Sunday, May 5, 2013

Group Case Play 2013-04: Marte's Unorthodox Glove Use

Starling Marte's creative fielding gives us a UEFL Group Case Play. In the top of the 4th inning of Saturday's Nationals-Pirates game, Nationals batter Ryan Zimmerman hit a line drive into the left field corner, where the ball eluded Pirates outfielder Starling Marte as Zimmerman charged into third base with a hustle triple.
Marte whiffs at his odd attempt to field Zim's ball.

Yet something didn't quite look right in the outfield as Marte, who is right-handed, displayed a bare left palm while attempting to field the ball using his throwing hand. Replays indicate Marte appeared to have held his glove with his right hand, though the glove did not make contact with the batted ball as it skipped out towards left-center field. (Video: A triple after an outfield miscue.)

Q: This group case play is worth one point and expires Thursday, May 9 at 12:00 PM Pacific Time; to secure your case play point, be sure to include your username in your reply (or as your posting name)—Assume Starling Marte's glove—as held, but not worn, by his right (aka throwing) hand, as in the video above—touches the ball; where should Ryan Zimmerman end up and how shall this play be scored? In other words, how shall play proceed: is such contact between a held glove and a batted ball legal? As a refresher, at time of pitch, the Pirates led the Nationals 2-1 with none out and none on in the top of the 4th inning.

43 comments :

Gil Imber said...

If memory serves correctly, detatched equipment of a batted ball would be three bases. So Zimmerman's award would be three bases.

Gil Imber said...

Although the penalty for intentionall touching a batted ball with detached equipment is a 3 base award, Marte did not make contact with the baseball. Thus, no penalty and no award. It was a Triple anyway...

Gil Imber said...

Rule 7.05 (b)

Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any
part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play
and the batter may advance to home base at his peril. However Rule 7.05(b) through 7.05(e) Comment: In applying (b-c-d-e) the umpire must rule that the thrown
glove or detached cap or mask has touched the ball. There is no penalty if the ball is not touched.
Under (c-e) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand
by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.

Gil Imber said...

Under 7.05(b) with Comments, if the fielder intentionally uses detached equipment to touch a fair, batted ball, the batter is awarded three bases, and may advance to home at his own risk. All other runners are to be awarded home plate. In order for the bases to be awarded, the detached equipment must actually come into contact with the ball and the fielder must intentionally detach his equipment rather than the equipment coming off from the force of the ball or while attempting to make a legitimate catch.

Gil Imber said...

RadioPearl
Even if Marte touched the ball with the glove in his throwing hand (I don't believe that he did), I don't think it's a violation. 1.14 says players can wear or use a leather glove. 7.05 (b) says runners get three bases if a fielder touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of the uniform detached from its proper place. A glove is not considered part of the uniform. 7.05 (c) deals specifically with the glove and prohibits a fielder from throwing his glove at and touching a fair ball (three bases). Marte was wearing and/or using the glove and did not throw his glove at the fair ball, therefore there is no violation of the rules. Credit Zimmerman with a triple.

Gil Imber said...

Boredcravens. After watching the play I have Nothing. The glove though now on the opposite hand hand does not touch the ball. And even if it had he did not throw it at the ball. The triple stands as scored a batted ball triple. Had the glove been thrown and contact made scoring would have been E7 for 3 bases.

Gil Imber said...

Detached equipment. He'd get 3rd base anyway.

Gil Imber said...

He's not required to throw his glove for it to be detached equipment. Yes there's nothing illegal about what happened, the question was IF.

Gil Imber said...

As I read 7.05(b), there is no mention of a player using his glove to stop a batted ball. There is only mention of hat or mask detached. If he throws the glove and touches a batted ball there is a penalty, 7.05(c)

In the case play situation, IF the player had touched the ball with his glove being held in his hand there would not be any penalty. Play would resume based on the outcome of the play, if the BR was thrown out he remains out. If he reaches any base safely he remains at that base.

Gil Imber said...

