HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
I always loved this one
Deuce Hogan Tweet
- Thread starter Fryowa
- Start date
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
People always wonder what the big deal is about having pine tar too close to "sweet spot" on the bat. Here's why it's a big deal. It creates a little bit of resistance, friction, on the ball as it strikes the bat. This creates a little extra backspin and can increase exit velocity by a few MPH. Both will help a batted ball travel farther. So the rule is no pine tar more than seventeen inches above the bat handle, or generally above the trademark. Brett's bat in this instance exceeded that by at least ten inches.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
This is who I remember from the 80's.
There's quite a bit of this with hard core baseball fans as well. "Just part of the game attitude", like these things are somehow dignified because its baseball, particularly with dugout clearing brawls. While those same fans call NBA players thugs for fighting on a basketball court.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Brett almost looked like he knew what was coming.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
According to Graig Nettles in his autobiography, Brett had been warned in the past by umpires for too much pine tar.
Of course Nettles was once ejected for using a corked bat.
Depending on who you believe, Nettles, coach Don Zimmer and manager Billy Martin all have been credited for noticing Brett's bat, and waiting for the opportune moment to call him on it. The umpires decision was open to a lot of grey area because you can't apply that rule and call a batter out and nullify his home run. The rule doesn't give the authority to do that. All the rule states is that batters can't have the pine tar above seventeen inches. The umpires actually strung three rules together to apply cause and effect to come to the final decision to call him out. Five different crews may have interpreted the rule five different ways, perhaps simply resuming the at bat at the previous score to name one hypothetical example. All umpires were in agreement of one thing; they were glad it didn't happen to their crew.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
This just happened ... in the minor leagues. Lewis didn't seem mad about being thrown out, but the ump tossed the pitcher anyway.
Fryowa
Administrator
Ok, not meaning to rile anyone up or start a debate, but there are a lot of misunderstandings about the pine tar game...your quote above is incorrect...no grey area.
1. People have over the years taken the rule (enhanced by the Brett incident) to mean that it's in place to prevent some sort of performance enhancement. It's not.
That rule was created originally in the dead ball era to prevent discoloration of game balls which made them obviously not last as long. This was done for economics, not because it added any performance or hitting advantage (which has still not been evaluated, btw). Back when the rule was created they didn't go through 120 baseballs in one game like they do now (yes, that's how many really get used in one game), and they wanted them to last as long as possible. So...the rule was created in the spirit of economics, not hitting advantage, which I'll get to in a minute.
2. You can absolutely nullify that home run. A violation of OBR 1.10(c) falls under the scope of an "illegally batted ball" because the batter used an illegal bat. That's long been established with corked bats, etc...the penalty is that the batter is out. The fact that the home run originally was counted is irrelevant under the rules, because it can be applied by either the umpire seeing it (which would be an immediate out as soon as he noticed), or by appeal by the defense, which is what happened here. In fact, that's what Billy Martin was waiting for. Just like if I'm working the plate and I see a runner miss third, the only way that gets called is if the defense appeals it before the next pitch (or before leaving the field if it's at the end of the game). If the kid crosses home and scores, the offense gets the run unless the defense appeals. If they do, I need to call him out and take that run off the board. I'm not allowed to do that on my own because it opens up a grey area of which team I might play favorites with.
Under the NFHS rules we sort of get around this bat thing as umpires during the pregame conference because we're required to ask both coaches if their teams are "legally and properly equipped." At that point we aren't the gatekeepers of bats, gloves, catchers' equipment, etc. It' puts the liability on coaches since we're dealing with minors and don't wan't to get sued. In high school ball if we do see an illegal bat (too much drop, or whatever), the batter is out and the coach gets restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game.
So...1.10(c) isn't what you need to look at. All that does is determine whether you used an illegal bat or not. The rule you apply here is that it was an illegally batted ball which was determined on appeal. That batter is out and the HR doesn't count.
3. Most people say the protest was wrong because they heard their dad's uncle's cousin's best friend's neighbor say so at a BBQ in 1983. MacPhail reversed the call and restarted the game because he felt that Brett was not breaking the spirit of the rule which I agree with. In any case, whether people like the decision or not, it's the president's prerogative to do so. He could have decided either way and been completely within his authority.
4. Here's my main gripe with how everyone thinks about the pine tar game. The mechanics of how it was umpired were completely correct, and if folks would just replace the pine tar with a corked bat, they'd all go, "Oh hell that's an easy call. Batter's out and the homer comes off." But because of the uproar, and Brett flipping out, and the protest, people make it way more complex than what it is. There's no debate to be had.
Last edited:
Fryowa
Administrator
Also fun fact, the pine tar game was the last time a left handed fielder played second base in the MLB. When they finally restarted the game, Bert Campenaris was on the DL so they put Don Mattingly over there from those last few outs.
