Illegal Glove

[Duke]

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

[shipwreck]

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

[JEL]

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

[whiskers_ump]

As all the looks of a mitt....

[U of M Sam]

Originally posted by JEL


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

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

[SRW]

[JEL]

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!

[SRW]

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

[EdJW]

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.

[JEL]

Originally posted by EdJW
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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[EdJW]

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.

[EdJW]

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.

[U_of_I_Blue]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.