Jump to content
  • 0
Guest Matt

Sunglasses not worn on field

Question

Guest Matt

Are infielders (shortstop) allowed to wear mirrored sunglasses on their hat during play? Couldn't it be justified as a distraction to a left-handed batter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
15 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

? Advancement?

where am I going with a volunteer status volunteering for more? 

If all you want in your officiating career is to volunteer at your local Little League, then I'm glad you've found your happy place. I, apparently falsely, assumed you had aspirations to move into more-competitive baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sarcasm? Lots of reasons why umpires may not wish to "advance"--time commitment, travel, work, family commitments, age. Let's give ArchAngel72 credit: he's here and he's learning. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be the best damned umpire in your LL region.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
33 minutes ago, LRZ said:

 he's here and he's learning.

I don't mean to pile on, but I agree with the first half of that statement.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
46 minutes ago, LRZ said:

Sarcasm? Lots of reasons why umpires may not wish to "advance"--time commitment, travel, work, family commitments, age. Let's give ArchAngel72 credit: he's here and he's learning. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be the best damned umpire in your LL region.

He's here and he's learning, yes, that's correct.  However, ... he's being "Mr. Yeah, But ...." .....and that gets old real fast.  That's my only issue with what he's doing.  I'm glad he's here, ...he just needs to learn when to shut-it-down when he has an answer. :nod:   It appears he's getting "piled on" because he's not comprehending and taking in what he's being told.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

How about those Cubbies??!?!

st louis cardinals fred bird GIF by MLB

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

I’d like to have further discussion of something Mr. Thunderheads stated earlier in this thread, “Here's the point .... IF IT'S NOT IN THE BOOK AS ILLEGAL ............. then ..........it's legal ... period.” No one took issue with it so I am assuming that everyone agrees with it. Well, let me be the first to disagree with that.

An example can be taken from a question posed on this site some time back about whether a batter could try to initiate catcher interference by intentionally stepping back before swinging at the pitch. The resident experts here stated categorically that since there was no rule prohibiting it that it must therefore be legal. I posted an interpretation from the BRD that proved a batter could not do that even though there is nothing in the rule book about it.

So, keeping that example in mind, I pose a couple of questions based on OBR for MLB players for your consideration. First, can a player wear white wrist bands? Second, can a base runner ask for time to change shoes? I am pretty sure the answers are not in the rule book.

And, yes, I am trying to change the subject a bit and stop the dog piling on Mr. ArchAngel72.

While @Senor Azul is of course correct, ... he usually is ( :nod: ) ........ My point was/is, as most know ...under certain situations such as ArchAngel72's statements, ... there is nothing in the rules that says a player can't wear his glasses on his hat if they're not on his face.  There's also nothing that says sunglasses are considered jewelry under the definitions section.  Thus, there is nothing illegal about doing so.    The comment I used earlier to ArchAngel72 is indeed a broad brush stroke statement.  I used it because he wasn't listening/comprehending what others were saying.  The statement is generically true, but it takes a little digging into certain parts of the rule book to confirm, much like I did above in bold

Let me try to attempt to addres Mr. Azul's questions as I'm NOT a rules guru whatsoever, but I'll try :) to do so generically (I'm not in a situation to cite rules however)

1: Can a batter try to initial catchers interference (obstruction) -   No, that would fall under 'interference'

2: White wrist bands?  As long as he's not pitching  ;) 

3: @Richvee already answered that :D 

So, you see ...there MAY not be anything that specifically calls details out under certain situations making it illegal, but it could be thrown under a larger umbrella to do so.

My brain hurts now :smachhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, LRZ said:

Sarcasm? Lots of reasons why umpires may not wish to "advance"--time commitment, travel, work, family commitments, age. Let's give ArchAngel72 credit: he's here and he's learning. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be the best damned umpire in your LL region.

Not at all sarcastic, though the tone might have been harsh.

If all he's interested in right now is Little League baseball and officiating at his current ability, then good for him. But "advancement" includes much more than what level of baseball you're working.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 8/21/2019 at 3:16 AM, Guest Matt said:

Are infielders (shortstop) allowed to wear mirrored sunglasses on their hat during play? Couldn't it be justified as a distraction to a left-handed batter?

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. It's not distracting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Honestly, I was thinking "why is the batter looking at F6 and not the pitcher?  I dunno, maybe its just me.