Legal. The play shall stand because the glove was not thrown at the ball or did not come detached.
RIUmpinchief

Gil Imber said...

The question is: what does "proper place" mean?

Gil Imber said...

3 bases. Glove is detached from its "proper place" on Marte's person. OBR 7.05(b). Here, the "proper place" for Marte's glove is his left hand. Plus, a reading of sections c-e would lead to an absurd result if 3 bases not awarded here given that the rules contemplate scenarios where glove is forced from hand by batted ball and where attempt is made to catch ball.

Gil Imber said...

I think the "detached equipment" rule does apply in this case, as the proper place for a glove in on the player's non-throwing hand. it would be like a fielder saying the proper place for his hat is in his hand when fielding the ball. Marte would have been given third base and could advance home at his own risk of being put out, had the ball been touched. It is scored as E7.

Gil Imber said...

Zimmerman was already at first, so he would have received three additional bases and thus scored.

Gil Imber said...

It doesn't have to be thrown. Just used in a way not originally intended such as it being in his right (throwing hand). This is much like a carcher using his mask in one hand and glove on the other to pick up a ball. The mask is "detatched" from where it should be and used to stop or pick up the ball.

Gil Imber said...

The Glove was not thrown or detached from his hand. Im thinking it was legal. If it would of been detached or thrown I believe it is 3 bases at the time of the pitch.

Gil Imber said...

Certainly seems like detached equipment. It's detached from the hand it's supposed to be worn on and not being used as it should be.

Gil Imber said...

Making contact with detached equipment on a batted ball results in the BR being awarded 3rd base at the end of the play. The ball is still live so if he chooses, he could attempt to advance home at his own risk.

Gil Imber said...

Not trying to be argumentative, just asking a question. What about ambidextrous pitchers who have six-fingered gloves designed to be worn on either hand?

Gil Imber said...

Bryce Harper got ejected by John Hirschbeck. I don't love Harper but it was a terrible ejection.

Gil Imber said...

Had the detached equipment touched the batted ball the award would be three bases and the ball would be live. The batter/runner could advance beyond awarded base at his own risk.

Gil Imber said...

Three bases from the time of the pitch.

Gil Imber said...

the pitcher has to choose which hand he will pitch with to the batter and that becomes the legal hand for the glove

Gil Imber said...

Had the ball been touched by a detached glove, it is three (3) bases and the ball is alive...Rule 7.05(c)

Gil Imber said...

Yeahbut, Jim Abbot wasn't even wearing a glove when he pitched the ball. ;-)

Gil Imber said...

Rule 7.05 (b) refers to a "cap, mask, or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place." Rule 1.17 lists uniforms and gloves (which are further broken down by position) separately when listing out equipment, from which we can infer that gloves are not part of the uniform. Although not explicitly stated that gloves are not part of the uniform but rather are separate equipment, I am invoking rule 9.01 (c) to say that this was the intent of the rule.

Rule 7.05 (c) only applies to a thrown glove, not a detached glove that the fielder is still holding. Therefore it is irrelevant.


The play certainly violates the spirit of the rules, but it does not violate the letter of the rules and therefore it is legal.

Gil Imber said...

More specifically, no special ruling is needed, the ball is live, and neither Zimmerman nor any of the runners are entitled to any base.

Gil Imber said...

To me, a glove is not part of the uniform. I consider a glove a piece of equipment. In this case, I do not believe that 7.05(G) applies because F7 did not deliberately attempt to throw his glove [nor did he actually throw his glove].

In any case, the ball remains live. So, Zimmerman winds up on third either way [either by the hit or by 7.05(G)]. So, ultimately, nothing changes, for me, at least.

Gil Imber said...

7.05(B) rather. Tired Turducken.

Gil Imber said...

According to Rule 7.059(b) "Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person." Therefore in this situation, Zimmerman would still be at third base.

Gil Imber said...

