Pitchers Glove

[UmpJM]

Bret,

So, if I understand you correctly, you would call this a "glove", because it clearly has "individual, independant (sic) finger stalls":

I would suggest it is rather more a matter of custom & tradition rather than rule.

JM

[Rich Ives]

Bret,

So, if I understand you correctly, you would call this a "glove", because it clearly has "individual, independant (sic) finger stalls":

I would suggest it is rather more a matter of custom & tradition rather than rule.

JM

They are not independent - you cannot move them one at a time.

[Rich Ives]

BTW,

Is this a mitt or a glove - it strikes me as having properties of both?

JM

mitt

[Rich Ives]

"Instructor comments:

In Baseball, only the first baseman may wear a first baseman’s mitt. "

Well that statement is clearly not true (unless by the word "Baseball" you mean "Little League") Even Rich has to admit that "Baseball" and "Little League" are not synonymous

It'a a quote from the LL RIM. I said it was from the LL RIM. You didn't read it correctly apparently.

It's the comment about the rule as it applies to LL baseball.

LL has both BB and SB. They, in this case, need to differentiate so they highlighted "baseball''

FWIW, the following line in the RIM says

In Softball, the first baseman and the catcher may wear a first baseman’s mitt.

[Rich Ives]

Rich,

Rich,

One more time.

In the OP, it was specifically an F3's glove.

I said that if it meant the constraints of 1.14, it was legal.

It is. Even in Little League.

Again, what "unintended advantage" do you think would be gained by an F1 using a "mitt" rather than a "glove" - JM

If a 1B mitt offers no advantage why do F3's use them?

BTW, in LL rules the dimensions are the same for both a 1B mitt and a fielder's glove.

[semper_fi_72]

"Instructor comments:

In Baseball, only the first baseman may wear a first baseman’s mitt. "

Well that statement is clearly not true (unless by the word "Baseball" you mean "Little League") Even Rich has to admit that "Baseball" and "Little League" are not synonymous

OK

You quote a statement from the LL RIM and then question how they use the term BASEBALL!!!!!!!

They are talking about LL Baseball. So when it comes from the LL RIM it means LL Baseball and is not synonymous with anything else.

When they state BASEBALL in the LL RIM it is beacuse they are drawing a line of difference between LL Baseball and LL Softball.

[BretMan]

They are not independent (finger stalls) - you cannot move them one at a time.

You beat me to it....

[UmpJM]

Well, these aren't "independent" either, because the all come out of a common base and are laced together at the top so if you move one they're ALL going to move.

OK, Ok...I know this one if a "glove" and the previous one is a "mitt". The other one I posted, I honestly believe could be fairly characterized as either. But hey, that's just my opinion. And, so what, anyway?

(By way of background, Rich and I have been having this "discussion" off and on for about a decade on various boards. My interest in the question was spurred by a couple of experiences I had when I was coaching my sons back then. Neither of us has found the other persuasive.)

When we're talking about the things we war on our hands when it's cold out to keep them warm, there's a material functional difference between a mitt(en) and a glove. The mitt(en) provides better thermal protection of the fingers by providing a single cavity shared by all the fingers, allowing the body heat released by the fingers to be conserved more effectively in a larger airspace. The glove sacrifices some insulating efficiency in order to provide enhanced manual/digital dexterity.

My OPINION is that, in baseball, the catcher's and 1st baseman's mitts have evolved to afford greater PROTECTION to the hands, as well as enhanced utility in "blocking" pitches/throws "in the dirt" - as they are more frequently required to do than any other players - with minimized risk of injury to the hand. The "solid/continuous" ball-facing side of the mitt (ALL modern "mitts have individual internal finger slots) makes it easier to effectively pad the mitt with additional protective materials.

They are also allowed LARGER "fielding leather" - with larger pockets - than other players, because the nature of their positions requires them to be more stationary than other fielders, and it affords them a greater opportunity to "get a glove" on and/or gain secure possession of balls "in the dirt".

However, they provide these qualities by increasing the weight and cumbersomeness of the mitt, which reduces their overall fielding effectiveness.

If you've ever tried to field grounders with a catcher's mitt or a first baseman's mitt, you will find they they are actually more difficult to field with. At least that has been my experience.

The Evans cite I posted above has led me to the conclusion that the intent of the rule is to afford F2's & F3's the options of using LARGER fielding leather than other fielders due to the demands of the positions they play, and that the specification of mitt/glove is an accident of tradition rather than intended to be binding to preclude any particular advantage the rules makers were trying to constrain.

I could. of course, be wrong about that.

Anyway, I will refrain from further comment on the question in this thread - out of consideration for the other forum members - other than to say...

I still think the coach who complained in the OP was a d**k for bringing it up in a 10U game.

JM

[RichMSN]

Rich,

Can you point me to the rule that defines what is a "glove" and what is a "mitt"?

Of course you can't, because it doesn't exist. Because it is immaterial and not the point of the rule.

The rule is to limit the overall size of the mitt and the construction and size of the pocket ("webbing") to limit the degree of advantage afforded the fielder in gaining possession of the ball.

If the "fielding leather" meets the constraints defined in 1.14, it is, de jure, legal.

Besides, the OP said it was a 1st baseman's glove, anyway.

JM

I'm with Rich Ives here. I know what as mitt is when i see it. It's not legal, except in a FED game. I've never had a player try to use an F3 mitt at another position, though. And I agree with you, John -- a coach using this in a 10U game is, well, what you said.