She had to color in her yellow laces

[Amy in AZ.]

Here is an outstanding glove! Oakland A's Yoenis Cespedes Shows off New Neon Green Glove | Bleacher Report

 

[MTR]

As bretman stated that is in reference to the glove itself not the logos or laces.

Nope. Unless Kevin Ryan and staff has changed their interpretation the last few years, the logos and laces are part of the glove, therefore covered under the rule.

 

[Comp]

Nope. Unless Kevin Ryan and staff has changed their interpretation the last few years, the logos and laces are part of the glove, therefore covered under the rule.

I stand corrected. Just found it in the May 2008 clarifications.

 

[Sliced Bread]

DD last glove was a Mizuno MVP Prime series, with a bright day-glo greenish/yellow color on the name and logo. I put a black sharpie pen in her equipment bag just in case some rogue coach called her glove illegal. I guess Mizuno is more concerned with marketing/sales than having their fastpitch gloves in compliance of the rules?

We had a pitcher with this same glove. We had to color it in with a black sharpie. Umpire dreamed it illegal equipment and said the penalty was head coach and player ejection. The opposing coach called it to the umpires attention in the 3rd inning. Thankfully I got off with a warning. Pitcher used a subs glove the rest of the game.

 

[Amy in AZ.]

At one point, I thought that the ASA rule specifically said that the logo was not considered part of the glove.

 

[MTR]

At one point, I thought that the ASA rule specifically said that the logo was not considered part of the glove.

That was wishful thinking and argument, but that is why the clarification was issued. Here is what was published by ASA in May 2008:

There have been several questions pertaining to our rule regarding the colors of gloves and what the pitcher can and can not wear. Our rule is very specific. Rule 3 Section 4 states (FP) the pitcher’s glove may be of one solid color or multicolored as long as the color(s) are not the color of the ball being used in the game. Questions are regarding Logo or Manufactures names on the glove not technically being part of the glove but stitching. As in the ball used in the game the stitching and the logo are part of the ball so is the stitching and or logo a part of the glove. So if the pitcher has a glove that the manufactures name or logo on that glove is the color of the ball being used in the game then the glove can not be worn by the pitcher. Remember the glove can be worn by any other player.

Play 1: In a JO 16U Girls Fast Pitch game using a optic yellow ball and the pitcher comes out to warm up with the logo of the glove manufacture in optic yellow on the third finger of the glove.
Ruling: This glove can not be worn by the pitcher but can be worn by any other player.

Play 2: In JO 18U Fast Pitch game using a white ball and the pitcher comes out to warm up with a glove with the manufactures logo in optic yellow on the thumb of the glove.
Ruling: The pitcher can wear this glove since the ball being used is white.

 

[BretMan]

We had a pitcher with this same glove. We had to color it in with a black sharpie. Umpire dreamed it illegal equipment and said the penalty was head coach and player ejection.

If that was an auto-correct, then it was an ironic auto-correct! He may have "deemed" it illegal equipment, but he "dreamed" up the rule and the penalty.

Was this a high school game? The rule is that you get a team warning for the illegal equipment on the first offense. A second offense has the coach and player restricted to the dugout, a much less severe penalty than an ejection.

And if the rule really was an ejection, then the umpire should have ejected you. If someone violates a rule that calls for an automatic ejection, the umpire isn't supposed to "let them off with a warning". That's not doing the job you're being paid to do.

 

[Umpire]

Nope. Unless Kevin Ryan and staff has changed their interpretation the last few years, the logos and laces are part of the glove, therefore covered under the rule.

I understand that this is the rule/interpretation, but it is ABSURD. It is another example of ASA creating a rule where one needn't exist or at least giving an interpretation that goes well beyond where it needs to go.

A player can basically be dressed head-to-toe in optic yellow. That's legal. However, "Wilson" in optic yellow is illegal.

This is completely asinine and not within the spirit of the game. It insults common sense and logic.

 

[MTR]

I understand that this is the rule/interpretation, but it is ABSURD. It is another example of ASA creating a rule where one needn't exist or at least giving an interpretation that goes well beyond where it needs to go.

No one is going to argue that. Of course, it is absurd, the extent to which some of the rules and interpretations are absurd, but often a direct response to coaches, and some umpires, who want to make something of nothing just because they can or don't have enough sense to realize just how stupid it is.

A player can basically be dressed head-to-toe in optic yellow. That's legal. However, "Wilson" in optic yellow is illegal.

Players dressed head-to-toe in white uniforms when the ball was white and that was legal, but the pitcher could not have a white or grey glove or a multicolored glove that included white or grey. The rule itself has not changed, just the permissible colors.

This is completely asinine and not within the spirit of the game. It insults common sense and logic.

Of course, it does, but it has been the same for years. Why haven't people complained about it before? Are the people just that stupid that colors are an issue, but shades are not?