Pitchers glove question

[Claytludwigson]

Is okay to have grey laces in my glove for pitching ?

 

https://www.wilson.com/custom/gloves/a2000/1788a/customize/#review

[834k3r]

Others may be able to see it, but the link provided doesn't show gray laces to me.

[Claytludwigson]

Sorry the link isn’t posting. Here’s one similar https://www.hitrunsteal.com/products/11-5-black-with-gray-laces-1-piece-web

[Senor Azul]

High school rule 1-3-6 states, "The glove/mitt worn by the pitcher that includes the colors white and/or gray shall be removed from the game..." Also see current case plays 1.3.6 situations D, E and F.

Pro rule 3.07(a) tells us, "The pitcher's glove may not, exclusive of piping, be white,  gray..." It goes on to state that any glove may not be lighter in color  than PANTONE 14-series.

[Claytludwigson]

So this glove would not be okay to pitch with?

[SeeingEyeDog]

24 minutes ago, Claytludwigson said:

So this glove would not be okay to pitch with?

No, it has gray laces. The colors white and gray outside of piping are not permitted on a pitcher's glove in a game played under NFHS rules...

~Dawg

[Thunderheads]

Sorry.   I would never have that glove removed from the game.  My God 🙄

And don't even start about ... "you can't enforce your own rules" ... blah blah blah .....

That's a black glove.   If a coach says "hey Jeff, ... he can't use that can he, it's got gray on it"  then yes, I would have to have it removed at that point.    I've got WAY BIGGER fish to fry than to be looking for gray laces, or piping

On edit:  One of the dumbest NFHS rules out there, at least from a description perspective.  I can see main panels being white or gray a problem, sure, but ... piping ...laces?  Please

[Catch18]

Sorry.   I would never have that glove removed from the game.  My God
And don't even start about ... "you can't enforce your own rules" ... blah blah blah .....
That's a black glove.   If a coach says "hey Jeff, ... he can't use that can he, it's got gray on it"  then yes, I would have to have it removed at that point.    I've got WAY BIGGER fish to fry than to be looking for gray laces, or piping
On edit:  One of the dumbest NFHS rules out there, at least from a description perspective.  I can see main panels being white or gray a problem, sure, but ... piping ...laces?  Please

I’m inclined to agree. The rule says “cannot have.” So, in effect, we’d have to bounce any glove with a logo, yes? Piping/laces, ok. Pannels/fingers/pocket, nope.

[Thunderheads]

10 hours ago, Catch18 said:

I’m inclined to agree. The rule says “cannot have.” So, in effect, we’d have to bounce any glove with a logo, yes? Piping/laces, ok. Pannels/fingers/pocket, nope.

And that's my ON EDIT comment reference.  Define what you mean.  CANNOT HAVE is ridiculous and WAY too broad.  So technically, by rule, ...the EMBLEM of the glove is illegal (Rawlings-Red w/ white/silver threading)? Right?   Dumb.  Define which part of the glove, be more specific.   I understand the rules intent, it just has to be defined

[Catch18]

I’ll prob add a quick comment at the pregame this year, as we ask about legally & properly equipped, “hey guys, make sure your pitcher doesn’t go out with a white/gray/silver glove. Saw several of these last year, and want to avoid issues.”

It’s better than making the kid walk off the mound, give the standard “are you kidding me” shrug, then still explain it to a pissed off coach when they’re trying to warm up.

[maven]

I don't see any white or gray.

The laces appear to be light black to me.

[Thunderheads]

I’ll prob add a quick comment at the pregame this year, as we ask about legally & properly equipped, “hey guys, make sure your pitcher doesn’t go out with a white/gray/silver glove. Saw several of these last year, and want to avoid issues.”

It’s better than making the kid walk off the mound, give the standard “are you kidding me” shrug, then still explain it to a pissed off coach when they’re trying to warm up.

No, no, no....
Don't make a pre-game that detailed. It comes across the wrong way. Plus, this rule isn't 'new'. If you can, and you HAVE TO,.... catch it during warm ups.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk

[beerguy55]

Well, the glove pictured above has the American Flag on it...so that alone would make it illegal I guess.

 

Any ball glove with the MLB logo on it would be illegal.

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Well, the glove pictured above has the American Flag on it...so that alone would make it illegal I guess.

 

Any ball glove with the MLB logo on it would be illegal.

And there is the reason the wording for this is so stupid.  By rights, all Rawlings mitts would be illegal too.  Dumb!

[BigBlue4u]

On 1/29/2024 at 10:18 AM, Thunderheads said:

It’s better than making the kid walk off the mound, give the standard “are you kidding me” shrug, then still explain it to a pissed off coach when they’re trying to warm up.

