Magic eyeglasses

[Cato the Younger]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

If the game today were played without one, and then someone brought out the first glove or mitt, then yes, it would be covered under this rule.

 

 

Agreed. The problem is is that you have some umpires that look at this from a paradigm that if it is not specifically spelled out in black and white in the rulebook, they have no rule support or authority to prohibit something.  That's completely in contrast to the elastic clause authority  philosophy granted by the rulebook that I posted above.

Your baseball glove analogy is a perfect example. 

When something new or novel comes the diamond, the umpires have to deal with it on the field. Eventually rule interpret will come out but until then umpires have no choice but to use elastic loss powers to make a decision.

 

[Cato the Younger]

12 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

What rule is being violated?

 

11 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

You do know you can just go to a bicycle shop and get a mirror that clips onto your glasses - right? You don't need a clever optometrist and jeweler.

Based on your posting it sounds to me like you effectively would allow nine players in the field to wear attachments to their sunglasses with these bike mirrors under the premise that it's not  actually mentioned in the rulebook and doesn't meet your definition of equipment.

Is that your position?

[elares]

I think that bit about using the rule book to solve problems and not create problems applies here.

If this happened in one of my games, I'd look at those glasses, wonder what took them so long to think of it, and proclaim "I'm good with it, let's play ball!".

 

R

[Cato the Younger]

Well, I just took my dog out for a walk it's cold outside. Nothing like a good dog walk to work through some Umpiring scenarios.

 The dog walk caused me to flip completely my position. I was thinking about it, and these glasses would be the perfect device not for a pitcher but if set up properly for hitter to start taking signs from the catcher. 

Philosophically I would be opposed to allowing a piece of equipment that could be utilized that way. I also know number of coaches that found out that a hitter was wearing these type of glasses they would not hesitate to stick a fastball in the kids ribs.

 Unless an official ruling came out allowing these types glasses, I would now not allow them.

[kylehutson]

OK, so a game is televised and there is a big-screen TV such that the pitcher can see 1B without turning. Same "advantage" (and, as pointed out, he still has to actually make the move legally). Unless I see something that makes them distracting, I'm leaving them.

Other team doesn't like it? Get their own pairs.

[Welpe]

I'm not touching this, especially when it comes to eyeglasses. If this becomes a big enough issue, we can run it up through the association or Fed can institute a rule change in 8-10 years.