say that's good enough to throw the glove out of a game.

I think ASA has to do much better than this regarding equipment and throwing gloves and girls out of games.

It may very well be a glove. It may very well be a mitt. I'm not going to argue on that point one way or another.

However, if your state UIC says that they consider it a mitt and should be called as such, you enforce it as a mitt until you hear differently. Coaches have a problem with it? Keep the printout of the correspondance from your UIC to show the coach.

You call what they say to call, not what you feel is best. So if this were my state UIC telling me that it's a mitt, no one besides F2 or F3 are using it. If they then switch and say they were wrong that it's a glove, then I start allowing it. Simple chain of command that must be followed. If not, what good is having a state UIC if no one listens to what he says?

-Josh

Personally, I'd like the measurements before declaring a glove illegal. If this does have fingers, then I believe the only thing that would make it illegal would be the dimensions of the glove.

I have two umpires who work the NPF and they have not seen the glove. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that they haven't seen it.

There is a college showcase here this weekend and I will be looking to find one. Not to disqualify it, but to examine one if I can get the player's permission.

Funny how ASA defines which positions may use either a glove or a mitt, but gives no definition of what constitutes the difference between them.

It must be kind of like pornography.

We might not be able to define them, but we know them when we see them!

I've wondered about these Akadema gloves since I first saw them several years a go. These gloves do have fingers- very short stubby fingers seen on the outside, and full length conventional individual finger stalls on the inside.

Personally, I'd call it a glove. There's no rule book spec on how long the space between the fingers has to be.

But if my state UIC says otherwise, then that's the interpretation I'm going to follow.

By the way, a couple of pieces of odd glove trivia...

The "short finger" glove, looking very much like the Akadema finger arrangement, was first introduced by glove makers in the 1920's. The desigh didn't catch on, and these gloves today are quite rare and collectible.

Several years a go, Wilson marketed a firstbase mitt called "The Outsider". From the front, it looked like a typical first base mitt. The back had individual finger stalls on the outside of the glove.

So much for the "seperate finger slot" definition of what constitutes a glove!

[Edited by BretMan on Jul 21st, 2005 at 03:47 PM]

Funny/ironic/strange that the maximum lengths for many parts of the glove are listed on the diagram, but no minimums. Perhaps that will change if this particular glove is not allowed.

Maximums have been around for many, many years. Somewhere I read that the maximums were set up, in part, by Mr. Spalding and his brother in law, Mr. Reach, because they didn't want to have to buy more of the dyes used to cut the leather used for the majority of the glove. A couple standard sizes with different grades of leather...and since they pretty much enjoyed a monopoly back in the olden days, that's what size the gloves were.

(Yes, dammit, I meant dies instead of dyes. Egg on face...)

[Edited by bkbjones on Jul 27th, 2005 at 02:36 PM]

Is there any reasoning why a mitt can not be used by a fielder? Other than mitts may be any size, I can't see why they would not be allowed. I don't see an advantage in a SS using a catchers mitt, (although my daughter would at practice, liked being friends with the mitt, she rarely played infield during a game).

Maybe it's time to just use size restrictions as FED does. But til then, if ASA, per the boss...this ones a mitt.

While I cannot argue with who may have made these decisions (though Mr. Spalding is known to have bent any truth which gets in the way of his opinion), I can tell you it had nothing to do with the dye. A hide is tanned, dyed, staked, stretched and dried as a whole unit (Grew up in a leather factory). It is then sold to the manufacturer of the glove, coat, seat cover, etc. for cutting, trimming and sewing.

I would think the odds are the restrictions to gloves where meant to keep the "peach basket" gloves out of the game.

JEL, the difference with an infielder or outfielder wearing a mitt (first baseman's) is the extra length that would snare a line drive over the infield or a sinking line drive in the outfield.

For as many plays as we see every day, this probably seems like it is nothing. But apparently someone, somewhere believes there is an affect on the game.

Interesting about you "growing up in a leather factory", Mike, since my biggest hobby- next to playing, coaching and umpiring- is collecting vintage and antique baseball gloves.

From what "bkbjones" wrote, and knowing a little bit about the glovemaking process, I took it that he meant "dies" instead of "dyes".

Re-read his sentence with "die" inserted and it makes perfect sense in relation to a baseball glove's size.

Although rule 3-4 is worded oddly, don't mitts have to conform to the same size spec (ASA)?

Nope,

"The dimensions of any glove used by any fielder other than the pitcher or catcher shall not exceed...."

I read that to mean if a F2, or F3 wishes, their glove, or mitt could be as big as a basketball backstop.

FED's position seems to make good sense.

