A weird weekend for weird plays...
 

Had several rules I had enforced this weekend that don't normally come up frequently...

In one ASA JO FP game Saturday:
- Rule 3-4 : Pitcher with black Mizuno glove with yellow stitching.
- Rule 6FP-3I: Same pitcher stepping outside the 24" length of the PP.
- Rule 6FP-7B: Pitch comes in for strike, 0-2, F2 throws to F3. Ball 1, count's now 1-2.
- Rule 6FP-10E: First base coach emphatically calls Time about 3 times as F1 goes into motion.
- Rule 6FP-11: High windup, ball slips to center field. No one on base though.
- Rule 8-7J(1): Typical runner interference on a GB to F4 for the 3rd out.

And in a CoEd SP game on Sunday:
- Rule 8-5F(1) Team A is kicking the $chitt out of Team B by about 20 or 25 runs. Bottom of the 5th inning, all Team A needs is 3 outs to go home. First batter up pops up to F4 - he shows off and catches the ball in his hat. Dead ball, give the batter 3B.

Just kinda odd that they all happened to me all within two days of games ...

I was under the impression the Mizuno glove,with yellow stitching, was legal......

I am more than willing to be corrected on this though....:)

Common sense would make one think is should be, but it is not by rule.

I'm confused
Uh... wasn't that a strikeout?

Well it is not as it is off the shelf, now with a little Sharpie work that glove is just fine :D

Jeff Poster stated pitch came in for a strike 0-2, Not that the count at
the time was 0-2., so now a ball is awarded to batter.

We started with 0-1. The pitch was thrown for a strike. Now we're at 0-2. Then F2 threw to F3. Now we're at 1-2.

Ha a couple in Westlake, La this weekend.

1st one, got to use one that has been around awhile.

Teams in loser bracket, Team A using their ace, knowing if they lose saving
her means nothing, Team B taking different approach, using a whatever.
Team B pitcher rarely finding the zone. Team B coach really harping on my
K zone. It is 90 + and humid. He finally tells me I am missing a good game.
Yea, you know what was coming. "I know coach, but the UIC told me I had
to work this game." He did not like that and really went off, but I informed
him he was staying, I had to.

R1 on 2B, ball hit toward SS, runner seeing ball slows then bounce steps in
front of SS and somehow not hit my batted ball, but causes SS to lose sight
of ball, hitting her in throat. "Dead Ball, INT." Offensive coach comes out
arguing. [both PU and BU called play at same time] He loses argument, but
in parting say that had only been called 1 time on him, and that by a Texas
umpire. Little did he know, I was only Texas Umpire in the tournament.

Oh. :o

Would you say that is what the rule actually states? I don't think so.

I would say it is not by official interpretation of the rule.

"The Pitcher's glove may be of one solid color or multicolored as long as the color(s) are not the color of the ball being used in the game."

Well, according to the June clarifications, it is. I am assuming that the "yellow" on the glove is the same color as the ball, not just any shade of yellow.

Please note, I'm not saying I agree with it, just the way it seems ASA supervisor wants it.

2008 NCAA Rules (Page 50)

What I'm saying is that the Mizuno glove is a black glove with yellow logo and markings. That is different from saying it is a black and yellow glove, like the Jenny Finch glove is black and pink. No part of the body of the glove is yellow; it is black with a very minor yellow marking.

Take, as a point of comparison, the ASA powder blue uniform shirt. Would you not agree that it is powder blue? Or would you say it is multicolored, because it has about 1% navy blue in the ASA logo and trim, and 0.5% white trim? KR is saying that glove is multicolored, despite the multiple efforts to match interpretations with NCAA and NFHS, both of which more clearly state that the color of a glove does NOT include logo's, laces, or other minor markings.

So, again, I say that is the interpretation, but not necessarily what the rule actually says. Not the first or only time; I have always questioned how running/crashing into a player not making a play can also be interference, when every other interpretation of interference makes it clear there must be a play to be interfered with. USC, sure; interference, only because they say so.

Steve, not arguing against you for the rule. I think it is ridiculous. However, in the June clarifications, the "rule of thumb" and reasoning contradict each other.

A good rule of thumb would be to hold the game ball next to the glove in question and see if they are the same color. If they are, then the PITCHER can not use that glove. The intent of the rule is to not have a glove that appears to have a ball in it or that can be a distraction to the batter by having the game ball color on it.

The "rule of thumb" seems to clearly state that if the colors are the same through comparison, the pitcher cannot use the glove. However, I think the final sentence muddies the waters more than helps clarify it. After all, who cares if it seems there is a ball in the glove? What difference does that make in the pitching game?


I agree. Then again, I would like to see clearer language to address the no-ball collision situations.

Neither the Mizuno (more of an optic greenish yellowish) nor the Wilson (straight yellow) perfectly match the game ball.

Thats excellent.