If a car goes by and honk's it's horn just as the batter is swinging.........or F1is delivering a pitch, ....................... do we close the roads?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Let’s see. The OP does not specify a rule set for which he is looking for an answer. Then Mr. Richvee mentions New Jersey as a possible reason for confusion on this subject. I think this is why--a thread posted in the High School forum just three months ago—More insights from NJ dated May 2, 2019.

 

In that thread Mr. LMSANS posted the following—

NFHS has informed NJSIAA that there is no rule forbidding the wearing of sunglasses whether they are reflective or not.  Sunglasses that produce a glare that affects a defensive or offensive player's ability to see should be individually removed; not collectively as a team.  If an umpire judges the sunglasses to be a danger to others they should be removed.

The wearing of sunglasses on the bill of the cap or behind the cap (thinking we can't see them) still continues to be prevalent.  On cloudy days, if a fielder is wearing sunglasses on top of the cap, it is being worn as an adornment for styling purposes.

With information like the preceding out there isn’t understandable and reasonable, Mr. Thunderheads, that a Little League umpire might hold similar ideas? Besides, when he objected that there is no rule book citation to support the answers he was given someone finally posted a one-word reply from the Little League website with no rule cite or explanation or any details. Just one word! And another question for you, Mr. Thunderheads. How does this post-- And you are incorrect in your interpretation—make anyone a rules guru?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Let’s see. The OP does not specify a rule set for which he is looking for an answer. Then Mr. Richvee mentions New Jersey as a possible reason for confusion on this subject. I think this is why--a thread posted in the High School forum just three months ago—More insights from NJ dated May 2, 2019.

 

In that thread Mr. LMSANS posted the following—

NFHS has informed NJSIAA that there is no rule forbidding the wearing of sunglasses whether they are reflective or not.  Sunglasses that produce a glare that affects a defensive or offensive player's ability to see should be individually removed; not collectively as a team.  If an umpire judges the sunglasses to be a danger to others they should be removed.

The wearing of sunglasses on the bill of the cap or behind the cap (thinking we can't see them) still continues to be prevalent.  On cloudy days, if a fielder is wearing sunglasses on top of the cap, it is being worn as an adornment for styling purposes.

With information like the preceding out there isn’t understandable and reasonable, Mr. Thunderheads, that a Little League umpire might hold similar ideas? Besides, when he objected that there is no rule book citation to support the answers he was given someone finally posted a one-word reply from the Little League website with no rule cite or explanation or any details. Just one word! And another question for you, Mr. Thunderheads. How does this post-- And you are incorrect in your interpretation—make anyone a rules guru?

Ok .... well ....

We discussed New Jersey's issue w/ sunglasses early in this post.  Could a LL umpire hold similar ideas as what NJ HS rules has in place, maybe, ....but he's LL in New Hampshire according to his profile.

I don't understand your "other" question at the end.  Please clarify the question and my incorrect interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

He's here and he's learning, yes, that's correct.  However, ... he's being "Mr. Yeah, But ...." .....and that gets old real fast.  That's my only issue with what he's doing.  I'm glad he's here, ...he just needs to learn when to shut-it-down when he has an answer. :nod:   It appears he's getting "piled on" because he's not comprehending and taking in what he's being told.  

 

Diversity perspective, because I am what you are calling a “yeah but guy” ... that is how some people learn.  I am that way.  I don’t do well with “because I told you so” or “that’s just the way it is”.  Like Bruce Hornsby said, “Some things are made for change.”

I am a “deconstructionist”.  If I want to know how something works, I tear it apart and put it back together.  This is not a bad quality for somebody who really wants to understand the rules.  To fully understand how something works, one also needs to understand how it doesn’t work.  Again, I believe that is a great quality for an umpire as it helps one to be able to rationalize logically through problems.

I’m also guessing ArchAngel is what would be classified as a “green” on one of the common personality tests.  I am green.  I can be diplomatic, but my directness and inquisitiveness (and sometimes obsession) is often misinterpreted as being contrarian (or just being a stubborn a-hole).  That isn’t the purpose and certainly not my intent.  The purpose is to help me fully understand.

I don’t always agree with AA, but I like to walk through his logic to understand why he thinks things.  I like to do that with each poster in here — I don’t have to agree with your position, I just “need” to understand why you are coming to that conclusion.  I have to say the guys who throw directives at AA and say “You’re wrong” are being just as obstinate as they think he is.  

