klein@houxt.UUCP (N.KLEIN) (07/27/83)
Surprisingly enough I have not seen any commentary on the George Brett incident who had a home run in the 9th inning nullified in a recent NY-KC game because Billy Martin ran out of the dugout and claimed he had too much pine tar. I am not sure I understand the reason for the rule but it figures that it was brought out by a team that in the last few years has done anything possible to take the sport out of baseball and turn it into a capitalistic venture. My feeling is that Steinbrenner single-handedly ruined the sport of baseball. I used to be an avid baseball fan but the free agent business (started by the Yankees in the purchase of Catfish Hunter) and the buying of championships was too much. Is anyone from outside (or in) NY a Yankee fan? NDK
3363ewf@houxm.UUCP (07/27/83)
I agree with NDK regarding Steinbrenner ruining baseball.
Sometimes I think he needs psychiatric help.
The Brett bat incident was absolutely unbelievable.
Based on past incidents (Mayberry vs. Angels, Indians vs Rice)
either of two events should have happened.
1. The ump should have told Brett not to use
the bat before he hit the home run.
2. The ump should have ruled that the pinetar
has no effect on the home run, hence it is
up to NY to protest the game.
Under no rational circumstances should have Brett been called
out.
The rule states that the use of a bat with excessive pine tar,
18" above the knob, is not allowed and the ump will not allow
that bat into play.
There is absolutely nothing about calling a batter out for
the excessive use of pinetar.
KC better win this protest or baseball will lose a lot of
credibility and maybe even G. Brett.
I am still steaming over this one. The Yankees are a bunch
of *******
Gene Foster
houxm!3363ewfjsg@rlgvax.UUCP (JSG) (07/28/83)
Free agancy started by the Yankees with Catfish Hunter? What sport have you been following. It certainly hasn't been baseball. As I recall Andy Messersmth (ah, he was also a pitcher, maybe that's why you got confused) was the player who sued and started free agency. As for George Brett, leave it to Billy Martin. He definitely has been using an illegal bat, but what a time to bring it up (after a game winning homer, for those who have been hibernating). You may not like Billy, but you've got to admit he's one of the best, shrudest(sp?) managers to hit the bigs since, oh probably the greatest, Casey Stengle (who was Billy's manager for several years, and Billy sure payed attention). It will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. AL president Lee MacPhail ruled in a similar case (in '77 I think) that it was not the intention of the rule (referring to pinetar above the 18 inch mark). However, that was on a protest and no umpire decision was involved. We'll see. jeff [seismo, mcnc, inhp4, allegra, we13]!rlgvax!jsg
alb@alice.UUCP (07/28/83)
If people are so hot at the Yankees for using this rule to win the game, why is it no one supported them when the exact same thing happened several years ago to Thurman Munson (the hit was a home run, granted it was not a potential game winner)? Why is there such a double standard here?
thor@ihuxw.UUCP (07/28/83)
Perhaps Brett should not have been called out, but it was reasonable for Billy Martin to point out the fact that the bat did exceed the regulation on pine tar. It is a rule and citing it does nothing to remove "fun" from the game of baseball. How many zillions of times do managers, coaches, batters, etc., have baseballs examined for foreign substances possibly added by the pitcher? This happens all the time and it does not have a negative effect on the game. Why is examining a bat so different? The basic problem is that the umpire should have told Brett to get a new bat when he first came up to the plate. Mark Kohls ihuxw!thor
smb@ulysses.UUCP (07/29/83)
The Catfish Hunter incident was anomolous, in that it occurred while the reserve clause was still in effect, and free agency non-existent. An arbitrator ruled that the A's (read: Charley Finley) had defaulted on Hunter's contract, thus freeing him to negotiate with any club he wanted. Until the Messersmith decision a few years later, this was virtually the only case in the history of baseball where an established star was free to negotiate with any club he wanted. Don't blame Steinbrenner for that one; the Yankees weren't the only folks bidding, nor were the losing bids that much lower. The Messersmith decision completely threw out the reserve clause, and instituted free agency for all players. The players union, as part of the collective bargaining agreement with the owners, agreed to certain restrictions. The major reason it hasn't worked equitably is that a few owners have refused to acknowledge the new order, and won't deal with quality free agents at all. Steinbrenner, obviously, is not one of them... (No, I don't like King George at all -- but what I object to is his penchant for temper tantrums, and his insistence on meddling in the day-to-day affairs of the team.) --Steve Bellovin