The George Brett tar bat incident was overturned 5 days later by the Commissioner; the game was continued then and the Royals won. For some reason this fact never gets mentioned. For many years I didn't know it either.
Huh, you learn something new everyday. I did not know that was overturned. I know that play, that game. Im 50 yrs old, so I remember it. But I didnt know that. Also fuck the Yankees. Thats probably why.
I always see people talk about how smart Billy Martin was and how he "knew the rules." But he didn't. If he knew the rules he would have known he had to challenge the bat BEFORE the home run, not after.
Another small fact is when they resumed the game the Yankees appealed that Brett didn't touch home plate. The umpires from the first game signed and affidavit saying that he did so when the Yankees appealed the new umpires whipped out affidavit.
@@robertcampbell8070 If Martin had objected before Brett’s at bat, the umps would’ve just made him change bats. Waiting until after he batted _was_ the smart thing to do. Martin was aware of the pine tar rule because one of his own players had run afoul of the rule some years prior (Munson I think).
I forget the Braves player targeted by the comment, but the announcer said "if he was in a race with a pregnant woman, he'd come in third". Was our catcher in the early 90s, I think.
can we just give some props on the excellent camera angle on the George Brett runout from the dugout? Just a great viewing angle to see him go from calm and composed to explosive and out of control when he was called out and the game was over
The ump got the call wrong, the commissioner correctly overturned the ump's idiotic ruling, and the home run counted. Of course Brett was angry, the umpire tried to screw his team over.
It's because back then, sports on TV shows IMPORTANT parts of the game. Far fewer useless crowd reaction shots or extreme close ups of the baseball, golf ball, etc. just to show how good their cameramen were that they could follow it in the air. And they didn't have to cover up the telecast with graphics of equally useless stats like "Exit Velocity" or "Win Probability" or the latest ad for an online gambling site. Common sense would tell the director to keep at least one camera on Brett in that instance, and be ready to cut to that camera quickly. It is just that today's sports directors have no sports common sense
Brett hammered that ball. What a beast of a hitter. I remember when I was a kid he was hitting over .400 for what seemed like the whole season. I think he finished at .393 or something. Best avg since Teddy Ballgame hit over.400. (Go Sox) 🧦 (those are red)
I agree with you there! It’s NOT just with baseball and other sports, but with games as well! Here’s one example that I witnessed: One day at work (At the time I was working in assisting the activity department, in a couple assisted living senior’s homes) I was assisting with the afternoon activity which was a “horse race” with plastic toy horses, a cheaply designed track and two dice. The point of the game was to get your horse to the finish line first, by rolling the dice, and moving forward the number of spaces that you rolled. One resident rolled a nine, so his horse was supposed to advance nine spaces. However… My boss at that particular residence, physically moved this resident’s horse twelve spots to have him EVEN closer to the end. I moved his poor horse back three spaces to where the heck it was supposed to be! My boss started yelling at me for doing that, when I wasn’t even in the wrong! She then asked me to put it back. I told her that promoting cheating! She said that she didn’t care about it, and no one saw anything! Yah right, and you’re the one who makes the rules! You supposed to respect them! Those rules are there FOR EVERYONE to follow! At the end of the activity, my boss continued to yell at me for what happened! I told her that she was cheating and I didn’t want to promote it! She then went on to tell me that: “They’re my activities and my rules! If I want to cheat once in a while, I can!” Since I TOTALLY disagreed with her and her attitude towards me, I packed up my stuff and left. I NEVER returned to that place again! Now, I’m ONLY at one home and are WAY happier! I still keep the same post, but THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHEATING AT ANYTIME!
The ump actually made the right call on Brett according to the rules. The book says that it’s illegal to have more than 18 inches of pine tar from the tip of the bat handle (home plate is 17 inches wide, which is why they were using it for reference). The rules also say that anyone who uses an illegal bat will be called out. The league president didn’t overrule the ump because he interpreted the rules wrong; he said that the ruling just wasn’t in keeping with “the spirit of the game“ because pine tar doesn’t add to the distance of a batted ball. Brett’s calm and measured response has been a joy to watch for years. 😁
You are 100% wrong. In 1983, the rule was that the bat could be confiscated and the batter ejected, but the umpires had no authority to change the play from a HR to an out. Which is why Lee Macphail upheld the protest and the HR counted.
@@MattRowland He's right, you're in error as far as i can tell. According to the 1983 newspaper article I read (link in Wikipedia), Rule 2 stated at that time that the batter shall be called out for illegally batting a ball. Further, the same article quoted MacPhail as saying that wasn't the intent of the rule (which means technically the rule applied), so describing it as not in keeping with the spirit of the game seems a fair description. There might be some nuance I'm missing, if so feel free to inform.
@@SC-gs8dc The intent of the rule was mostly cosmetic; the league did not want to toss a ball out of the game because it had been discolored by pine tar (and potentially be used by a pitcher to manipulate a pitch). The rule was made at a time when baseballs were relatively pricey and clubs didn’t carry a large supply. The pine tar itself would actually hurt the batter by not allowing the ball to react freely from the bat, even if just slightly. That’s why McPhail went with the spirit-of-the-game concept and allowed the HR to stand.
Graig Nettles said in an interview that he told Martin about the pine tar on George Brett's bat. Billy told him he would use that rule when he needed it.
It's too bad neither knew what the rule ACTUALLY said. The rule was changed long before 1983 so that in the case of what happened, the bat is supposed to simply be removed from the game. NOTHING else. Nobody is called out for using it. No hit, or home run is taken away. Nothing. Because the rule was NEVER about any sort of unfair advantage. It was solely about saving money on baseballs from the old old days when they would desperate try to use less than a dozen balls the whole game. In fact, the rule didn't even call for the bat to be removed from the game. The batter could ask for it back and have a clubhouse guy take it back and clean it up before his next at bat and he could use it again. It was still a perfectly legal bat as long as there was little chance of it transferring pine tar to the baseball, causing it to be removed from the game.
Most of those, other than the famous pine tar incident, were pretty egregious acts and obvious calls. However, it’s hard to call 3:00 in the video obstruction by the SS. He made no move forward to block the runner, and was pretty far back of the typical base path. That was a wide turn that lead the runner into the SS.
Base path doesn't exist by rule until a play is being made on the runner, and even then the runner gets to establish their own base path. By rule since SS didn't get out of the runners way it is technically type 2 obstruction, though I don't agree with the runner just stopping, and a case could be made he isn't entitled to 3rd because of that (type 2 is the one where base awards are umpire's judgement, type 1 is automatic next base and requires a play being made)
I never understood why that little glove slap was suuuuuch an egregious cheap shot at a time when coming in to the plate hard and heavy with both elbows to the catcher's head was a great baseball play.
2:28 Wow, what a game-changing, ballsy call by the umpires. And absolutely the correct call! I bet that base-runner regrets the interference that likely wasn't even necessary in the first place.
@@bizzle4819imho, giving the runner first when he clearly ran into the field of play, out of the base path, was a bad call. The runner who "lost his way" and then intentionally ran out into the shortstop was questionable. But all the rest I agree.
@@Ta12dankdiscoveriesI umpire and that’s 1000% spot on. They don’t remember the 100s of calls you make correctly but if you make one mistake or call something that’s not in their favor they loose it. 8 years and still going strong. I don’t toss or yell at people anymore. Making coaches kids and parents do laps around the park or run up a hill works a lot better.
I've read several articles corked bats don't help to hit balls farther(as they have less inertia than normal bats) and the "trampoline effect" is a myth. However lighter bats tend to give batters a smidge extra time to swing so they get better contact.
in the case of Chris Sabo , he broke another bat or two in that at bat. the ball boy brought him one that was corked that he and a few other players were using unknowingly . idk if he could tell that it was corked til it broke . all i know is he paid the fine and got a suspension which he served
They DO speed up your swing, which can help you make contact with 99 MPH fastballs better. You get the benefits of a lighter bat while still having the hitting area of a larger one. Not even unfair advantage is about hitting it farther. It is about helping the batter catch up to fast balls.
Hm, that one at 0:49 seems like the runner shoulda been out? Pitcher gets ball in his glove before the collision. Pitcher was in that location in order to make a play on the ball. Seems like that shoulda been allowed.
I thought so too, but then at 0:58 you see Greg Gibson The Home Plate Umpire point at the first baseman. I interpret that as saying the batter gets 1B because of that guy’s interference, not the pitcher (who had the ball and was allowed to be there).
@@bernier42 I certainly won't pretend to be a rules expert on this one. But shouldn't that only be called if he bumps into the 1B? I understand they kinda setup a bit of a blockade, but I feel like an important ingredient is that you still have to run into the part that shouldn't have been there. I would say its just unfortunate for the runner to have chosen incorrectly on what was mostly a 50/50. I'd be fine with the interference call if the 1B had the ball instead, and he collided with the pitcher.
They ended up reversing the infamous pine-tar HR-yet-out call the next day. MLB would never do that today and admit fault. They owe it to the Tigers and Galarraga to reverse the horrible safe call at first in the 9th, with two outs and a perfect game on the line. He deserves a perfect game on his record! Grow up MLB!
I am SO with you. Their argument about setting some sort of precedent is ridiculous on its face. Yes, when you make an aggregiously horrible wrong call in the future, it can be reversed. What’s the issue with that?
That call is not something that can be appealed. Never could. If Galaraga got that imperfect perfect game in 1983, it would have stood as a 1 hitter just like now. The Royals won their appeal because the umpires DIDN'T KNOW THE RULES and incorrectly ruled him out when the rule book called for the bat to be taken out of play. And nothing else. His home run should have stood. Appeals are only for incorrect understanding or application of the rules. Not just an umpire making a bad call.
@@FUGP72 The proper term is "protest", not "appeal". An appeal play happens on the field; the typical example is throwing to a runner's time-of-pitch base after a caught fly ball to appeal that the runner left too early. A protest was for when a team felt that the umpires misapplied the rules, which is what the Royals argued in 1983. Judgement calls (out/safe, strike/ball, fair/foul, etc.) were not able to be protested. Today, protests are not allowed.