I alluded to it another post, but try cracking open the rule book and supporting your position.  Sometimes you find you are wrong.  I don’t care how many years of experience you have or at what level — when you rely solely on what is floating around in your head for decades, you will be wrong on occasion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Let’s see. The OP does not specify a rule set for which he is looking for an answer. Then Mr. Richvee mentions New Jersey as a possible reason for confusion on this subject. I think this is why--a thread posted in the High School forum just three months ago—More insights from NJ dated May 2, 2019.

 

In that thread Mr. LMSANS posted the following—

NFHS has informed NJSIAA that there is no rule forbidding the wearing of sunglasses whether they are reflective or not.  Sunglasses that produce a glare that affects a defensive or offensive player's ability to see should be individually removed; not collectively as a team.  If an umpire judges the sunglasses to be a danger to others they should be removed.

The wearing of sunglasses on the bill of the cap or behind the cap (thinking we can't see them) still continues to be prevalent.  On cloudy days, if a fielder is wearing sunglasses on top of the cap, it is being worn as an adornment for styling purposes.

With information like the preceding out there isn’t understandable and reasonable, Mr. Thunderheads, that a Little League umpire might hold similar ideas? Besides, when he objected that there is no rule book citation to support the answers he was given someone finally posted a one-word reply from the Little League website with no rule cite or explanation or any details. Just one word! And another question for you, Mr. Thunderheads. How does this post-- And you are incorrect in your interpretation—make anyone a rules guru?

 

On cloudy days, if a fielder is wearing sunglasses on top of the cap, it is being worn as an adornment for styling purposes.

I don’t necessarily agree, but that sounds like an NFHS interpretation that says sunglasses can be (and are) considered jewelry if not being used properly.

EDIT: it is clarified below that the whole statement was not an NFHS statement.  The portion I referenced was the state’s addition, not NFHS’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

Ok .... well ....

We discussed New Jersey's issue w/ sunglasses early in this post.  Could a LL umpire hold similar ideas as what NJ HS rules has in place, maybe, ....but he's LL in New Hampshire according to his profile.

I don't understand your "other" question at the end.  Please clarify the question and my incorrect interpretation

 

I am deleing my comments on this as they aren’t productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I am deleing my comments on this as they aren’t productive.

what comments?  I find your stuff value added! :nod: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Diversity perspective, because I am what you are calling a “yeah but guy” ... that is how some people learn.  I am that way.  I don’t do well with “because I told you so” or “that’s just the way it is”. 

There's a difference between "yeah, but" and asking for the logic behind something. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I am deleing my comments on this as they aren’t productive.

Then why post this at all???..........if you aren't going to post comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Matt said:

There's a difference between "yeah, but" and asking for the logic behind something. 

@Matt answered before I could ...... I understand perfectly your insight @The Man in Blue .... and, it made me think a little more about ArchAngel72's approach.  That said, I think it's more of how he went about 'trying to find out' ....like Matt said .... the difference between 'yeah, but' .... and asking about the logic behind a rule and/or interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

On cloudy days, if a fielder is wearing sunglasses on top of the cap, it is being worn as an adornment for styling purposes.

I don’t necessarily agree, but that sounds like an NFHS interpretation that says sunglasses can be (and are) considered jewelry if not being used properly.

It's not and NFHS position.  It's a NJ position, as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, noumpere said:

It's not and NFHS position.  It's a NJ position, as I understand it.

Correct, it is NJ, but not sure if it extends past high school ball......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It's not and NFHS position.  It's a NJ position, as I understand it.

Possibly my misunderstanding of how that was written then ... I read it as the whole statement came from NFHS.  After looking at the linked post, I believe you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

Then why post this at all???..........if you aren't going to post comments?

Because I wrote something that I took a step back and re-read.  I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful of Thunderheads, but it could have been read that way.  I still cannot find a way to delete a post.  I know it used to be there, but it is gone.  Not sure if it is a browser issue or what.  Since I can’t delete, I can only edit.  I could have posted something nonsensical but chose to clarify instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Because I wrote something that I took a step back and re-read.  I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful of Thunderheads, but it could have been read that way.  I still cannot find a way to delete a post.  I know it used to be there, but it is gone.  Not sure if it is a browser issue or what.  Since I can’t delete, I can only edit.  I could have posted something nonsensical but chose to clarify instead.

I don't recall seeing anything disrespectful from anyone on this post ....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hey guys just want to apologize for yesterday I the day before got the news I was diagnosed with something not too pleasant.  So I was butting heads not on purpose but laying out my frustration in doing so.

So I apologize

Hi I'm ArchAngel72 and I'm an azzhole.  

Anyway back to the thread sorry for the interuption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...