|
|
Post by bighoss on Jun 12, 2012 21:44:10 GMT -5
We have a pitcher who is basically blind in full sunlight due to overly sensitive eyes. Tonight he took the mound and before the opening pitch the home plate ump came over and said he had to take his sunglasses off. He said he didn't have a problem with pitchers wearing them but that if the opposing team raises an issue that he has to ask the player to remove the sunglasses. I had a friendly conversation with the ump and he said that it's a rule across all age groups. I've read through the DBA rules and the only reference I could find to any restricted items was jewelry. Jewelry is something that is worn solely as an adornment. Sunglasses are something that are worn for eye protection. Where exactly are these umps getting this supposed rule from?
The opposing team ended up back down and agreeing to let him wear his sunglasses, but I'm tired of having this same fight year after year. Obviously it isn't a safety issue or no players would be allowed to wear sunglasses.
Anyone care to comment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arrow Slinger on Jun 13, 2012 3:42:37 GMT -5
We have the same circumstance with a young man from Wyandotte. It seems like the cities all have different rules. I.E. One city uses there own rules for mercies stating "We use _BA rules for mercies". I think that we should have a Umpires clinic for the DBA in general that dictates the rules up front as we have in Wyandotte every year. If you can't attend the clinic for a yearly refresher then you shouldn't be able to umpire.
|
|
|
|
Post by bighoss on Jun 13, 2012 7:05:52 GMT -5
All the umps seem to have this fictitious rule about sunglasses for just the pitcher, but it doesn't exist anywhere in the DBA rulebook. If they're trying to make them remove their sunglasses under the "no jewelry" rule then they have no choice but to make every kid on the field, including batters, remove them. It's an all or nothing rule.
The definition of jewelry is something that is worn for adornment; sunglasses are glasses worn to protect the eyes from the sun. If they don't want sunglasses worn then they need to put it in the rulebook because sunglasses are not jewelry with or without a prescription. Nobody should have to go out and pay $100+ for a pair of zero prescription glasses with tinted lenses so that their kid with photo-sensitive eyes can pitch with sunglasses on. That's ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 15, 2012 3:02:09 GMT -5
We have a pitcher who is basically blind in full sunlight due to overly sensitive eyes. Tonight he took the mound and before the opening pitch the home plate ump came over and said he had to take his sunglasses off. He said he didn't have a problem with pitchers wearing them but that if the opposing team raises an issue that he has to ask the player to remove the sunglasses. I had a friendly conversation with the ump and he said that it's a rule across all age groups. I've read through the DBA rules and the only reference I could find to any restricted items was jewelry. Jewelry is something that is worn solely as an adornment. Sunglasses are something that are worn for eye protection. Where exactly are these umps getting this supposed rule from? The opposing team ended up back down and agreeing to let him wear his sunglasses, but I'm tired of having this same fight year after year. Obviously it isn't a safety issue or no players would be allowed to wear sunglasses. Anyone care to comment? Although I have not researched it extensively (I don't have a copy of the high school rules, which are incorporated into the DBA rules, with me) I don't think there is an absolute prohibition. My memory is that any glasses worn by a player (pitcher or otherwise) must be of the non-shatter, safety variety. And, if there was something peculiar about the design/coloration of the glasses which either simulated a baseball or was in an empire's opinion otherwise distracting then I suppose a different styled pair might be in order. But, I doubt that there is an absolute prohibition. N. |
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 15, 2012 3:46:58 GMT -5
We have the same circumstance with a young man from Wyandotte. It seems like the cities all have different rules. I.E. One city uses there own rules for mercies stating "We use _BA rules for mercies". I think that we should have a Umpires clinic for the DBA in general that dictates the rules up front as we have in Wyandotte every year. If you can't attend the clinic for a yearly refresher then you shouldn't be able to umpire. I believe I heard the story about that game and was just as aggravated by it as you apparently are. My aggravation, however, exists on two levels. The first is the same as yours. "Local rules" creep into games way too often. In my experience, no participating community is guilt free in this regard. Sometimes it is a function of umpires who work games in numerous venues and for a variety of leagues not having a good handle on one or more DBA-specific rules (whether age-specific or general), and defaulting to the rules they know best (most typically the high school rules, but sometimes an association local rule). Other times it is a situation in which an ump has attended a clinic or similar training and either was not paying attention or is just wrong. The second level of frustration is this: umpire errors of this character is not a new issue. It is covered every year at the pre-season DBA organizational meeting that all managers are supposed to attend. Not all do attend, but that is an issue for another day. In any event, every year the managers are handed a set of rules and told that umpires will be wrong (for the reasons described in the preceeding paragraph). They are told to cover DBA rule variations in the ground rules meeting so that everyone is on the same page prior to the game, and to produce their rules during the game if there is any sort of dispute of the character you describe. I think a large number of managers do these things. Too many do not. I was not at the game that you described, but I would not be surprised to hear that no rules were available or produced when the issue of the mercy rule arose. An effort to conduct a clinic of the nature you described was attempted several years ago. It failed. It failed not because it is not, in theory, a good idea. It failed because of logistics and significant variations from community to community in the manner in which umpires are selected and the timing of such activities. This is why managers need to attend the pre-season meeting, carry the rules they have been provided, and take care of these issues as they arise. I do not know, one way or the other, if the manager at the game you described did any of these things. But I do know, from investigation of similar situations over the years, that too often the failure of a manager to be prepared is at least partly the cause for these types of rules stories. N. |
|
|
|
Post by bighoss on Jun 15, 2012 15:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 15, 2012 16:29:05 GMT -5
I read a variety of resources, too. I don't see a prohibition. I do believe, however, an umpire is justified in determing that any eyeware (sunglasses or conventional) is safe for play (i.e., shatterproof).