The umps were right. McPhail decided wrong. He took a political expedient convenient "out". Brett always was and always will be an asshole. Also, where can I get me some tine par? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident
@@TheDesertwalker yes George Brett is an asshole in real life. He wouldn't even let me tell him I was named after him when I was old enough to understand when the pine tar incident. I lost all the respect for him as not just a player, but a person he is off the field.
The thing that people don't think about the George Brett bat incident is two umpires saved George Brett's career by grabbing him before he got to the home plate umpire.
@@NKript What's he gonna say? "I was gonna kill the ump!". He looked like a mongrel dog going after him. I actually wished he got to him and and got a few licks in. Woulda been fun.
0:13 when the dodgers coach runs out to argue the call is the epitome of why people think baseball is slow. He is running out to argue a call that is obvious and we will continue the game in 5 minutes
That's because from the manager's angle in the dugout, it does look like he was trying to avoid a pitch coming right at him. That's why he came out to argue. But as you mentioned, that wasn't the case
The umpire was Tim McClelland, one of the tallest umpires in the history of the game. He had to adopt a non-traditional squat when he was at home plate because he was so tall. Pitcher Zack Greinke once remarked that McClelland was the only umpire that gave him nightmares.
What's the call on play at 0:46? Interference on pitcher? first baseman? Pitcher has ball before contact with runner and I thought it is okay to stand in base path if you have ball to tag runner out. First baseman never contacts runner.
Funny story - I remember when I was much younger watching the George Brett bat incident. I changed how I did my pine tar after that. The funny part of his story. Many many years later, I am living in Nashville, At one of my favorite sports bars downtown, there was an old guy in there I have never seen, we were having a great conversation. He happens to be a newly elected State representative from the very east of the state and in town for State Business and wanted a beer. Turns out he is a retired MBA Umpire. We talked about his favorite player, most respect for Nolan Ryan, said Nolans hands are just huge. No the good part, he was the third base umpire in this game. He was supposed to be the Home Plate Umpire for this game. I forgot why they switched. But, he said that if he would have been behind the plate he would have tossed the bat in the KC Dugout and told Billy Martin to go in their dugout and bring it to me. He also got a bunch of Official Boston Redsox shirts and hats and passed them out to a few people in the br. Small dive bar, not a lot of folks but I was able to get stuff for my young son. Great visit, and great stories
I believe they called obstruction on the first baseman, who forced the runner to go out of the baseline & into the pitcher with the ball. Still kinda questionable, but more understandable than calling it on the pitcher with the ball
He was forced to deviate by one fielder into the pitcher. So he ether was blocked by the fielder or was blocked from going around the fielder. Only ONE of the fielders is entitled to block the runner when they have the ball, not two.
0:46 I don't agree with that call for several reasons. 1) The guy who makes contact with the runner is the guy holding the ball. He is allowed to be in the path of the runner, in fact that's the whole idea. 2) The runner is well into fair territory, and not in the designated lane they are supposed to run down to first base. If he was in that lane he would not be running into the fielders. The RUNNER is creating this collision, which is then ruled as them interfering with him. He may claim to be reacting and trying to avoid the collision, but he ends up causing one instead.
He *didn't* cause the collision, the first baseman did. He comes in and runs right into the pitcher, causing the pitcher and runner to collide. You can even see the ump point to the first baseman for the call. If the first baseman had stayed put, this would have been an out.
It's similar to football. Some penalties are instant dead ball situations while others allow the play to continue before handling it. In that particular play, the 3rd base umpire's attention is supposed to follow the ball after the wild throw and the home plate ump becomes responsible for the obstruction call. Since it isn't a dead ball situation, you allow the play to continue and then enforce the rule.
because you looked at the wrong umpire, the 3rd base ump calls it immediately. it isn't the home plate umps call all he does is say safe cause of the third base umps call.
The reason not to stop the play is that it is type B obstruction. Baseball has two different types of obstruction under the OBR, or Official Baseball Rules, the ruleset used by the major leagues, the minor leagues, and with some modifications, the little leagues. The first type of obstruction is Type A. This is when obstruction is committed on a player while a play is being made on him. A classic example of this is a player is caught in a rundown, and is obstructed by a player who does not have the ball. For this type of obstruction, time must be called immediately, and the runner given the next base. Type B obstruction is what occurred here. This is obstruction on a player on which no play is directly being made. Once the ball sailed past the third baseman, no play was being made on the runner. Thus, when the third baseman tripped up the runner, obstruction type B occurred. There does not have to be intent to obstruct, merely that it happens. For type B obstruction, the umpires are to let the play finish, then do what they feel is necessary to nullify the obstruction. It is not a guarantee that a player be awarded the next base in this case, but the umpires are supposed to err on the side of the offended team. Here the umpires properly pointed at the obstruction. This was to let the crew know that obstruction had occurred, and where it happened. Then, the umpires properly let the play finish, and decided that if the runner had not been tripped, he would have reached home safely, and thus awarded him home.
There’s letter of the law, then there’s the spirit of the law. Everything depends on which ump/ref you get at any given time. Everyone feels the spirit of the game as it’s being played. Everyone also feels the letter of the law being enforced. Doesn’t matter who may be winning or losing.
The first base pop-up I don't believe was interference. The players on the field have to be able to make a play on the ball and the runner was out before even reaching the defensive players... but I'm not expert.
@@TimCarter That isn't the rules. The runner doesn't have to try to avoid the fielder. The fielder has to avoid the runner. Only ONE fielder is allowed to block the path...with the ball. Once the ball was gloved by the pitcher, the first baseman IMMEDIATELY was interfering by being in the way.
@1:00 yes, he absolutely went to the inside of the line. He's allowed to do that to avoid the tag.The problem is that the pitcher was also there. The right to go for the ball applies to only ONE fielder. It cannot and does not apply to two of them.
i feel like george brett could have hit the ump if he actually wanted to. if you're a "dont hold me back (but please hold me back)" guy then you want your buds to do it like they did it to him, though. like "im so savage they had to yank me back by my neck"
I was bummed out with Chris Sabo's batt. I enjoyed his "no nonsense" game. He didn't mess around at the plate. Drove an old beater car to and from the game. He was just a good guy. But then this. Sad really.
What's even worse is that it's mostly a myth that corked bats offer a significant advantage. Slap/contact hitters can potentially get a small advantage from the increased bat speed but it comes with a loss of compression in the bat which pretty much neutralizes the bat speed advantage for power hitters (exit velocities at best remain the same but can actually be lower leading to less flight distance.)
@@possumverde You hit the nail on the head. I heard corked bats described once as “the only disadvantage you’ll get in trouble for”, and I have to agree. Any benefit to the bat speed is negligible because of lost compression; if you’re corking a bat, it’s likely to be doing you fewer favors than a regular bat.
From what I've read, it wasn't him who chose the bat. His teammates had put a corked bat they used to dick around with in with his stuff as a prank. Honestly, it makes sense that he wasn't trying to cheat, because he knew the bat was cracked but not broken; if he were trying to cheat he would have asked for a different bat.
I think Sabos clip didn't do him justice. if you look at the full clip, he started out by breaking his first bat and had gotten the other bat from the bat boy. it might have just been a corked bat that the team messed around with during batting practice because it didn't seem like he wanted a specific bat from the bunch.
@@gabepollock1641 There is a way to rig a bat which offers a weight reduction and better compression than an unmodified bat. Some buddies and I did a little experiment when I was in college that turned out to work far better than we thought it would. You core the bat (we tapered it to match the bat's taper in order to reach the point where the middle of the top had would roughly be when gripped out of concern for potential breakage issues.) Then you mix up a small batch of the material they use to make those super bouncy balls (the ones that crumble when broken apart.) The recipe can be found on line and is mostly comprised of household cleaners and other common chemicals. Clamp the bat in a vertical position as securely as possible and pour the liquid into it. Then use a tamping rod as close to the width of the cored out part as you can get to compress the liquid without allowing much to seep around the rod (we couldn't come up with a way of including some form of gasket etc. to properly deal with it that wouldn't risk getting stuck to the material.) The more compression you can create, the better the results will be. Secure it and allow the liquid to set (a day or two if I remember correctly.) Once set, mix up another batch and repeat the process until the core is pretty much filled. Cap it off in whatever way you think will be make it difficult to detect and you're good to go. We ended up with a bat that was much more difficult to break than an unmodified one, weighed ~1.5 oz less (I think we used a 32 oz bat to begin with) and after a good bit of testing with some members of the school's baseball team, what appeared to be an additional ~15 ft. of flight distance on average over the control bat (we had no accurate way of determining exit velocity but it was almost certainly improved given the boost in flight distance.) When we were done, we segmented it and found out why it worked so well. Under the heavy compression, the liquid actually seeped into the wood grain a bit before setting so it was as if it was a part of the bat rather than just a filler and there was little sign of any air bubbles. The tools etc. we used weren't ideal and far more compression was possible (had we known about the seepage into the wood grain for example, we would have periodically increased the compression while it was setting) So there was definitely room for improvement. At the time, I had heard that some MLB players had experimented with just putting the balls themselves (whole or ground up) into bats and wondered what would happen if the material were used in a manner that didn't leave air pockets behind to disperse the force. As nearly unbreakable as our bat was (I only managed to put some small cracks in the handle after bashing on home plate for awhile), I wouldn't be surprised if there are current major leaguers using something similar. If the coring hole could be properly hidden (we didn't put much effort into it), the only way to catch it would be by weighing it and they could simply alter to the marked weight to match the final product.
That play at 0:47 is one of the most BS things I've ever seen at any level. They players on defense certainly have the right to attempt to field a batted ball. It's not their fault that the ball was hit down the first base line.