7.05 allows for such a call to be made here in this case. But also it does not allow for a ruling to be made by the umpiring crew present during this day of play. "Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his
cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on
his person." Can be received as follows - in this case study, cap or mask is not in play since the Pirates outfielder did not attempt to make a play on the ball with either those two forms of equipment. As for any part of his uniform detached - what might this include. If we perceive that uniform in this case is to imply glove in this case, then three bases could have been allowed and Zimmerman would be awarded third. But more likely I view uniform detached - as any article of clothing, shoe, hat, and the like; therefore, Zimmerman taking third on his own accord "was at his own risk."

Gil Imber said...

I would not consider this detached equipment.

Every reference I've found (including JEA and Jaksa/Roder and the rules themselves) distinguishes between equipment and glove and there's no mention of taking off a glove and using it in another way.

Matter of fact, Jaksa/Roder defines detached equipment as:

Detached gear occurs if a fielder deliberately contacts a fair batted ball, thrown
ball, or pitched ball by

(1) intentionally throwing his glove, cap, or mask, or
(2) by using his cap, mask, or clothing like a glove.



Good enough for me. I wouldn't apply 7.05(b). Leave the ball live.


Even if the glove did touch the ball and detached equipment was called, the ball would remain live and there'd be a three base TOP award, which would leave the BR at third base, where he ended up anyway. He could try to score, but would be at risk of being put out.

Gil Imber said...

Arik stole my thunder below.

I immediately thought of a catcher who touches a ball with his mask. The mask is not thrown, it is simply being used improperly. The key phrase is "proper place on his person" proper place is not on the throwing hand.

Invoke 7.05(b) - 3 base award

Gil Imber said...

Rule 7.05 (b) states if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask is any part of his uniform detached from its proper place or person. I do not think that the glove is considered as part of the uniform. I think a glove is equipment as stated in rule 1.17. The ball stays alive. But either way the runner still gets third base.

Gil Imber said...

Play stands. Not detached equipment.

Gil Imber said...

The ball should remain alive and in play with no base awards. The glove was not thrown at the ball.

Gil Imber said...

Rich - although I agree with you here, J/R is actually not 100% clear on this either.

In my copy on page 63 in the footnote:

"If a fielder's glove unintentionally comes off (falls off his hand or is torn off by the force of the ball) during a legitimate attempt to field a ball, there is no violation. [7.05e]."

That COULD suggest that if the fielder intentionally removed (or in this case, didn't have it on) and then tried to field a ball, it would be considered 'detached equipment' for the sake of the rule.

I still think you have to release the glove at the ball, in this case, for it to be detached equipment but thought I would throw that reference out there for discussion.

Gil Imber said...

7.05d? "Two bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball with his
cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper
place on his person. The ball is in play;" While he did not throw the glove, it is certainly "detached from its proper place on his person"...

Gil Imber said...

Whoops. LOL, it's not a throw....7.05b is what I meant: "Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his
cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper
place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance
to home base at his peril"



But even that does not seem to apply since no contact was made. I know in soccer we don't penalize for "attempted" fouls - only fouls. I presume the same thing applies here, no violation since no ball contact was made...?

Gil Imber said...

Concur with the majority. It's detached equipment on a batted ball, so three bases and ball remains alive, in the event he touches it.

Gil Imber said...

Basically, by most if your rulings, everytime Jim Abbott fielded a ball, we would have an award for detached equipment. Using discretion, I say we have no infraction, play the ball live.

Gil Imber said...

clawdad
I see both sides to this argument. I would have to say using 7.05 (b) & (c) and 7.05 b through e comment that this would be a "that's nothing" call and play on. The rules state a thrown glove or detached cap, mask, or other uniform item. Not a glove held in the opposite hand.
While it appears to be a possible illegal act, it is not specifically prohibited in the rules. If it's not prohibited under the rules, then it must be legal. I suppose the umpire could use 9.01 (c) to rule the use of the glove in this manner illegal, and using the closest applicable rule {7.05 (b) or (c)} then it would be a three base award.
Maybe our discussion will catch they eye of MLB and they will have an approved ruling on this in the future.

Gil Imber said...

Great game play tonight. www.logoworkgloves.com

Post a Comment