Hasn't been one in the 36 years following.
Hasn't been one in the 36 years following.
Not really a huge baseball fan (game is a bit too slow for me), but I do think athletic development is a really interesting topic. So let me ask you, knowledgeable baseball fan/coach/umpire:
If you have a little league kid who is left-handed, and he is far and away your best option for SS based upon his ability to field the ball and throw to first base, do you let him play short? Or is he as CF or C based upon where he is likely to end up down the road?
Secondarily, if he does play SS to best help the team, is that a detriment to his long-term development/potential, is it neutral, or does it actually help him out (or is development so multifactorial that this is a stupid question to even ask)?
Fryowa
Administrator
Here's my take as a coach.
How old is he? If it's 3rd/4th grade age, I don't see any harm in it. It may help a little just for the fact that he'll get more balls hit to him, but the throws are going to be super goofy. Actually ignoring skill level I move kids all over at that age because wining games isn't important, it's the development that I want them to get. Stay away from youth coaches who get hung up on wins. They're trying to relive their own childhoods. Ask Bryce Harper if he remembers how many games his team won when he was 9 years old...he definitely remembers coaches who helped him with his swing. Again, it's development that important for kids who have raw talent, wins at that age are for 38 year old washouts to brag about at USSSA meetings.
Once you get to 5th/6th age, if he's really athletic and has a lot of natural skill, I'd avoid it because once he hits junior high or advanced ball he'll never see SS again and he probably needs time in the outfield to get footwork and relays down. You'll see some lefties at 3B but normally they're outfielders.
I see you mentioned catcher, not sure if that's what you meant but left handed catchers are more rare than left handed infielders.
Last edited:
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Interesting stuff Hayden.
So Brett wasn't trying to break "the spirit of the rule". LOL...what exactly does that mean?
Fryowa
Administrator
One thing I forgot to mention...
If this is your own kid and you really feel that he's got some gifts throwing the ball, get him started pitching like yesterday. Left handed pitchers and hitters are unicorns and if he can be an effective pitcher or hitter he will always have demand on a team. If you can't or don't want to get him working with a coach at this age (I wouldn't be able to afford private coaching myself), get in touch with your varsity coach. I can guarantee you he will get started helping you out if he's competent. There's a reason the proportion of lefties is so much higher in advanced baseball (college, minors, MLB) than it is in high school and below.
Fryowa
Administrator
The "spirit of the rule," i.e. why they put it into place, was because the leagues couldn't afford to go through dozens of balls back then. So to stop them from getting all marked up they put the pine tar rule in place.
MacPhail (baseball president at the time) reversed the call because he didn't feel Brett violated that "spirit" or intent. I have to agree, technically. They've added clarification to the rule since then, btw. The notes under 1.10(c) clarifying the rule and its application is about twice as long as the rule itself.
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
First base
Fryowa
Administrator
Here's the rule in question. Note that before the pine tar game, the rule did not specify a penalty, only that the bat had to be removed from the game. However, a ball hit with an illegal bat has always been very clearly stated in the rules as an illegally batted ball. Which is an out. Billy Martin knew that, and waited for the next good time to appeal it. It isn't a coincidence they did it after a home run and not a fly ball or ground out.
After the shit show in 1983 they added language that just went ahead and said you get tossed for the illegal bat regardless of whether you hit with it or not, which is in the notes.
Fryowa
Administrator
If he's an athlete who can run and throw well, 1B isn't using him smartly.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
so in essence, I think it's outdated so despite still being in effect, we'll just ignore it. I can only assume the rule was done away with shortly there after by the commissioner
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Rule 1.10(c) was almost certainly one of the rules applied in ruling Brett out, one of the three rules that the umpires had to string together on the fly with an important game in the balance. The fact that not every crew would have interpreted it the way McClelland's crew did was brought up by Ron Luciano himself in one his autobiographies. They certainly had the authority to call Brett out if they applied the rule the way they did. But another crew may not have and not been any less wrong.
I remember how the protest was upheld, which seldom happens, especially when the outcome of a game is in the balance. I remember the term "Spirit of the rule" being used by McPhail. And I remember Mattingly having to play second base for one defensive out.
Here's something you may not have known. Mattingly was due to bat in the bottom of the ninth. He had a twelve game hitting streak going before the pine tar game and a thirteen game streak going after it. A base hit would have extended his streak to 26 games and counting.
Fryowa
Administrator
I will agree that a different crew might have called it a different way.
But...there is only one correct call, which is luckily the one they made. We have the benefit of hindsight, but if an umpire called it differently they would have been wrong.
That's one misconception that people have about umpiring (and officiating in general)--that there's a grey area which let's you interpret the rules.
OBR is not ambiguous on this one...a ball hit with an illegal bat results in an immediate out and nothing that happens after that counts. That's been crystal clear for over a century. So a crew who called it differently would have blown it.