@@Blacksmarket81 That doesn't matter. The runner was avoiding an obstacle player and was forced off his path in the first place. The collision isn't required for obstruction.
You're allowed to add sticky stuff to your bat to add grip, but you can't have it for more than 18 inches from the end you hold it with. The Yankees' manager was certain Brett's bat had too much pine tar on it. He let him use it until he does something big and then challenges it. The umps didn't have a yardstick, so they measured it against home plate since it's one inch shorter than the limit. Easy to eyeball. They say the bat is illegal, Brett is out, Yankees win, game over. It became a whole ordeal, the Royals protested the game (and won), and they finished it and won the game at a later date with Brett ejected.
3:38 "George, you're 6'/205 I'm 6'-6"/250 with shin guards, a chest protector, a mask in one hand and a bat in the other. Just what were you going to do to me?"
The collision at 1st base just happened...the runner should be out, not awarded 1st base. Players have the right, ALWAYS, to make a play. The fact that they collided was part of the game.
I think it was Greg Nettles (apologies if it wasn't you Greg lol ) whose bat broke on a hit and superballs fell out. The bat had been grooved and superballs put in then the end was sealed. Supposedly would give a hit more force. hey, baseball players aren't known for their science grades.
0:50 Can somebody please tell me why the runner is awarded 1st base on that play. The ball was fielded in play and the runner was immediately tagged out. It's not obstruction if the fielder is holding the ball. It's no different than when a 2nd baseman fields the ball and stands in the baseline until the runner gets there to tag him out. Anybody??
It’s very difficult to tell, but I think what happened was the umpire called interference on the first baseman since he was in the base path and didn’t have possession of the ball. The runner did have to move to the side to avoid the first baseman. Now I do agree with you that the umpire called it wrong since the runner attempted to avoid the fielder while the ball was still in the air.
@@Blaaz91 even with the 1B out of the lane... the tag is still made by the P since th eP fielded it in the RL, then the BR made no attempt to change his course to avoid the tag. that was a blown call. right intention, wrong application of the rule. it's a tag out since P had already fielded the ball.
Pro sports have always puzzled me ever since I was a teenager watching a game and witnessed my first bad call by a ref and thought "wow, not only does my home team have to try and beat the other team, they also have to defeet the evil ogars too"
The baserunner interference call at 0:56 was completely wrong. The only rule infraction on that play was the batter running two feet inside the baseline. The only other call that seemed iffy was the interference call at 3:00, whereby the shortstop supposedly impeded the baserunner who rounded second and headed toward the foul pole in left. And while George Brett technically may have been using an "illegal" bat, that pine tar home run incident was more a reflection of poor sportsmanship by the Billy Martin Yankees than an infraction of the rules. Great theater, though!
Obstruction was the correct call technically. Only 1 fielder can be protected for and once the ball is fielded the other fielder is in the path of the batter/runner and the instant the batter changes his running path to avoid a collision with an unprotected fielder, obstruction occurs.
1:08, I wonder what the runner was thinking. If he ran inside the “safe corridor” (just outside foul line), he would have blown past the infielders before they got the ball, never needed to slow down.
The "safe corridor" has a name, it's called the "runners lane". Since there's no throw we don't have the potential for RLI (runners lane interference) but I'm still not entirely sure what the runner was thinking there.
What I don’t understand is that the runner ran into the fielder who was fielding the hit ball. Runners have to avoid fielders fielding a hit ball. I know the 1st baseman was beside him but he didn’t run into the 1st baseman. He ran into the pitcher who was literally fielding the hit ball. Runner should be out right?
@@fivebooks8498 Since the pitcher had already caught the ball he's no longer in the act of "fielding the ball". When the runner runs into the pitcher the pitcher is attempting to make a play on the runner by tagging him. There's no interference because the pitcher has successfully fielded the ball before the collision with BR.
@ 0:55 the guy caught it though. Isn't that an out? So what if the other guy bumps the runner? He's already out. Someone aboe to clarify for me what's going on?
The ironic thing about that José Bautista leg grab is that it did not affect the play whatsoever. That was just a miss by the first baseman all the way. Had José Bautista not tried to play dirty he would have been safe and possibly on second.
I remember watching a video, maybe here or on the Discovery Channel, where it showed that a corked bat actually took away power after hitting the ball.
A corked bat adds momentum mv (since the mass of the ball is constant, that means velocity is increased) because the ball is in contact with the bat for a longer time Ft. force x time = mass x velocity
It does decrease pop but supposedly it increases bat speed more, so the end result is the bat speed out weighs the loss of pop therefore increasing distance. You guy that play baseball know what I mean by pop. It’s that jump the ball takes off the bat when hit solid.
The imparted force equation has a v-squared component... so the gain in bat velocity from the lighter bat adds more than the loss from less mass in the collision. Theoretically.
Yankees skipper Billy Martin argued that George Brett (the Royals batter who hit the home run) had too much pine tar on his bat, and the umpire called Brett out, thus negating his two-run home run and effectively gave the Yankees the win. The Royals protested the decision to Lee MacPhail, the American League president (this was before the commissioner consolidated control of both leagues). MacPhail said that Brett’s use of pine tar on the bat neither increased the distance of the ball traveled nor broke the spirit of the rules and ordered the game to be resumed with Brett’s home run reinstated. When the game resumed 25 days later, Billy Martin tried to pull a fast one on the new umpires by arguing that neither baserunner touched all the bases, but was amazed to find out they had a signed affidavit from the umpires who officiated the game previously saying otherwise. The Royals won the game by the score of 5-4.
@@kenmograd2009 MacPhail said no such thing. He simply said "The rule never called for the batter to be called out". The only "penalty" for having too much pine tar is that the bat was taken out of play. In fact, Brett could even ask for the bat back, sit in the dugout scraping the pin tar off, or having some kid in the clubhouse do it for hi before his next at bat. (Or in this case, before the next game.) The appeal was upheld simply because the umpires didn't know the rules.
The Aybar-Otero play, how does the umpire decide which player is protected in the act of fielding? Only one can be, the other one is obstructing, but then Aybar also interfered with Otero's fielding. That whole play is a mess.
Technically under the rules at the time, it was a violation. Martin was master at finding obscure and/or vaguely worded rules and trying to use them to his advantage. Definitely cheesy though and the commish was right to make an exception and overrule it.
@@possumverde It was definitely a violation, but the reason for the old-timey rule was to keep the balls clean, not for any competitive advantage. The proper ruling should have been to let the HR stand, and force him to use a new bat in the future, which the AL apparently agreed on because they overturned the ruling later.
It was NOT a violation. Do some research. A situation like this had already been ruled on by American League President Macphail in 1975 on how the rules are to be interpreted. Having pine tar too high on bat is not an illegal bat, does not improve the bats potential, so that no previous at bat can be erased. It could only be removed from play at most. Umpires should have known this.
@@1158scott Incorrect. The Yankees never protested the '75 "pine tar game" and thus AL President McPhail was never asked to render an interpretation on the matter. When asked in an interview about the '83 game, McPhail defended the umpires and placed the blame squarely on the ambiguous rule still in use at the time.
@@ironmantim33 Yep, that's why I said it was cheesey. The original rule was added in '55 but the context was not included. Even if some of the umps etc. were familiar with the original reason for the rule, they were limited to making their call based only on what was written in the official rulebook at the time. Which was simply that a bat with pine tar beyond 17 inches was illegal and as such the batter was to be called out.
2:55 This one is a terrible call in my opinion! I would not call that obstruction...the fielder was minding his own business as much as possible. He was nowhere near in the base-running lane. Ludicrous call
1:46 That obstruction seemed intentional at first glance, but on the replay I am questioning if he actually meant to do it. He truly might have not known the best way to get out of the way. But, perhaps the obstruction doesn't have to be intentional in order to give the runner their base.
Intent has nothing to do with it, nor even whether it was possible for the fielder to avoid obstructing the runner. An obstruction call is simply a statement of what happened: the runner was hindered in his attempt to advance. How and why is irrelevant.
As a football fan, if you are willing to sacrifice your hand to swat an MLB throw to the next base, that should be allowed... but I understand why it isn't.
@@davej3781 You do have to avoid a fielder going for a thrown ball. Example: if a catcher is in your path fielding a ball coming in you are required to do your best to avoid contact. You are not permitted to run through him as if he isn't there
@@DrkFge I don't see that. The infielders were in the field and not in the runner's lane at all. The runner's lane is *outside* the foul line, infielders never encroached that area.
@@beepbop6697 the runners lane is established by the runner, the only deviation from that line was cause 2 very large men were in the way. however seeing as the ball was cleanly fielded already and aybar ran into the tag i agree he should have been out. reminds of the call against the brewers recently where the pitcher fielded it tossed to first standing next to the foul line, and never effected the ability of the runner to be safe and they called obstruction.
0:48 The pitcher has a right to field the ball and tag the batter out. He has the ball in hand and the batter is approaching. What the 🤬 is he supposed to do, let him run to first unabated? It doesn't matter that the 1B is in the way, the pitcher has the 🤬ball!
So is anybody with me? What's the pitcher supposed to do, let the ball bounce away just bc he's gonna run into the batter? He's got a right to field the ball
With the illegal bat call the thing that I find problematic is the timing. It is entirely plausible that some piece of equipment become inadvertently illegal, the pine tar is an easy example where it is added to and spread with each use, the other team notices that it is now illegal, but instead of challenging it immediately they waited for the most impactful moment where they reverse a home run instead of merely getting a free out. I would write the rule so that they have to challenge before the end of the at bat. That way it's unlikely to reverse a highly impactful play like this.
I've always said I can understand why George Brett was so angry because obviously it was the umpires who put all that pine tar on his bet beyond the legal limit. Jerkwad.
The only thing illegal about those obstruction calls was that fielders obstructed with the runner, no matter where the runner was running. It's their base path, maybe don't have up to two fielders running into it?