No it is not! Thunderheads is correct.  Keep the pregame as short as possible.  When conducting the pregame meeting, I assume the coaches know what they are doing and know the rules.  Do they?  Of course not.  So, rather go through a brain-numbing list of do's and don'ts I deal with issues as they occur.  

[kylehutson]

57 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

No it is not! Thunderheads is correct.  Keep the pregame as short as possible.  When conducting the pregame meeting, I assume the coaches know what they are doing and know the rules.  Do they?  Of course not.  So, rather go through a brain-numbing list of do's and don'ts I deal with issues as they occur.  

Exactly.

ILEGS

• Introductions
• Lineups
• Equipment (NFHS only: "Are your teams legally and properly equipped?")
• Ground Rules
• Sportsmanship

That's all. Once sentence each unless absolutely necessary. No rules clinics, no waxing poetic.

[Senor Azul]

The words "cannot have" do not appear in FED rule 1-3-6. Earlier I posted the relevant portion of the rule that prohibits the colors white and gray on a pitcher's glove.

I also cited three current case plays that tell us about laces, piping, and manufacturers' logos. There is a fourth case play--1.3.6 Situation A. It tells us that the pitcher's glove cannot include the colors white or gray and it has to be deemed distracting--umpire judgment.

Case play 1.3.6 Situation D tells us that a pitcher cannot use a glove with white or gray piping. 

[Aging_Arbiter]

Umpire WITH the rulebook..............not BY the rulebook

Don't go looking for trouble, it will find you soon enough

Don't pick boogers

 

I'm sure there are many MANY more cliches' that you can use.

 

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/30/2024 at 5:51 PM, Senor Azul said:

The words "cannot have" do not appear in FED rule 1-3-6. Earlier I posted the relevant portion of the rule that prohibits the colors white and gray on a pitcher's glove.

I also cited three current case plays that tell us about laces, piping, and manufacturers' logos. There is a fourth case play--1.3.6 Situation A. It tells us that the pitcher's glove cannot include the colors white or gray and it has to be deemed distracting--umpire judgment.

Case play 1.3.6 Situation D tells us that a pitcher cannot use a glove with white or gray piping. 

 

I'm going pick a nit . . . 

1.3.6A does not say it cannot contain the colors white or gray AND it has to be deemed distracting.  The umpire does NOT have judgement on white and gray.

I'm using the 2018 (the last one I have digitally), but I can check last year's print version.

1.3.6A says:

 

The comma indicates the distracting clause is a separate case, not a condition of the first. 

See 1.3.6E and the EXCEPTION to support that. 

While at it, 1.3.6F emphasizes that even the manufacturer logo containing white is illegal.  The glove must be removed, or the white must be covered up.

 

[Thunderheads]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I'm going pick a nit . . . 

1.3.6A does not say it cannot contain the colors white or gray AND it has to be deemed distracting.  The umpire does NOT have judgement on white and gray.

I'm using the 2018 (the last one I have digitally), but I can check last year's print version.

1.3.6A says:

 

The comma indicates the distracting clause is a separate case, not a condition of the first. 

See 1.3.6E and the EXCEPTION to support that. 

While at it, 1.3.6F emphasizes that even the manufacturer logo containing white is illegal.  The glove must be removed, or the white must be covered up.

 

It's funny, .... most of the situations cited here are "discovered by the offense" .... that's where I'm going to leave it during a game.  Unless of course, ... he's got a dove-gray and/or white glove.  Laces? Logo? LOGO? REALLY?  Nope, I'll let the offensive team bring it to my attention, then take it from there.

Ridiculous rule

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The comma indicates the distracting clause is a separate case, not a condition of the first. 

Agreed.  A glove can be judged to be distracting regardless of its coloring and design.  A white glove must be removed, even if the umpire judges it is not distracting.

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

It's funny, .... most of the situations cited here are "discovered by the offense" .... that's where I'm going to leave it during a game.  Unless of course, ... he's got a dove-gray and/or white glove.  Laces? Logo? LOGO? REALLY?  Nope, I'll let the offensive team bring it to my attention, then take it from there.

Ridiculous rule

Especially since the penalty is just to remove the glove going forward with no change to past play.

[Thunderheads]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Especially since the penalty is just to remove the glove going forward with no change to past play.

Very true!  Just think about the whole scenario:  Conference varsity rivalry, big game.   Me: ugh, coach, ...your "number 1" has a glove with a logo that has white on it, so ......"

Then guess what ... you're the dickhead umpire that everyone hates, regardless of how good you may be that day

 

[The Man in Blue]

If you made it that far before you became the dickhead umpire, it is a good day.