Observations From First Games of the Season

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by BretMan

T

- A question: Has anyone here ever been in the least bit fooled into thinking a player had the ball in her glove just because her glove had a little bit of green on it?

The glove rules are goofy enough as it is. Every sanctioning body has a different standard and just about all of them have changed or modified the rule several times in the past few years.

The new high school rule has been presented to the coaches in various meetings, covered in preseason literature and been covered as a point of emphasis. So far this year, I have had to address ten players with what NFHS now deems to be an illegal glove- and the season is young!

Before the season started (and whether I agreed or not) the interpretation was very clear after reading the pre-season NFHS guide. For a month of scrimmages and games we 'warned' coaches about this new interpretation and the ramification of it. Then the 'State rules interpreter' came out with a clarification that this was not illegal unless 'the umpire felt it was a distraction to the batter'. So does this now only apply to the pitcher?????

the pre-season guide does not specify this. And I have seen in games where I was 'looking' for 'optic' on gloves during warm up, to warn coaches, when I thought a player had optic writing on the outer side of the glove only to see that it was the ball. So I do see the intent of the new interpretation.

but what are other states, local chapters doing?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Before the season started (and whether I agreed or not) the interpretation was very clear after reading the pre-season NFHS guide. For a month of scrimmages and games we 'warned' coaches about this new interpretation and the ramification of it. Then the 'State rules interpreter' came out with a clarification that this was not illegal unless 'the umpire felt it was a distraction to the batter'. So does this now only apply to the pitcher?????

the pre-season guide does not specify this. And I have seen in games where I was 'looking' for 'optic' on gloves during warm up, to warn coaches, when I thought a player had optic writing on the outer side of the glove only to see that it was the ball. So I do see the intent of the new interpretation.

but what are other states, local chapters doing?

Well, that's the thing about NFHS, each association can do whatever they please with the rules.

Personally, I think it is one of the dumbest rules I've heard. I love the people that think there is some major deception going on here, even moreso that people worry about folks being fooled as to whether the ball is in the glove or not. Huh? Does anyone rely on sneaking a peek between the fingers to determine if the player has the ball in the glove or not?

And a distraction? GMAFB! a player can wear an optic yellow uniform, but a small piece of green on the glove is going to provide a distraction. Sounds like this would come from the same people who want to have sunglasses declared illegal.

[Dutch Alex]

My seasonstart here in the Neth's has been postponed for the 3th week in a row. Yesterday it was still snowing!
So how coaches and pitcher will act this year is a big surprise to me.

For that glove with the brands name on it in the same color as the ball written along the index-finger, the rule is clear! It is legal, however I've been fooled several years ago as well.
At one point I thought we had two ball's in the game. Miss Sumeru, F1 for the Dutch national team, has that glove. She knows what she can and may do. Had her glove on the chest and the ball in the bare hand. I saw clearly two balls! However it was the gloves name in optic yellow.

I think, rereading the rules, that stretching ISF rule 3, sec. 4b will forbid the use of this glove...

Rule 3 Sec. 4. GLOVES & MITTS.
Any player may wear a glove, but only the catcher and first baseman may use mitts.
a. No top lacing, webbing, or other device between the thumb and body of the glove or mitt worn by a first baseman or catcher or a glove worn by any fielder, shall be more than 12.7cm (5 in) in length.
b. Gloves worn by any player may be any combination of colors, provided none of the colors (including the lacing) are the color of the ball.
c. Gloves with white, gray, or yellow optic circles on the outside, giving the appearance of a ball, are illegal for all players. (SEE APPENDIX 5 FOR DRAWING AND SPECIFICATIONS)

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alex

Rule 3 Sec. 4. GLOVES & MITTS.
Any player may wear a glove, but only the catcher and first baseman may use mitts.
a. No top lacing, webbing, or other device between the thumb and body of the glove or mitt worn by a first baseman or catcher or a glove worn by any fielder, shall be more than 12.7cm (5 in) in length.
b. Gloves worn by any player may be any combination of colors, provided none of the colors (including the lacing) are the color of the ball.
c. Gloves with white, gray, or yellow optic circles on the outside, giving the appearance of a ball, are illegal for all players. (SEE APPENDIX 5 FOR DRAWING AND SPECIFICATIONS)

This is the ISF rule correct?