N.
|
|
|
|
Post by bighoss on Jun 15, 2012 19:57:23 GMT -5
Wonderful...so someone who can't even vote yet and uses Stridex pads is suddenly going to be an expert on eyewear safety. Like I said, if they won' t let the pitcher wear them citing safety reasons then they're going to have to have the whole team take them off. And then when the ump takes a ball to the forehead then he can blame himself/herself for blinding the pitcher. <shrug>
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 15, 2012 21:09:21 GMT -5
hoss, maybe you don't understand. I am saying you are right.
There is no blanket prohibition, at least that I can see.
Feel better?
N.
|
|
|
|
Post by bighoss on Jun 16, 2012 12:23:19 GMT -5
I understand that you're agreeing with me that there's no blanket prohibition, but you're saying the you think the ump can still make them take them off if he/she determines that they aren't safe. So they still have an out. I'm just saying that how can a teenager make that determination? Are they now thoroughly versed in ANSI standards to be able to make an education decisions? lol I'm going to go to Lowe's and buy the kid a $2.49 pair of tinted sunglasses that are ANSI rated to take a 102mph impact and tell the ump to go home and exfoliate.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 16, 2012 13:02:09 GMT -5
I think even the mildly sentient can ask the question: "hey, are those shatterproof." If the answer is "no," then the resulting action is probably one even the most die hard critic of authority in the hands of blemished teens could accept.
N.
|
|
|
|
Post by bighoss on Jun 17, 2012 8:51:48 GMT -5
Take a look at the ones at Lowes images.lowes.com/product/converted/078371/078371113278xl.jpg Would you ever in a million years imagine that those can take a 1/4" steel ball at 102mph? So I guess it's as easy as just telling the ump that they're shatterproof or should I leave the tags on like Minny Pearl's hat? lol |
|
|
|
Post by mistymc10 on Jun 17, 2012 22:30:02 GMT -5
All I have to say is, some of these requests being made by coaches are getting rediculous. We had a request for our pitcher to remove his batting glove he wore for protection under his mitt due to a broken blood vessel in his hand (bruise). I think this is totaly REDICULOUS considering these kids are KIDS!! PLAYING RECREATIONAL BASEBALL!! Some coaches are rediculous. Let these kids play ball like it was back in our day when u came to the field and played!! So these people would rather the pitcher take a line drive to the face and damage his sight or face for the rest of his life just bc they made him take his glasses off!!  all i can say again is REDICULOUS!! |
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 18, 2012 5:48:27 GMT -5
Misty:
You are right that there can be times when there is too much "gamesmanship" going on. When packaged under the guise of safety it is distasteful. Nevertheless, there are times when parents allow children to take the field with inappropriate eye wear. I saw it with kids on teams that I coached. Although not frequent, there were a handful of times over the years where I asked one of my own players to remove cheap plastic sunglasses glasses. When, however, the issue is raised by an opponent only for competitive reasons, it then loses legitimacy.
Personally, and unless the glasses were reflective lenses causing flashes back in the batter's direction (something I have never seen in a game), I don't see any "distraction" issue with regard to pitchers wearing sunglasses. Indeed, my preference for hitters is that they not look directly into a pitcher's eyes at all, but instead retain a "relaxed focus" in the general area of the pitcher's arm slot in order to pick up the ball quicker.
As for batting gloves under a pitcher's mitt, it is my understanding that there is (like the sunglasses rule) no absolute prohibition. The glove, however, can not be white or some other light color which potentially could be confused for the ball itself. And, again, I have seen times where the "rule is called" by an opponent not so much for true concerns with potential distraction as much as to "get in the head" of a young pitcher. When done for those reasons it is pretty distasteful.
N.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arrow Slinger on Jun 19, 2012 8:54:57 GMT -5
Neil,
It would be a different story if the umpires from said city, weren't telling coaches "Don't even bring me that rulebook". And also of the mercy rule in that same city, when questioned by multiple not only one, coaches in separate games haven't been given the opportunity to even discuss these issues.
And as for the pre game talk, who in their right mind would bring up a mercy rule before a game. That would either cause an uproar or have the questioning coach potentially embarassed. Its hard enough to get the rules about different bases at first and field dimensions(i.e. Out of play and such) in a couple of minute briefing.
I personally have had umpires from that same city state that a pitcher cannot where white Under Armor.
That is not gamesmanship, that is uneducated and way to young behind the plate umpires.
|
|
all i can say again is REDICULOUS!!