Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Register Log in

Ball ON glove, not IN the glove still an out?

Mar 28, 2014
406
43
I would have to be REALLY sure the ball was at no time in the glove to call safe. If it was under full control at all times I'd have a hard time calling that one safe.
So are you making up your own rules as you go along or what? Man in Blue says the rules clearly state it one way. Why not use them? They were written for a reason.

(Stepping off soapbox)
 
Jan 31, 2014
273
18
North Carolina
As a coach I would argue there should be some room for interpretation. If contact is made with the back of a bare hand while that hand controls the ball, the runner is out. Under particular circumstances If the ball is clearly pinned against the outside of the glove I would think the umpire could call an out.

I'm think particularly of bang-bang plays where the player traps the ball to control it as they tag... such as a run down, a catcher taking a bouncing throw at the moment a runner approaches, or perhaps at first when First Base player has to come off the bag to pick an errant throw and manages to get a quick tag on the runner.

I understand the "letter of the law" described clearly above, but in such cases does the umpire have discretion to interpret the rule?
 
Jul 22, 2015
298
43
So are you making up your own rules as you go along or what? Man in Blue says the rules clearly state it one way. Why not use them? They were written for a reason.

(Stepping off soapbox)
I know the rule and would feel good with making the call as I said. I simply don't view this as an empty glove tag when the ball is literally in contact with the glove. I just don't see it as being different than holding the ball with the bare hand inside the glove. If it was called the other way against me I don't think I could really argue it though. For me it is simply rule vs. intent of the rule.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,378
63
I understand the "letter of the law" described clearly above, but in such cases does the umpire have discretion to interpret the rule?
If the rule says the ball must be in the glove, what interpretation do you think the umpire can apply? Yes, they could go ahead and call the out, and then when the opposing coach lodges a protest that the rule says the ball must be in the glove the call is going to get overturned by the UIC.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,378
63
I know the rule and would feel good with making the call as I said. I simply don't view this as an empty glove tag when the ball is literally in contact with the glove. I just don't see it as being different than holding the ball with the bare hand inside the glove. If it was called the other way against me I don't think I could really argue it though. For me it is simply rule vs. intent of the rule.
Only the original authors of the rule know the "intent". If the rule says the ball must be in the glove, then being on the outside of it is not in the glove. And if the fielder is holding the ball in the throwing hand inside the glove, it is still inside the glove regardless of being in the throwing hand.
 
Mar 28, 2014
406
43
I know the rule and would feel good with making the call as I said. I simply don't view this as an empty glove tag when the ball is literally in contact with the glove. I just don't see it as being different than holding the ball with the bare hand inside the glove. If it was called the other way against me I don't think I could really argue it though. For me it is simply rule vs. intent of the rule.
So the answer is yes, you are making up your own rules. And umpires wonder why they get flack from coaches/fans. Duh.
 
Aug 1, 2019
162
28
South Carolina
I simply don't view this as an empty glove tag when the ball is literally in contact with the glove. I just don't see it as being different than holding the ball with the bare hand inside the glove.
If the ball is inside the glove, that's all the rule requires. The rule doesn't mandate that the ball has to be held by the gloved hand and not the bare hand. It just says it has to be inside the glove. So there is a big difference between the ball being pinned outside the glove and being held inside the glove. With the former, the fielder is simply touching a runner with an empty glove, and that does not meet the definition of a tag.
 
Aug 1, 2019
162
28
South Carolina
I understand the "letter of the law" described clearly above, but in such cases does the umpire have discretion to interpret the rule?
No, we really don't have that discretion. There are official interpretations to the rules that are promulgated through case book plays, rule clarification notices, rule supplements, etc., and they are written to close a gap or loophole in a rule. There really is no gap or loophole here. Touching the runner with an empty glove has never been considered a legal tag of that runner (but it IS considered a tag of a base, just like touching the bag with the foot, knee, elbow, or any other body part while the fielder has possession and control of the ball). Pinning the ball against the back of that glove doesn't meet the fundamental requirement of "ball must be inside the glove".
 
Jan 31, 2014
273
18
North Carolina
No, we really don't have that discretion. There are official interpretations to the rules that are promulgated through case book plays, rule clarification notices, rule supplements, etc., and they are written to close a gap or loophole in a rule. There really is no gap or loophole here. Touching the runner with an empty glove has never been considered a legal tag of that runner (but it IS considered a tag of a base, just like touching the bag with the foot, knee, elbow, or any other body part while the fielder has possession and control of the ball). Pinning the ball against the back of that glove doesn't meet the fundamental requirement of "ball must be inside the glove".
Good reply, thank you. Now a slightly different take from those of you in blue. While you should and will uphold the rule, what do you think of it. Is this a rule that should be reviewed and possibly altered by the great umping powers that be? I'm always interested in how umpires explain rules. Here I'd love to learn if you like this rule. And why or why not.
 
Top