The As/angles play, the runner should have been in foul territory. That should have been an out. Both A's players were in fair territory the umpire is saying that the 1st baseman had the play on the ball and the pitcher obstructed, but he was even farther into fair territory and he had the ball at the point of contact so the runner was out. The runner intentionally went farther into fair to make contact outside the running lane. That should be a no brainer out.
@@kentpollock433 yeah I agree. As an Angels fan, I grew up watching Aybar make smart (and sometimes dirty) plays to either deke runners or get on base. Dude had a great baseball IQ, and in this situation definitely realized his best chance at getting on 1st was to collide with one of the fielders. Still strange to me though that he went inside towards the pitcher rather than just running straight, where he would've likely run into the first baseball and likely still been given first base. Surprised they gave him first base given how intentional it looked, especially with it being tied in the bottom of the 9th.
@@TheSjuris my only arguement to that is, if the defender has the ball, between the runner and the base, the runner has no right to the base. The interference had to have been called on the pitcher, but he had the ball in fair territory. Batter/runners are not given a path to 1st base in fair territory.
@@kentpollock433 you can’t have 2 fielders right next to each other especially since the fielder without the ball is in the base path and the runner had no choice but to avoid him. The catcher interfered not the pitcher.
Not necessarily an easy call. The runner was not in the designated running lane (which is its own stupid rule, but that is a whole different argument) and the umpire could have justified not awarding the interference call.
Its actually legit though. It allows a faster swing which gives the batter more time to see the pitch before swinging and still hitting the ball more accurately. So while you lose a little bit of power on the hit, and the break can break easier, that extra time you get to look at the throw and line up your swing means all the world to a batter. Then again, its also because players would use a very heavy and harder bat then what would normally be allowed, then cork it to get it back into standard. So they now have an even harder and denser bat, that a batter can swing.
@@solidmoon8266 It's not legit though, select a lighter bat. You lose a lot on power taking weight it out of the business end of the bat. There's a reason hammers (and bats!) are weighted towards the head to maximize hitting power. The cork doesn't make it denser, cork is a soft wood, and bats are made out of hard wood. You literally nerfed your own bat. If you want to hit hard, weight at the head, if you want nimble and easy to control (like say a knife!) you want the weight at the handle.
@@Zraknul it's like a dead blow hammer. it reduces vibration and kick back, so you don't really lose the contact power, and you gain in bat speed. all of the force goes into the ball, instead of the equal/opposite thing that usually happens when 2 objects in motion hit each other.
@@AKStovall Quite literally the design of a dead blow hammer is to have a lower peak force. That's exactly what you want to deaden a bunt, less kick. That's the opposite of what you want to launch something into the air. You want the ball kicked back into the air.
@@Zraknul You are missing the obvious point. Bats were already as dense as they could be. A lighter bat would have to be slightly SMALLER. The cork lightens the bat while keeping the same exact surface area.
The guy rounding 2nd that ran into the shortstop should not have gotten that call in his favor. The shortstop was not in the lane, and the player was out of the basepaths.
It's obvious that you have never read a baseball rule book. Obstruction is, A making a fake tag. Or B blocking the base without having the ball. That's it. Now which of these apply to the situation?! Now you get it. It's a rule for a reason.
There is no official basepath between 2nd and 3rd. The basepath is established by the runner. By rule, fielders not actively playing a batted or thrown ball must stay out of a runner's way.
@@carlboscarino4750 so if the runner is in trouble he can just find a fielder to run into, the ref will call obstruction no matter where the fielder is, and the runner will be safe? really?
Take a closer look at a baseball diamond. The ONLY running lane is from home plate to first base. If a runner is in a rundown the running lane is then established by the runner and he is given 3feet to either side of him or ( rule of thumb) an arms width to either side. As I always try to teach young first and third basemen "If you don't have a play, get out of the way".
That slide wasn't close to dirty. I'm no Jay's fan but the Rangers were still butthurt over Bautista's bat flip in the playoffs, and acted like babies about it.
The Royals protested the game when George Brett was ruled "out" after hitting a go-ahead homer with his infamous pine tar bat. The league upheld the protest, deeming the game suspended at the point of his home run. They resumed the game at a later date and the Royals held on to win 5-4. That might be the only successful protest in my lifetime. MLB doesn't like admitting that umpiring errors ever decide a game.
There have been two successful protests since then. The last in 2014. (No more anymore. Starting in 2020, you can't protest anymore.) Both were cases of the umpires calling a game for rain too quickly. The team that was down after just 5 at bats (one in the bottom of the 5th and one in the top of the 6th) protested that the game should have resumed because it stopped raining shortly after their quick rain out call. Both were upheld and the rain shortened win by the other team was taken off the board and the game resumed from the point of the rain out. Both teams still lost the game.
Technically, it was a rule violation at the time. The commish made a special exception and the rule was then amended. Edit: Many managers were aware of Bretts using a ridiculous amount of pine tar on his bats and that the rules technically prohibited it. Martin was the only one with the Rawlings to actually attempt to get the umps to enforce it.
My question is intent. The Sox play the 3rd baseman just dove and was on the ground and couldn't get up or out of the way because the runner was on top of him. I honestly don't think it was intentional. So does intent count or not?
Not sure how that was interference when the guy ran into the fielder who was fielding the hit ball. I know the 1st baseman was beside him when it happened but he didn’t run into the 1st baseman. He ran into the pitcher who was fielding the hit ball. Runner should be out, not awarded the base.
The A's interference call against Angels doesn't make sense. The fielder caught the ball on the high hop before the batter ran into him. Batter getting tagged is out. The fielder catching the ball didn't have to touch 1st base for out.
@@nealroberts5844 the rule was vague and not clear (the AL president had ruled on it before). At most all the umpires could do was confiscate the bat. They had no right to reverse the result of the at bat. No right whatsoever. They could have taken the bat before Brett batted, but they didn't do this either (because they didn't notice, nor did they care at the time).
@@MattRowland In 1983 the rule was very clear. It was MADE clear in 1976 after the last time a team tried to use it. He should not have been called out. The umpires were simply unaware of the rule change, evne though it had been 7 years earlier.
The George Brett tar bat incident was overturned 5 days later by the Commissioner; the game was continued then and the Royals won. For some reason this fact never gets mentioned. For many years I didn't know it either.
Huh, you learn something new everyday. I did not know that was overturned. I know that play, that game. Im 50 yrs old, so I remember it. But I didnt know that. Also fuck the Yankees. Thats probably why.
I always see people talk about how smart Billy Martin was and how he "knew the rules." But he didn't. If he knew the rules he would have known he had to challenge the bat BEFORE the home run, not after.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Another small fact is when they resumed the game the Yankees appealed that Brett didn't touch home plate. The umpires from the first game signed and affidavit saying that he did so when the Yankees appealed the new umpires whipped out affidavit.
@@robertcampbell8070 If Martin had objected before Brett’s at bat, the umps would’ve just made him change bats. Waiting until after he batted _was_ the smart thing to do. Martin was aware of the pine tar rule because one of his own players had run afoul of the rule some years prior (Munson I think).
"Craig... who can't run" has always struck me as the most savage line from a commentator ever.
He missed the previous 6 weeks with an ankle injury but was on the WS roster because was still an awesome hitter that year.
I love Craig he was our rbi guy, always brought people home
I forget the Braves player targeted by the comment, but the announcer said "if he was in a race with a pregnant woman, he'd come in third". Was our catcher in the early 90s, I think.
@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist1you should get an actual Bible not one missing books
"boy can that monkey run" some fired commentator
can we just give some props on the excellent camera angle on the George Brett runout from the dugout? Just a great viewing angle to see him go from calm and composed to explosive and out of control when he was called out and the game was over
@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist1 eat it
George was probably relieved he didn't make it to that particular umpire
The ump got the call wrong, the commissioner correctly overturned the ump's idiotic ruling, and the home run counted. Of course Brett was angry, the umpire tried to screw his team over.
It's because back then, sports on TV shows IMPORTANT parts of the game. Far fewer useless crowd reaction shots or extreme close ups of the baseball, golf ball, etc. just to show how good their cameramen were that they could follow it in the air. And they didn't have to cover up the telecast with graphics of equally useless stats like "Exit Velocity" or "Win Probability" or the latest ad for an online gambling site.
Common sense would tell the director to keep at least one camera on Brett in that instance, and be ready to cut to that camera quickly. It is just that today's sports directors have no sports common sense
Brett hammered that ball. What a beast of a hitter. I remember when I was a kid he was hitting over .400 for what seemed like the whole season. I think he finished at .393 or something. Best avg since Teddy Ballgame hit over.400. (Go Sox) 🧦 (those are red)
I never understand people who intentionally cheat and then act confused when the umps make the right call about it.
It’s pretty easy to understand.
@@captainkev10 right? like wtf😂😂
they need to protect their fragile ego
I agree with you there! It’s NOT just with baseball and other sports, but with games as well! Here’s one example that I witnessed:
One day at work (At the time I was working in assisting the activity department, in a couple assisted living senior’s homes) I was assisting with the afternoon activity which was a “horse race” with plastic toy horses, a cheaply designed track and two dice.
The point of the game was to get your horse to the finish line first, by rolling the dice, and moving forward the number of spaces that you rolled.
One resident rolled a nine, so his horse was supposed to advance nine spaces. However…
My boss at that particular residence, physically moved this resident’s horse twelve spots to have him EVEN closer to the end. I moved his poor horse back three spaces to where the heck it was supposed to be! My boss started yelling at me for doing that, when I wasn’t even in the wrong! She then asked me to put it back. I told her that promoting cheating! She said that she didn’t care about it, and no one saw anything! Yah right, and you’re the one who makes the rules! You supposed to respect them! Those rules are there FOR EVERYONE to follow!
At the end of the activity, my boss continued to yell at me for what happened! I told her that she was cheating and I didn’t want to promote it! She then went on to tell me that:
“They’re my activities and my rules! If I want to cheat once in a while, I can!”
