Glove: Legal or Illegal?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ASA

Don't understand why this would even be questioned. Somebody must be looking for an excuse for something.

Other than color and size, there are no restrictions on a glove or mitt.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

Don't understand why this would even be questioned. Somebody must be looking for an excuse for something.

Other than color and size, there are no restrictions on a glove or mitt.

Agree. Rule 3.4 doesn't specify that the glove/mitt must be made of leather and bound with leather. Thus, plastic gloves are OK. (ugh!)

Rhetorical question: would you allow the glove/mitt if it was bound with bailing wire? 3.5.F Warning: The game of softball involves certain risk, including but not limited to death, [etc.] No problem there, fair warning given.

How about this?: 3.7 Note: The characteristics of any approved equipment cannot be unnaturally changed. The drawback is that we won't find any gloves/mitts on an approved equipment list.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Agree. Rule 3.4 doesn't specify that the glove/mitt must be made of leather and bound with leather. Thus, plastic gloves are OK. (ugh!)

Rhetorical question: would you allow the glove/mitt if it was bound with bailing wire? 3.5.F Warning: The game of softball involves certain risk, including but not limited to death, [etc.] No problem there, fair warning given.

How about this?: 3.7 Note: The characteristics of any approved equipment cannot be unnaturally changed. The drawback is that we won't find any gloves/mitts on an approved equipment list.

You don't need a list to spell out every approved item for you.

If an umpire disallows the glove and justifies it by saying that he believes it poses an unnecessary new and unanticipated safety risk, the team has the opportunity to protest. How would you handle it has the UIC on the field? Deny the protest based on safety or uphold it against umpire discretion?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Agree. Rule 3.4 doesn't specify that the glove/mitt must be made of leather and bound with leather. Thus, plastic gloves are OK. (ugh!)

Rhetorical question: would you allow the glove/mitt if it was bound with bailing wire? 3.5.F Warning: The game of softball involves certain risk, including but not limited to death, [etc.] No problem there, fair warning given.

How about this?: 3.7 Note: The characteristics of any approved equipment cannot be unnaturally changed. The drawback is that we won't find any gloves/mitts on an approved equipment list.

Okay, I was addressing the plastic ties and only the plastic ties. But I still would not make a wholesale decision without actually holding the glove.

Even then, on what basis would I have in disallowing the glove? And I'm sure you are going to be informed this glove has been allowed in hundreds of games.

Considering the whipping action or just the distance of the protrusion, should players be required to trim the long extra pieces of leather lacing from the glove?

Let's talk about comparable situations. Should we ban sliding feet first on tags plays? After all the metal or poly spikes can be quite sharp.

All that said, yeah, if I thought the glove was a danger, I would probably have a discussion with the coach to see if s/he can adjust the glove to eliminate any safety issue there may be.

[Robmoz]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, I was addressing the plastic ties and only the plastic ties. But I still would not make a wholesale decision without actually holding the glove.

Even then, on what basis would I have in disallowing the glove? And I'm sure you are going to be informed this glove has been allowed in hundreds of games.

Considering the whipping action or just the distance of the protrusion, should players be required to trim the long extra pieces of leather lacing from the glove?

Let's talk about comparable situations. Should we ban sliding feet first on tags plays? After all the metal or poly spikes can be quite sharp.

All that said, yeah, if I thought the glove was a danger, I would probably have a discussion with the coach to see if s/he can adjust the glove to eliminate any safety issue there may be.

May be an old post, but yesterday...I had a player use a glove with the leather laces extending about 12 inches on all fingers like tentacles. Other than looking ridiculous I was wondering IF it posed a safety risk that needed my attention or not? Any thoughts?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Robmoz

May be an old post, but yesterday...I had a player use a glove with the leather laces extending about 12 inches on all fingers like tentacles. Other than looking ridiculous I was wondering IF it posed a safety risk that needed my attention or not? Any thoughts?

The ONLY issue I've ever heard when it comes to long leather laces is that they may pose a distraction when the pitcher has them. And that was in a LL Baseball game in my son's old local league, and it was done by a coach who looked for any excuse to get under the opposing team's skin.

As for it being a safety issue, I don't see how that's really a problem.

I suppose one could argue that 12-inch-long laces could give the defense an advantage when it came to tagging a runner. If on a swipe tag the fielder contacted the runner only with the laces while the ball was in the glove, would that be a legal tag? We do say a tag of a runner's ponytail constitutes a legal tag; how about when it comes to the glove? Hmmmmm...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I suppose one could argue that 12-inch-long laces could give the defense an advantage when it came to tagging a runner. If on a swipe tag the fielder contacted the runner only with the laces while the ball was in the glove, would that be a legal tag? ..

Are the laces part of the glove or merely an attachment?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Are the laces part of the glove or merely an attachment?

If they're being used to hold the glove together, they're part of it. I view attachments as items that serve no useful purpose, such as a lucky rabbit's foot or a dreamcatcher.

That said, are there any restrictions to attachments on gloves in the rules? I know that in LL, there is a restriction to attachments of "foreign material" to the pitcher's glove, where "foreign material" entails any item not attached by the manufacturer. No such restriction exists for other fielders.

I don't recall ever seeing anything similar in ASA, FED, or NCAA. The latter has something close under rule 3.7.2, where it says, "The use of any treatment or device that fundamentally changes the specifications of gloves is prohibited and renders the equipment altered and unsuitable for play." I wouldn't consider extra-long laces as a "device" that changes the glove's specs.

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I suppose one could argue that 12-inch-long laces could give the defense an advantage when it came to tagging a runner. If on a swipe tag the fielder contacted the runner only with the laces while the ball was in the glove, would that be a legal tag? We do say a tag of a runner's ponytail constitutes a legal tag; how about when it comes to the glove? Hmmmmm...

If the extra-long laces are considered part of the glove for purposes of a tag, have we not violated the rules regarding the size of the glove?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Jake26

If the extra-long laces are considered part of the glove for purposes of a tag, have we not violated the rules regarding the size of the glove?

I hate to answer a question with a question, but if that were to be the case, wouldn't the rules specify a maximum length for the laces?

IMO, glove sizes are solely for the purpose of providing a specification that limits the catching ability of the wearer on the field. If there was also a concern to limit the tagging ability, then the catcher's glove/mitt would also be limited.

That said, good luck actually seeing a fielder tag a runner with the glove's laces.