Yes, it does. Dies = template, pattern cutter, etc.

re: Illegal Glove
 

Have been in touch with Joe at Akadema. He has contacted ASA about the issue, and they(ASA) are trying to authenticate the memo posted above. Joe states it is very strange that this would come up now, since the glove in question has been on the market for 6 years.

GaryB

You didn't quote the whole rule as pertains to mitts... Odd wording... does this apply only to the web of the mitt, or the whole mitt?

To U of I Blue. And to other Blues. You don't blindly follow your state UIC when she is making an incorrect and a stupid judgment call in situations where it is clearly a rules call. A rules call that can only be made by ASA nationally, following definitions and procedures analogous to those that make specific balls and bats approved or not approved.

To Irish, come to NSA World Series 12u in SC this week. We will be happy to say hello and show you the glove. Our number one catcher uses it in total defiance of coaches who tell her to use a mitt to catch. Our coaches reasoning. The kid is using a fielders glove to catch.

Ed, two points. First you are obviously missing the point that this memo was originated by the the National Director of Umpires; he is the National ASA when it comes to rules interpretations. He sent the memo to the State UIC's who disseminate the info to the rank and file. The guy at Akadema has it right; he needs to get a glove to Kevin Ryan, who has the authority to make this ruling, and the authority to change it.

Second point; you can pretty much bet that an ASA State UIC won't be visiting an NSA tournament. Perhaps on your drive south you could meet Mike if you really want to show him the glove. If you are driving, you pretty much pass right by him.

Hmmm, I see your point. Seems it would only be the web though, the other measurements would seem to not apply to a mitt.

FED still makes more sense.

EdJW - if ASA posted a list of legal or illegal gloves, I would agree with you. Since they don't, all we have to go with is the measurements, and what ASA tells us to do. Kevin IS "ASA National", so what he says goes.

PS - just curious ... do you own stock in this company or what?

Thanks, but I have two tournaments of my own to deal with this weekend.

As Steve noted, you are not going to find me at an NSA "World Series". BTW, how many countries are represented at this tournament? :)

Once again Mike has dug, dug.....

Good call Blue....

After receiving a nice e-mail from Mr. Gilligan, I have learned that a hold has been put on this ruling.

Apparently, Akadema is providing the ASA with a glove for examination.

So, don't go throwing out any of these gloves yet.

Latest update from Kevin Ryan. Just received this from our regional UIC.

Staff,

I have received one of the Akadema gloves, Reptilian Model, from one of our vendors to review it at the request of several individuals in our office. The inside of the this piece of equipment is one piece and the outside appears to have finger slots. There are actual slots for the fingers to fit into. The last inch of the area we call fingers are separated and held together by lacing. I still do not feel this fits the classic definition of a glove. However our rule book does not define a glove or a mitt. Because of that I have been asked to rescind the first email.

This glove under our current rules can NOT be ruled Illegal and CAN be used by position players other than catchers and first base man. So bottom line the glove is LEGAL under our current rules. I apologies for the confusion caused by my interpretation. Please send this out to your personnel so that everyone gets the information. Whoever posted it on a website please do so to this email also.

Again accept my apology for causing any confusion in your regions.


Respectfully,


Kevin G. Ryan
Associate Director of Membership Services
Director of Umpires

Thanks Serg, and Mike.

Now we know how to rule on this one if it it seen.

Just a suggestion that this reversal on the glove be placed in a new message thread by the author to increase its exposure.
Follow up discussions that reach into the 2-3 page range sometimes get overlooked.

Answer to Irish's question. The NSA World Series has teams from the same number of countries that have had teams potentially eligible to play in the major league baseball World Series.

Are you sure about that? There are two countries in MLB; Toronto is still in, even though Montreal is out.

What is the 2nd country in NSA?

Alabama!


(couldn't resist)

A 14u team from Canada stayed at our hotel.

I had one of these gloves in my game today and it is definately a glove. I have used a mitt for my whole playing career and this is not like any mitt I ever used. I know my opinion doesn't add up to much, but when you see it you will recognize it as a glove and not a mitt.

And two countries from the Northern half of the Western Hemisphere constitute the "World"?

Sorry, it just isn't a "world" series, but then again, neither is MLB's playoffs.

After all, isn't the all-time professional world home run leader not a former MLB player?

Quite a hobby horse you have there, Mike.

Face it, the name "World Series" was used by MLB well before there were any teams from Canada. In the common lexicon it has come to mean a diamond sports championship series.

MY objection to calling tournaments the ____ SERIES is the word "series." There is no "series." You're lucky if the tournament is double elimination.

(Recent NCAA CWS and WCWS being the exception, as they now have a 3 game series for the championship.)