Since I TOTALLY disagreed with her and her attitude towards me, I packed up my stuff and left. I NEVER returned to that place again!
Now, I’m ONLY at one home and are WAY happier! I still keep the same post, but THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHEATING AT ANYTIME!
Probably because they cheat all the time and get away with it most of the time. They're surprised when they're caught.
The ump actually made the right call on Brett according to the rules. The book says that it’s illegal to have more than 18 inches of pine tar from the tip of the bat handle (home plate is 17 inches wide, which is why they were using it for reference). The rules also say that anyone who uses an illegal bat will be called out. The league president didn’t overrule the ump because he interpreted the rules wrong; he said that the ruling just wasn’t in keeping with “the spirit of the game“ because pine tar doesn’t add to the distance of a batted ball.
Brett’s calm and measured response has been a joy to watch for years. 😁
You are 100% wrong. In 1983, the rule was that the bat could be confiscated and the batter ejected, but the umpires had no authority to change the play from a HR to an out.
Which is why Lee Macphail upheld the protest and the HR counted.
@@MattRowland you will always be a redditor
@@MattRowland He's right, you're in error as far as i can tell. According to the 1983 newspaper article I read (link in Wikipedia), Rule 2 stated at that time that the batter shall be called out for illegally batting a ball.
Further, the same article quoted MacPhail as saying that wasn't the intent of the rule (which means technically the rule applied), so describing it as not in keeping with the spirit of the game seems a fair description.
There might be some nuance I'm missing, if so feel free to inform.
@@SC-gs8dc The intent of the rule was mostly cosmetic; the league did not want to toss a ball out of the game because it had been discolored by pine tar (and potentially be used by a pitcher to manipulate a pitch). The rule was made at a time when baseballs were relatively pricey and clubs didn’t carry a large supply. The pine tar itself would actually hurt the batter by not allowing the ball to react freely from the bat, even if just slightly. That’s why McPhail went with the spirit-of-the-game concept and allowed the HR to stand.
@@SC-gs8dc You are 100% right. McPhail caved into pressure of some kind. Bad decision. Brett is an asshole.
Graig Nettles said in an interview that he told Martin about the pine tar on George Brett's bat. Billy told him he would use that rule when he needed it.
It's too bad neither knew what the rule ACTUALLY said. The rule was changed long before 1983 so that in the case of what happened, the bat is supposed to simply be removed from the game. NOTHING else. Nobody is called out for using it. No hit, or home run is taken away. Nothing. Because the rule was NEVER about any sort of unfair advantage. It was solely about saving money on baseballs from the old old days when they would desperate try to use less than a dozen balls the whole game.
In fact, the rule didn't even call for the bat to be removed from the game. The batter could ask for it back and have a clubhouse guy take it back and clean it up before his next at bat and he could use it again. It was still a perfectly legal bat as long as there was little chance of it transferring pine tar to the baseball, causing it to be removed from the game.
Most of those, other than the famous pine tar incident, were pretty egregious acts and obvious calls. However, it’s hard to call 3:00 in the video obstruction by the SS. He made no move forward to block the runner, and was pretty far back of the typical base path. That was a wide turn that lead the runner into the SS.
I agree. In a few others, the obstruction is clearly not intentional, just coincidental.
Agreed, I don't think it should have been called
Yeah that was bs.
Base path doesn't exist by rule until a play is being made on the runner, and even then the runner gets to establish their own base path. By rule since SS didn't get out of the runners way it is technically type 2 obstruction, though I don't agree with the runner just stopping, and a case could be made he isn't entitled to 3rd because of that (type 2 is the one where base awards are umpire's judgement, type 1 is automatic next base and requires a play being made)
It looked too me like he went out of his way to run into the SS.
Arod slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's hand in 2004 ALCS.
A-Rod likes slapping balls.
A-Roid earned the name "Show Pony" for a reason 🐴🦄
I never understood why that little glove slap was suuuuuch an egregious cheap shot at a time when coming in to the plate hard and heavy with both elbows to the catcher's head was a great baseball play.
@@gabe9346 They’re both egregious, next you wanna defend him using steroids?😂😂
@@Dilldough. u can’t tell Yankee fans shit. It’s kinda like telling Houston fans that telling your batter what pitch is coming is cheating
2:28 Wow, what a game-changing, ballsy call by the umpires. And absolutely the correct call! I bet that base-runner regrets the interference that likely wasn't even necessary in the first place.
A rare compilation of the Umps actually doing their jobs.
All old clips, thats why lol
@@bizzle4819imho, giving the runner first when he clearly ran into the field of play, out of the base path, was a bad call.
The runner who "lost his way" and then intentionally ran out into the shortstop was questionable. But all the rest I agree.
The rate of incorrect calls by umps is miniscule compared to the rate of correct calls that happen every inning of every game. Grow up.
@@Ta12dankdiscoveries Thank you.
@@Ta12dankdiscoveriesI umpire and that’s 1000% spot on. They don’t remember the 100s of calls you make correctly but if you make one mistake or call something that’s not in their favor they loose it. 8 years and still going strong. I don’t toss or yell at people anymore. Making coaches kids and parents do laps around the park or run up a hill works a lot better.
Props to the umps for making good calls.
There were a couple bad calls in here, but overall yes I think they got most of them right.
I remember reading about a game where the bat broke and the batter tried to pick up the pieces. Not that that might make one look guilty or anything.
It's happened a few times.
one tried to throw the broken pieces at mike piazza once. forget who
I've read several articles corked bats don't help to hit balls farther(as they have less inertia than normal bats) and the "trampoline effect" is a myth. However lighter bats tend to give batters a smidge extra time to swing so they get better contact.
in the case of Chris Sabo , he broke another bat or two in that at bat. the ball boy brought him one that was corked that he and a few other players were using unknowingly . idk if he could tell that it was corked til it broke . all i know is he paid the fine and got a suspension which he served
@@peterf.229 He knew. Anyone who holds the same thing that is the same weight every day knows when it's even a little lighter .
They DO speed up your swing, which can help you make contact with 99 MPH fastballs better. You get the benefits of a lighter bat while still having the hitting area of a larger one. Not even unfair advantage is about hitting it farther. It is about helping the batter catch up to fast balls.
George Brett had one of the sweetest homerun swings I've ever seen.
Hm, that one at 0:49 seems like the runner shoulda been out? Pitcher gets ball in his glove before the collision. Pitcher was in that location in order to make a play on the ball. Seems like that shoulda been allowed.
Runner should be out for running inside the base line instead of in the lane provided.
Batter ran out of the base line and into the picture. It was his own fault. He should be out
@Kenneth Baker I wonder if he can UNLESS the ball is hit so the Catcher has to throw to first AND avoid hitting the runner.
I thought so too, but then at 0:58 you see Greg Gibson The Home Plate Umpire point at the first baseman. I interpret that as saying the batter gets 1B because of that guy’s interference, not the pitcher (who had the ball and was allowed to be there).
@@bernier42 I certainly won't pretend to be a rules expert on this one. But shouldn't that only be called if he bumps into the 1B? I understand they kinda setup a bit of a blockade, but I feel like an important ingredient is that you still have to run into the part that shouldn't have been there. I would say its just unfortunate for the runner to have chosen incorrectly on what was mostly a 50/50. I'd be fine with the interference call if the 1B had the ball instead, and he collided with the pitcher.
They ended up reversing the infamous pine-tar HR-yet-out call the next day. MLB would never do that today and admit fault. They owe it to the Tigers and Galarraga to reverse the horrible safe call at first in the 9th, with two outs and a perfect game on the line. He deserves a perfect game on his record! Grow up MLB!
I am SO with you. Their argument about setting some sort of precedent is ridiculous on its face. Yes, when you make an aggregiously horrible wrong call in the future, it can be reversed. What’s the issue with that?
That call is not something that can be appealed. Never could. If Galaraga got that imperfect perfect game in 1983, it would have stood as a 1 hitter just like now. The Royals won their appeal because the umpires DIDN'T KNOW THE RULES and incorrectly ruled him out when the rule book called for the bat to be taken out of play. And nothing else. His home run should have stood.
Appeals are only for incorrect understanding or application of the rules. Not just an umpire making a bad call.
@@FUGP72 The proper term is "protest", not "appeal". An appeal play happens on the field; the typical example is throwing to a runner's time-of-pitch base after a caught fly ball to appeal that the runner left too early. A protest was for when a team felt that the umpires misapplied the rules, which is what the Royals argued in 1983. Judgement calls (out/safe, strike/ball, fair/foul, etc.) were not able to be protested.
Today, protests are not allowed.
As a Royals fan for 26 years I love the tine par incident I'm also named after George Brett as well because it's my dad's favorite player growing up.
Hello George Brett
Tine par?
The umps were right. McPhail decided wrong. He took a political expedient convenient "out". Brett always was and always will be an asshole. Also, where can I get me some tine par? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident
@@TheDesertwalker yes George Brett is an asshole in real life. He wouldn't even let me tell him I was named after him when I was old enough to understand when the pine tar incident. I lost all the respect for him as not just a player, but a person he is off the field.
The thing that people don't think about the George Brett bat incident is two umpires saved George Brett's career by grabbing him before he got to the home plate umpire.
I don’t think he was going to hit the ump. By his body language, he just wanted to yell… a lot.
It didn't save his career, it prevented him from getting suspended for a bunch of games.
@@NKript Dude he was gonna do jail time for assault if the umps didn't restrain him.
@@gfriedman99 Brett also did an interview saying he was never going to touch the umpire.
@@NKript What's he gonna say? "I was gonna kill the ump!". He looked like a mongrel dog going after him. I actually wished he got to him and and got a few licks in. Woulda been fun.
0:13 when the dodgers coach runs out to argue the call is the epitome of why people think baseball is slow. He is running out to argue a call that is obvious and we will continue the game in 5 minutes
That's because from the manager's angle in the dugout, it does look like he was trying to avoid a pitch coming right at him. That's why he came out to argue.
