Ahh, the infamous "No White or Gray" rule. The rule we love to hate.
Having to cover the white/gray or remove the glove is picky and goes way beyond the original intent of the rule. Originally it was intended that the whole glove cannot be white or gray or predominantly so. For many years this was never a problem since virtually all gloves were tan or brown and the only white or gray on a glove was on a label located on the wrist strap and that had no bearing on the intent of the rule.
But in the 70's (I think it was the 70's, yeah, I was alive then) along came the black ball glove with white print and piping. This raised a few eyebrows but didn't really cause any consternation. Not too far behind though, came the colored glove. Red or blue or green. "Wow, that's cool" was the cry but still no one saw them as any rule violation. Next in line, however, was the All-American Red, White and Blue ball glove. The one with alternating color fingers. You know, red finger then white finger then blue finger then another white finger etc. Invariably these All-American gloves were being worn by pitchers and although the white fingers were not predominant they were, well, prominent.
And the debate began. On a pitcher's glove, how much white (or gray) is too much in accordance with the rule that prohibits white or gray?
Well, after much hemming and hawing and complaining and screaming, the rules gurus who meet in Indianapolis each year to impart their NFHS wisdom upon us had apparently had enough. They so decreed, in printed rule, that a glove worn by the pitcher that includes the colors white or gray is illegal. That is to say that if white or gray appears anywhere on the glove; label, stitching, laces or otherwise, it must be covered or the glove must be removed. And it must be covered or removed if noticed by either team and/or the umpire.
There, they thought, that will take care of that problem. But a minor problem was created with their absolute ruling. They used the word...illegal.
Now, I'm not going to put words in the mouth of anyone but I know that PIAA and Mike Taylor and some others on this board are very astute. I reasonably believe that they, as I did when I first saw how
the rule was written, said: "Houston, we have a problem."..or words to that effect. You see, by rule, if a live thrown ball is touched with an illegal glove the award is two bases. And if a live batted ball is touched by an illegal glove the award is three bases.
I and others who spend time studying fully understood that the intent of the rule/ruling was to correct the white/gray problem and nothing more than that. But nothing was put in the Case Book to support it. I also knew that because the gurus used the word "illegal" that it was just a matter of time before an enterprising coach was going to use the "letter of the rule" to beat some umpire in the head with it. Fortunately it wasn't me but it happened somewhere as follows: Home team trailing by one run in bottom of 7th. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with two outs. Weak grounder to pitcher who picks up ball and throws to first to apparently end the game. Home coach comes to umpire and says the pitcher's glove has white on it (label) and he therefore fielded the ball with an illegal glove and coach wants the three base award. The Ump, armed only with the letter of the rule, agrees and awards
three bases to B/R and home team wins by one. The appropriate firestorm ensued.
The home coach in this case knew all along that the pitcher's glove had white on it. He simply chose not to use that info until it was to his advantage to do so. By the way, the gurus did correct the rule problem this year. They removed the word illegal and said the glove simply has to be removed. There is a case book scenario that also states there is no other penalty (base award).
The point of all of my rambling here (sincere apologies to all) is twofold:
1) With many NFHS (Fed) rules we have to play the hand we're dealt by the gurus in Indy. Like them or not (and we dislike many) we are obligated to enforce them.
2) Maybe (don't know, wasn't there) the Ump in the original post never noticed the "Rawlings" and was put on to it by the coach of the team being perfectoed as a means of, in a figurative sense, putting a stone in the pitcher's shoe.
Of course, if the Ump noticed it of his own accord, (and acted on it) after not noticing it for five innings he is, as PIAA so aptly stated, an "OOO".