Here is NFHS and ASA

NFHS Rule 1 section 4 ART. 1 . Gloves/mitts shall:

a. Be a maximum of two colors excluding lacing and manufacturer's logo
colors. Lacing shall not be the color of the ball.

b. Not be entirely optic in color.

c. Not have an optic-colored marking 0n the outside or inside that gives the appearance of the ball.

d. Be permitted to have one American flag not to exceed 2 inches by 3 inches.
e. Not be judged as distracting by the umpire.

ASA Rule 3 section 4 Glove/Mitt

A Glove / Mitt may be worn by any player. The dimensions of any glove / mitt used by any fielder shall not exceed the specifications set forth below ( see drawing and specifications). (Fast Pitch) The Pitcher's glove may be of one solid color or Multicolored as long as the color(s) are not of the ball being used in the game.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The rules involving the coloring of gloves had not changed that much other than to allow for the optic yellow ball.

The manufacturers have KNOWN since day one that placing a color of the ball on the glove was an issue with, just about if not every, softball rules organizations in existence. Yet they continue to manufacture and market gloves that violate the rule and then act stupid, well, let's assume it's an act, when the issue is raised by the consumer.

When this issue comes up on the field and is addressed with the coaches and parents, that needs to be said by someone. I've heard parents complain about how ASA, NFHS, whoever is ruining the game by not allowing certain gloves in the game when, in fact, it is the manufacturers that are blatantly taking advantage of the situation.

And, of course, we all know the real response to the customer is that they purchased a baseball glove for a softball game.

[Dutch Alex]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

This is the ISF rule correct?

Yes it is. Here in Holland we play them. There's only one federation, for FP softball, baseball, beeball (a sort of T-ball) and we 're starting with co-ed SP softball.
So when ever I use a rule it's ISF. Most bodies rule-sets are more or less similar.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Then the 'State rules interpreter' came out with a clarification that this was not illegal unless 'the umpire felt it was a distraction to the batter'. So does this now only apply to the pitcher?????
...
but what are other states, local chapters doing?

Your state interpreter is wrong, IMO. The preseason guide doesn't limit the restriction to pitchers and to umpire judgement on distraction of batters.

In my neck, we are enforcing it for all players, regardless of position.

That said, Yes, I think it's a bogus rule. Who cares that the right fielder has an optic yellow "Mizuno" on her glove?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Your state interpreter is wrong, IMO. The preseason guide doesn't limit the restriction to pitchers and to umpire judgement on distraction of batters.

In my neck, we are enforcing it for all players, regardless of position.

That said, Yes, I think it's a bogus rule. Who cares that the right fielder has an optic yellow "Mizuno" on her glove?

While I don't disagree, a state interpreter cannot be wrong when instructing umpires within his/her area of responsibility. NFHS rules are suggestions which can or cannot, in whole or in part, be utilized by the local associations as they elect.

[BretMan]

On the NFHS glove rule...

Gloves/mitts shall not have an optic-colored marking on the outside or inside that gives the appearance of the ball.

So, do we as umpires get to decide if whatever bit of green on the glove gives the appearance of the ball or not? As this rule reads, it doesn't necessarily ban any and all optic-colored markings, only those that could be mistaken for the ball.

Some of the gloves I've addressed have looked like the example in the NFHS Preseason Guide, with a big optic logo running up the middle finger that maybe possibly might look like a sliver of the ball peeking through the space between the fingers.

Others only had a small optic logo on the velcro wrist strap.

Suppose I see a kid with an optic-colored logo on her glove but, in my judgment, it does not give the appearance of the ball?

Or, do we just remove the element of judgment (which is often the FED way of doing things) and toss all gloves with any optic color on them?