But as you mentioned, that wasn't the case
The Jeff Maier incident in the 1996 ALCS between the Orioles and Yankees is still the most illegal incident in MLB history ever.
I’d say the Blacksox scandal tops that.
@@rushmanandtucker762 but only by a few fingertips.
How dumb. Fan interference, umpire blew the call muppet baby.
No Pete Rose?
@@KG-th3cr Pete Rose did nothing wrong.
George Brett "please someone stop me", that ump was huge.
Ummm..so was HE.
@@FUGP72 maybe but that ump had him by at least 5 inches in height
The umpire was Tim McClelland, one of the tallest umpires in the history of the game. He had to adopt a non-traditional squat when he was at home plate because he was so tall.
Pitcher Zack Greinke once remarked that McClelland was the only umpire that gave him nightmares.
On the first one, the batter not only doesn’t get out of the way… he in fact moves his knee into the strike zone to get hit by the soft pitch
What's the call on play at 0:46? Interference on pitcher? first baseman? Pitcher has ball before contact with runner and I thought it is okay to stand in base path if you have ball to tag runner out. First baseman never contacts runner.
Dang that second one, you don’t slide to the far right of the bag AFTER you have already been called out
Funny story - I remember when I was much younger watching the George Brett bat incident. I changed how I did my pine tar after that. The funny part of his story. Many many years later, I am living in Nashville, At one of my favorite sports bars downtown, there was an old guy in there I have never seen, we were having a great conversation. He happens to be a newly elected State representative from the very east of the state and in town for State Business and wanted a beer. Turns out he is a retired MBA Umpire. We talked about his favorite player, most respect for Nolan Ryan, said Nolans hands are just huge. No the good part, he was the third base umpire in this game. He was supposed to be the Home Plate Umpire for this game. I forgot why they switched. But, he said that if he would have been behind the plate he would have tossed the bat in the KC Dugout and told Billy Martin to go in their dugout and bring it to me. He also got a bunch of Official Boston Redsox shirts and hats and passed them out to a few people in the br. Small dive bar, not a lot of folks but I was able to get stuff for my young son. Great visit, and great stories
I don't understand why the runner was given the base at 0:46. The fielder had the ball.
some pretty crappy calls on the umps there. what is the infield supposed to do, not catch the ball
I believe they called obstruction on the first baseman, who forced the runner to go out of the baseline & into the pitcher with the ball. Still kinda questionable, but more understandable than calling it on the pitcher with the ball
He was forced to deviate by one fielder into the pitcher. So he ether was blocked by the fielder or was blocked from going around the fielder. Only ONE of the fielders is entitled to block the runner when they have the ball, not two.
The one without the ball was in the baseline, so all the runner had condones make contact with either, and it’s interference.
0:46 I don't agree with that call for several reasons. 1) The guy who makes contact with the runner is the guy holding the ball. He is allowed to be in the path of the runner, in fact that's the whole idea. 2) The runner is well into fair territory, and not in the designated lane they are supposed to run down to first base. If he was in that lane he would not be running into the fielders. The RUNNER is creating this collision, which is then ruled as them interfering with him. He may claim to be reacting and trying to avoid the collision, but he ends up causing one instead.
He *didn't* cause the collision, the first baseman did. He comes in and runs right into the pitcher, causing the pitcher and runner to collide. You can even see the ump point to the first baseman for the call. If the first baseman had stayed put, this would have been an out.
This's a great reel.
1:20 if you're gonna call obstruction at 3rd, why wait till the play at the plate is made and the runner was clearly out?
It's similar to football. Some penalties are instant dead ball situations while others allow the play to continue before handling it. In that particular play, the 3rd base umpire's attention is supposed to follow the ball after the wild throw and the home plate ump becomes responsible for the obstruction call. Since it isn't a dead ball situation, you allow the play to continue and then enforce the rule.
The third base umpire did call it immediately. You can see him pointing out the obstruction. The umpire at home called it when he touched home.
because you looked at the wrong umpire, the 3rd base ump calls it immediately. it isn't the home plate umps call all he does is say safe cause of the third base umps call.
The reason not to stop the play is that it is type B obstruction. Baseball has two different types of obstruction under the OBR, or Official Baseball Rules, the ruleset used by the major leagues, the minor leagues, and with some modifications, the little leagues. The first type of obstruction is Type A. This is when obstruction is committed on a player while a play is being made on him. A classic example of this is a player is caught in a rundown, and is obstructed by a player who does not have the ball. For this type of obstruction, time must be called immediately, and the runner given the next base. Type B obstruction is what occurred here. This is obstruction on a player on which no play is directly being made. Once the ball sailed past the third baseman, no play was being made on the runner. Thus, when the third baseman tripped up the runner, obstruction type B occurred. There does not have to be intent to obstruct, merely that it happens. For type B obstruction, the umpires are to let the play finish, then do what they feel is necessary to nullify the obstruction. It is not a guarantee that a player be awarded the next base in this case, but the umpires are supposed to err on the side of the offended team. Here the umpires properly pointed at the obstruction. This was to let the crew know that obstruction had occurred, and where it happened. Then, the umpires properly let the play finish, and decided that if the runner had not been tripped, he would have reached home safely, and thus awarded him home.
The play continues. If he's safe at the plate, he's safe. If the runner decides to go back to third, that nullifies the obstruction.
"I grabbed my practice bat by mistake." You don't hear that a lot these days
There’s letter of the law, then there’s the spirit of the law. Everything depends on which ump/ref you get at any given time. Everyone feels the spirit of the game as it’s being played. Everyone also feels the letter of the law being enforced. Doesn’t matter who may be winning or losing.
The first base pop-up I don't believe was interference. The players on the field have to be able to make a play on the ball and the runner was out before even reaching the defensive players... but I'm not expert.
Yeah, I watched that over and over and I can't see why the runner was called safe. The runner had plenty of room to run past them on the right
@@TimCarter That isn't the rules. The runner doesn't have to try to avoid the fielder. The fielder has to avoid the runner. Only ONE fielder is allowed to block the path...with the ball. Once the ball was gloved by the pitcher, the first baseman IMMEDIATELY was interfering by being in the way.
@@FUGP72 And its a terrible rule.
It wasn't a pop-up. The ball hit the ground right in front of the plate off the bat.
@@FUGP72 Not only that, but the first baseman ran into his own pitcher, which caused the collision between the pitcher and the runner.
@1:00 yes, he absolutely went to the inside of the line. He's allowed to do that to avoid the tag.The problem is that the pitcher was also there. The right to go for the ball applies to only ONE fielder. It cannot and does not apply to two of them.
i feel like george brett could have hit the ump if he actually wanted to. if you're a "dont hold me back (but please hold me back)" guy then you want your buds to do it like they did it to him, though. like "im so savage they had to yank me back by my neck"
I was bummed out with Chris Sabo's batt. I enjoyed his "no nonsense" game. He didn't mess around at the plate. Drove an old beater car to and from the game. He was just a good guy. But then this. Sad really.
What's even worse is that it's mostly a myth that corked bats offer a significant advantage. Slap/contact hitters can potentially get a small advantage from the increased bat speed but it comes with a loss of compression in the bat which pretty much neutralizes the bat speed advantage for power hitters (exit velocities at best remain the same but can actually be lower leading to less flight distance.)
@@possumverde You hit the nail on the head. I heard corked bats described once as “the only disadvantage you’ll get in trouble for”, and I have to agree. Any benefit to the bat speed is negligible because of lost compression; if you’re corking a bat, it’s likely to be doing you fewer favors than a regular bat.
From what I've read, it wasn't him who chose the bat. His teammates had put a corked bat they used to dick around with in with his stuff as a prank. Honestly, it makes sense that he wasn't trying to cheat, because he knew the bat was cracked but not broken; if he were trying to cheat he would have asked for a different bat.
I think Sabos clip didn't do him justice. if you look at the full clip, he started out by breaking his first bat and had gotten the other bat from the bat boy. it might have just been a corked bat that the team messed around with during batting practice because it didn't seem like he wanted a specific bat from the bunch.
@@gabepollock1641 There is a way to rig a bat which offers a weight reduction and better compression than an unmodified bat. Some buddies and I did a little experiment when I was in college that turned out to work far better than we thought it would.
You core the bat (we tapered it to match the bat's taper in order to reach the point where the middle of the top had would roughly be when gripped out of concern for potential breakage issues.) Then you mix up a small batch of the material they use to make those super bouncy balls (the ones that crumble when broken apart.) The recipe can be found on line and is mostly comprised of household cleaners and other common chemicals. Clamp the bat in a vertical position as securely as possible and pour the liquid into it. Then use a tamping rod as close to the width of the cored out part as you can get to compress the liquid without allowing much to seep around the rod (we couldn't come up with a way of including some form of gasket etc. to properly deal with it that wouldn't risk getting stuck to the material.) The more compression you can create, the better the results will be. Secure it and allow the liquid to set (a day or two if I remember correctly.) Once set, mix up another batch and repeat the process until the core is pretty much filled. Cap it off in whatever way you think will be make it difficult to detect and you're good to go.
We ended up with a bat that was much more difficult to break than an unmodified one, weighed ~1.5 oz less (I think we used a 32 oz bat to begin with) and after a good bit of testing with some members of the school's baseball team, what appeared to be an additional ~15 ft. of flight distance on average over the control bat (we had no accurate way of determining exit velocity but it was almost certainly improved given the boost in flight distance.) When we were done, we segmented it and found out why it worked so well. Under the heavy compression, the liquid actually seeped into the wood grain a bit before setting so it was as if it was a part of the bat rather than just a filler and there was little sign of any air bubbles.
The tools etc. we used weren't ideal and far more compression was possible (had we known about the seepage into the wood grain for example, we would have periodically increased the compression while it was setting) So there was definitely room for improvement. At the time, I had heard that some MLB players had experimented with just putting the balls themselves (whole or ground up) into bats and wondered what would happen if the material were used in a manner that didn't leave air pockets behind to disperse the force. As nearly unbreakable as our bat was (I only managed to put some small cracks in the handle after bashing on home plate for awhile), I wouldn't be surprised if there are current major leaguers using something similar. If the coring hole could be properly hidden (we didn't put much effort into it), the only way to catch it would be by weighing it and they could simply alter to the marked weight to match the final product.
That play at 0:47 is one of the most BS things I've ever seen at any level. They players on defense certainly have the right to attempt to field a batted ball. It's not their fault that the ball was hit down the first base line.
The pitcher had his head up and looking at the ball the entire time, clearly accidental and would have gotten out anyway had he not run into him.
and the runner intentionally went off the path
Almost all obstruction and interference are accidental.
@@Blacksmarket81 That doesn't matter. The runner was avoiding an obstacle player and was forced off his path in the first place. The collision isn't required for obstruction.
Not BS when the first baseman comes in and causes the pitcher and runner to collide. That's why the ump points to the first baseman.
3:30 - why is he out? What were they doing with the bat? I am not a baseball fan, but I like these videos.
You're allowed to add sticky stuff to your bat to add grip, but you can't have it for more than 18 inches from the end you hold it with. The Yankees' manager was certain Brett's bat had too much pine tar on it. He let him use it until he does something big and then challenges it. The umps didn't have a yardstick, so they measured it against home plate since it's one inch shorter than the limit. Easy to eyeball. They say the bat is illegal, Brett is out, Yankees win, game over. It became a whole ordeal, the Royals protested the game (and won), and they finished it and won the game at a later date with Brett ejected.
3:38 "George, you're 6'/205 I'm 6'-6"/250 with shin guards, a chest protector, a mask in one hand and a bat in the other. Just what were you going to do to me?"
You're joking right? Brett was a world class athlete in his prime. He would destroy the umpire.
A few of these seemed like the runner went out of his way to collide with a fielder and did a good job selling it.
The collision at 1st base just happened...the runner should be out, not awarded 1st base. Players have the right, ALWAYS, to make a play. The fact that they collided was part of the game.
What was wrong with that?
That call didn't make any sense to me, he ran right into the tag.
9 years and a championship later I'm still bitter about that interference call
Why? It was an obviously correct call.
I think it was Greg Nettles (apologies if it wasn't you Greg lol ) whose bat broke on a hit and superballs fell out. The bat had been grooved and superballs put in then the end was sealed. Supposedly would give a hit more force. hey, baseball players aren't known for their science grades.
0:50 Can somebody please tell me why the runner is awarded 1st base on that play. The ball was fielded in play and the runner was immediately tagged out.
It's not obstruction if the fielder is holding the ball. It's no different than when a 2nd baseman fields the ball and stands in the baseline until the runner gets there
to tag him out. Anybody??
It’s very difficult to tell, but I think what happened was the umpire called interference on the first baseman since he was in the base path and didn’t have possession of the ball. The runner did have to move to the side to avoid the first baseman.
Now I do agree with you that the umpire called it wrong since the runner attempted to avoid the fielder while the ball was still in the air.
@@Blaaz91 even with the 1B out of the lane... the tag is still made by the P since th eP fielded it in the RL, then the BR made no attempt to change his course to avoid the tag. that was a blown call. right intention, wrong application of the rule. it's a tag out since P had already fielded the ball.
Pro sports have always puzzled me ever since I was a teenager watching a game and witnessed my first bad call by a ref and thought "wow, not only does my home team have to try and beat the other team, they also have to defeet the evil ogars too"
The baserunner interference call at 0:56 was completely wrong. The only rule infraction on that play was the batter running two feet inside the baseline. The only other call that seemed iffy was the interference call at 3:00, whereby the shortstop supposedly impeded the baserunner who rounded second and headed toward the foul pole in left. And while George Brett technically may have been using an "illegal" bat, that pine tar home run incident was more a reflection of poor sportsmanship by the Billy Martin Yankees than an infraction of the rules. Great theater, though!
Obstruction was the correct call technically. Only 1 fielder can be protected for and once the ball is fielded the other fielder is in the path of the batter/runner and the instant the batter changes his running path to avoid a collision with an unprotected fielder, obstruction occurs.
1:08,
I wonder what the runner was thinking.
If he ran inside the “safe corridor” (just outside foul line), he would have blown past the infielders before they got the ball, never needed to slow down.
He was thinking “if I run in to these guys they’ll call obstruction and I’ll get the base regardless
He was thinking “if I run in to these guys they’ll call obstruction and I’ll get the base regardless
The "safe corridor" has a name, it's called the "runners lane". Since there's no throw we don't have the potential for RLI (runners lane interference) but I'm still not entirely sure what the runner was thinking there.
What I don’t understand is that the runner ran into the fielder who was fielding the hit ball. Runners have to avoid fielders fielding a hit ball. I know the 1st baseman was beside him but he didn’t run into the 1st baseman. He ran into the pitcher who was literally fielding the hit ball. Runner should be out right?
@@fivebooks8498 Since the pitcher had already caught the ball he's no longer in the act of "fielding the ball". When the runner runs into the pitcher the pitcher is attempting to make a play on the runner by tagging him. There's no interference because the pitcher has successfully fielded the ball before the collision with BR.
I don’t understand that A’s vs Angels one, isn’t that just a tag out?
@ 0:55 the guy caught it though. Isn't that an out? So what if the other guy bumps the runner? He's already out. Someone aboe to clarify for me what's going on?
Ball was smashed into the plate first, not popped straight up. It's a force or tag situation
Brett is my hero, still have my George Brett glove from high school days. 1978.
The ironic thing about that José Bautista leg grab is that it did not affect the play whatsoever. That was just a miss by the first baseman all the way. Had José Bautista not tried to play dirty he would have been safe and possibly on second.
I remember watching a video, maybe here or on the Discovery Channel, where it showed that a corked bat actually took away power after hitting the ball.
A corked bat adds momentum mv (since the mass of the ball is constant, that means velocity is increased) because the ball is in contact with the bat for a longer time Ft. force x time = mass x velocity
Mythbusters. They had a few things wrong with there science when it came to busting baseball myths.
It does decrease pop but supposedly it increases bat speed more, so the end result is the bat speed out weighs the loss of pop therefore increasing distance.
You guy that play baseball know what I mean by pop. It’s that jump the ball takes off the bat when hit solid.
The imparted force equation has a v-squared component... so the gain in bat velocity from the lighter bat adds more than the loss from less mass in the collision. Theoretically.
1:00 the runner going to 1st is supposed to be between the two lines. The runner was so far left he should have been called out either way.
So, what happened with the home run? Why was he called out?
Yankees skipper Billy Martin argued that George Brett (the Royals batter who hit the home run) had too much pine tar on his bat, and the umpire called Brett out, thus negating his two-run home run and effectively gave the Yankees the win.
The Royals protested the decision to Lee MacPhail, the American League president (this was before the commissioner consolidated control of both leagues). MacPhail said that Brett’s use of pine tar on the bat neither increased the distance of the ball traveled nor broke the spirit of the rules and ordered the game to be resumed with Brett’s home run reinstated.
When the game resumed 25 days later, Billy Martin tried to pull a fast one on the new umpires by arguing that neither baserunner touched all the bases, but was amazed to find out they had a signed affidavit from the umpires who officiated the game previously saying otherwise. The Royals won the game by the score of 5-4.
@@kenmograd2009 MacPhail said no such thing. He simply said "The rule never called for the batter to be called out". The only "penalty" for having too much pine tar is that the bat was taken out of play. In fact, Brett could even ask for the bat back, sit in the dugout scraping the pin tar off, or having some kid in the clubhouse do it for hi before his next at bat. (Or in this case, before the next game.)
The appeal was upheld simply because the umpires didn't know the rules.
I love how these players pretend they have no idea what they did. At least man up and admit you got caught.
The Aybar-Otero play, how does the umpire decide which player is protected in the act of fielding? Only one can be, the other one is obstructing, but then Aybar also interfered with Otero's fielding. That whole play is a mess.
Neither player were obstructing. Moss is the player called for the obstruction for pushing Aybar into Otero's path, which causes the collision.
That George Brett incident was a joke, that was to appease the Yankees
Technically under the rules at the time, it was a violation. Martin was master at finding obscure and/or vaguely worded rules and trying to use them to his advantage. Definitely cheesy though and the commish was right to make an exception and overrule it.
@@possumverde It was definitely a violation, but the reason for the old-timey rule was to keep the balls clean, not for any competitive advantage. The proper ruling should have been to let the HR stand, and force him to use a new bat in the future, which the AL apparently agreed on because they overturned the ruling later.
It was NOT a violation. Do some research. A situation like this had already been ruled on by American League President Macphail in 1975 on how the rules are to be interpreted. Having pine tar too high on bat is not an illegal bat, does not improve the bats potential, so that no previous at bat can be erased. It could only be removed from play at most. Umpires should have known this.
@@1158scott Incorrect. The Yankees never protested the '75 "pine tar game" and thus AL President McPhail was never asked to render an interpretation on the matter. When asked in an interview about the '83 game, McPhail defended the umpires and placed the blame squarely on the ambiguous rule still in use at the time.
@@ironmantim33 Yep, that's why I said it was cheesey. The original rule was added in '55 but the context was not included. Even if some of the umps etc. were familiar with the original reason for the rule, they were limited to making their call based only on what was written in the official rulebook at the time. Which was simply that a bat with pine tar beyond 17 inches was illegal and as such the batter was to be called out.
Baseball: If you don't try to jump out of the way, you cheated! 🥴
2:55 This one is a terrible call in my opinion! I would not call that obstruction...the fielder was minding his own business as much as possible. He was nowhere near in the base-running lane. Ludicrous call
There is no base running lane there. Ir's up to the fielder to get our of the way, which he didn't, so it was clearly obstruction.