[tcannizzo]

Maybe they should come out with a glove list.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by BretMan

On the NFHS glove rule...

Gloves/mitts shall not have an optic-colored marking on the outside or inside that gives the appearance of the ball.

So, do we as umpires get to decide if whatever bit of green on the glove gives the appearance of the ball or not? As this rule reads, it doesn't necessarily ban any and all optic-colored markings, only those that could be mistaken for the ball.

Some of the gloves I've addressed have looked like the example in the NFHS Preseason Guide, with a big optic logo running up the middle finger that maybe possibly might look like a sliver of the ball peeking through the space between the fingers.

Others only had a small optic logo on the velcro wrist strap.

Suppose I see a kid with an optic-colored logo on her glove but, in my judgment, it does not give the appearance of the ball?

Or, do we just remove the element of judgment (which is often the FED way of doing things) and toss all gloves with any optic color on them?

Ahhh, yes. Another opportunity for umpires to rule differently on the same issue.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

NFHS rules are suggestions which can or cannot, in whole or in part, be utilized by the local associations as they elect.

Really? I never realized that. I thought the rules as written had to be strictly complied with, except where state adoptions are allowed. Learned something new...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Really? I never realized that. I thought the rules as written had to be strictly complied with, except where state adoptions are allowed. Learned something new...

OK, let's clarify.

To IrishMafia, who relates to ASA structure, a local association equals an NFHS State Association. Each State can adopt their own rules, can interpret their own rules differently; even if it varies from the NFHS official ruling.

Read the preamble regarding state associations may make modifications, and the final block just before the rules start, that all requests for interpretations and clarifications be forwarded to the state association.

Toss no gloves. 1) Use common sense judgment (like the state interpretor telling you it doesn't matter in any case but the pitcher, 2) at worst, say that glove cannot be used as-is by the pitcher, 3) let them cover or change the color of any marking you deem offensive (sharpies do well), 4) use common sense, and 5) did I say use common sense?

Reporting subs has always been something you were to tell the head coach; after all, hasn't that always been the person defined as responsible for all communications? That head coach can delegate that to an assistant or scorekeeper, but we were always supposed to "announce immediately the change(s) to the opposing team." There has never been a responsibility in NFHS to tell a scorekeeper, and I, for one, don't care if the coach tells the scorekeeper, if they get it right. The only thing that matters is the PU official lineup, and what it says.

As a practical matter, it is easy enough to go half way, get their attention, announce in their general direction. If they ignore you, who cares? You recorded, you announced; no longer your problem. And going all the way to them only drags out the game, and gives them another chance to take a private shot, if they are so inclined.

Now, if you can do it all in one clean shot, fine. If they want you to do anything else, your responsibility is to tell the head coach; period. "Coach, we have 5, Johnson, for 7, Smith, in the 5 hole". Done.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Toss no gloves.

I used "toss" more or less as a shorthanded way of saying, "Tell the player or her coach that the glove either has to be replaced or corrected".

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

1) Use common sense judgment (like the state interpretor telling you it doesn't matter in any case but the pitcher, 2) at worst, say that glove cannot be used as-is by the pitcher

Our state interpretor is telling us exactly the same thing that the FED rule book and point of emphasis says: This rule applies to ALL players.

I don't necessarily disagree that it should only be a possible issue with the pitcher's glove, but if we don't address it uniformly for all players then we are going against what we've been instructed.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

3) let them cover or change the color of any marking you deem offensive (sharpies do well)

Naturally. That is a common fix and can bring the glove into compliance.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

4) use common sense, and 5) did I say use common sense?

Common sense isn't always so common. My own personal notion of common sense is that the rule is ticky-tacky, unnecessary and that no little swatch of green cloth on the outside of a glove is going to make me think that a player has the ball inside of her glove. I would also say that neon green isn't the same color as optic yellow.

Absent a more precise definition or guideline, one man's illegal glove will be another man's legal glove. That will lead to uneven enforcement of the rule.That's the kind of thing that can make teams think the umpires don't know what they're doing or lead to agruments.