Absolutely correct call. You can't obstruct the runner, even if the runner runs somewhere unusual.
100% obstruction. There is no running lane between second and e.
The umps should enforce these things. I prefer a clean ball game.
2:25 absolutely grabbed him but that 1st base dude blew the snag.
Does Segura get credit for the put out? Almost like an "own goal" in soccer.
Why was interference called on that infield fly? Theoretically speaking as soon as he catches the ball the runner is out?
0:49 where is the runner running?
1:46 That obstruction seemed intentional at first glance, but on the replay I am questioning if he actually meant to do it. He truly might have not known the best way to get out of the way.
But, perhaps the obstruction doesn't have to be intentional in order to give the runner their base.
Intent has nothing to do with it, nor even whether it was possible for the fielder to avoid obstructing the runner. An obstruction call is simply a statement of what happened: the runner was hindered in his attempt to advance. How and why is irrelevant.
Brett angrier than a dog inside a sack of bees.
As a football fan, if you are willing to sacrifice your hand to swat an MLB throw to the next base, that should be allowed... but I understand why it isn't.
Doesn't the runner have to avoid a fielder who's going for the ball?
Fielding a batted ball, yes. Going for a thrown ball, no.
@@davej3781 You do have to avoid a fielder going for a thrown ball. Example: if a catcher is in your path fielding a ball coming in you are required to do your best to avoid contact. You are not permitted to run through him as if he isn't there
One fielder..yes. But only one fielder is allowed to go for the ball. At least when it comes to getting in the runner's way.
What was wrong with George Brett’s bat?
Too much pine tar
0:46 runner is way out of the running lane. Should've been called out.
he was running out of the baseline because the fielders were blocking it
@@DrkFge I don't see that. The infielders were in the field and not in the runner's lane at all. The runner's lane is *outside* the foul line, infielders never encroached that area.
The “running lane” is there for one specific play, a throw from near home plate to first, not applicable in this play.
@@beepbop6697 the runners lane is established by the runner, the only deviation from that line was cause 2 very large men were in the way. however seeing as the ball was cleanly fielded already and aybar ran into the tag i agree he should have been out. reminds of the call against the brewers recently where the pitcher fielded it tossed to first standing next to the foul line, and never effected the ability of the runner to be safe and they called obstruction.
@@beepbop6697 The runners lane is whatever THE RUNNER establishes.
0:48 The pitcher has a right to field the ball and tag the batter out. He has the ball in hand and the batter is approaching. What the 🤬 is he supposed to do, let him run to first unabated? It doesn't matter that the 1B is in the way, the pitcher has the 🤬ball!
So is anybody with me? What's the pitcher supposed to do, let the ball bounce away just bc he's gonna run into the batter? He's got a right to field the ball
But Boilermaker told him to lean into it!
Only Judge can get away with that 😂
With the illegal bat call the thing that I find problematic is the timing. It is entirely plausible that some piece of equipment become inadvertently illegal, the pine tar is an easy example where it is added to and spread with each use, the other team notices that it is now illegal, but instead of challenging it immediately they waited for the most impactful moment where they reverse a home run instead of merely getting a free out. I would write the rule so that they have to challenge before the end of the at bat. That way it's unlikely to reverse a highly impactful play like this.
Why can’t I see the count on the first clip?
I've always said I can understand why George Brett was so angry because obviously it was the umpires who put all that pine tar on his bet beyond the legal limit. Jerkwad.
The ultimate illegal play isn't on here. Gambling and betting on baseball as a MLB player is a lifetime ban and almost jailtime.
What was wrong with the pitcher and 1st baseman tagging the guy out going to 1st
The hundreds of things thousands the Yankees got away with that no one else did before replay was astonishing
The only thing illegal about those obstruction calls was that fielders obstructed with the runner, no matter where the runner was running. It's their base path, maybe don't have up to two fielders running into it?
The As/angles play, the runner should have been in foul territory. That should have been an out. Both A's players were in fair territory the umpire is saying that the 1st baseman had the play on the ball and the pitcher obstructed, but he was even farther into fair territory and he had the ball at the point of contact so the runner was out. The runner intentionally went farther into fair to make contact outside the running lane. That should be a no brainer out.
@@kentpollock433 runner has no path to base. He’s going to hit someone no matter which way he runs.
@@kentpollock433 yeah I agree. As an Angels fan, I grew up watching Aybar make smart (and sometimes dirty) plays to either deke runners or get on base. Dude had a great baseball IQ, and in this situation definitely realized his best chance at getting on 1st was to collide with one of the fielders. Still strange to me though that he went inside towards the pitcher rather than just running straight, where he would've likely run into the first baseball and likely still been given first base. Surprised they gave him first base given how intentional it looked, especially with it being tied in the bottom of the 9th.
@@TheSjuris my only arguement to that is, if the defender has the ball, between the runner and the base, the runner has no right to the base. The interference had to have been called on the pitcher, but he had the ball in fair territory. Batter/runners are not given a path to 1st base in fair territory.
@@kentpollock433 you can’t have 2 fielders right next to each other especially since the fielder without the ball is in the base path and the runner had no choice but to avoid him. The catcher interfered not the pitcher.
The second baseman was not on the bag when he caught the ball. In fact he never touched second base.
You notice the 1st clip the baseman didn't even have his foot on the base when he caught the ball then threw it
what happened with the last one?
Corket bat
Forgot the Hrbek Gant play. Sorry Atlanta even us in Minnesota knows Gant could never push Hrbek off the base.
Some guys get quite blatant about sticking their limbs into the pitch!! I haven't seen an ump call it for a long time.
It's because they all wear so much protection over their entire body that there is no fear of getting hurt on a pitch that hits their arms or shins.
The interference call sliding into 2nd base is rarely seen while the call blocking the lane and awarding 1st to the batter was easy
Not necessarily an easy call. The runner was not in the designated running lane (which is its own stupid rule, but that is a whole different argument) and the umpire could have justified not awarding the interference call.
Where’s the play of A-Rod knocking the ball out of fielders glove?
Corked bat logic is hilarious, It's like they think a rubber hammer hits harder than a steel hammer.
Its actually legit though. It allows a faster swing which gives the batter more time to see the pitch before swinging and still hitting the ball more accurately.
So while you lose a little bit of power on the hit, and the break can break easier, that extra time you get to look at the throw and line up your swing means all the world to a batter.
Then again, its also because players would use a very heavy and harder bat then what would normally be allowed, then cork it to get it back into standard. So they now have an even harder and denser bat, that a batter can swing.
@@solidmoon8266 It's not legit though, select a lighter bat. You lose a lot on power taking weight it out of the business end of the bat. There's a reason hammers (and bats!) are weighted towards the head to maximize hitting power.
The cork doesn't make it denser, cork is a soft wood, and bats are made out of hard wood. You literally nerfed your own bat.
If you want to hit hard, weight at the head, if you want nimble and easy to control (like say a knife!) you want the weight at the handle.
@@Zraknul it's like a dead blow hammer. it reduces vibration and kick back, so you don't really lose the contact power, and you gain in bat speed. all of the force goes into the ball, instead of the equal/opposite thing that usually happens when 2 objects in motion hit each other.
@@AKStovall Quite literally the design of a dead blow hammer is to have a lower peak force. That's exactly what you want to deaden a bunt, less kick.
That's the opposite of what you want to launch something into the air. You want the ball kicked back into the air.
@@Zraknul You are missing the obvious point. Bats were already as dense as they could be. A lighter bat would have to be slightly SMALLER. The cork lightens the bat while keeping the same exact surface area.
The guy rounding 2nd that ran into the shortstop should not have gotten that call in his favor. The shortstop was not in the lane, and the player was out of the basepaths.
It's obvious that you have never read a baseball rule book. Obstruction is, A making a fake tag. Or B blocking the base without having the ball. That's it. Now which of these apply to the situation?! Now you get it. It's a rule for a reason.
There is no official basepath between 2nd and 3rd. The basepath is established by the runner. By rule, fielders not actively playing a batted or thrown ball must stay out of a runner's way.
@@carlboscarino4750 so if the runner is in trouble he can just find a fielder to run into, the ref will call obstruction no matter where the fielder is, and the runner will be safe? really?
Take a closer look at a baseball diamond. The ONLY running lane is from home plate to first base. If a runner is in a rundown the running lane is then established by the runner and he is given 3feet to either side of him or ( rule of thumb) an arms width to either side. As I always try to teach young first and third basemen "If you don't have a play, get out of the way".
Please refer to Mr. Carne's reply. He is correct.
Billy Ball. Miss Billy Martin
You mean Bautista didn't' learn his lesson when Odor rung his bell after that dirty slide at 2nd?
That slide wasn't close to dirty. I'm no Jay's fan but the Rangers were still butthurt over Bautista's bat flip in the playoffs, and acted like babies about it.
@@robertcampbell8070 babies don't punch that hard. 😄
@@RossMcLendon Oh, he nailed him alright lol.
Odor's punch wasn't really all that hard, Bautista barely noticed it. Not sure why Rangers fans are so proud of a weak punch.
@@beckobert he was buckled by it lol... not that hard
The Royals protested the game when George Brett was ruled "out" after hitting a go-ahead homer with his infamous pine tar bat. The league upheld the protest, deeming the game suspended at the point of his home run. They resumed the game at a later date and the Royals held on to win 5-4. That might be the only successful protest in my lifetime. MLB doesn't like admitting that umpiring errors ever decide a game.
There have been two successful protests since then. The last in 2014. (No more anymore. Starting in 2020, you can't protest anymore.) Both were cases of the umpires calling a game for rain too quickly. The team that was down after just 5 at bats (one in the bottom of the 5th and one in the top of the 6th) protested that the game should have resumed because it stopped raining shortly after their quick rain out call. Both were upheld and the rain shortened win by the other team was taken off the board and the game resumed from the point of the rain out. Both teams still lost the game.
George Brett was exonerated. The umpires were wrong.
Yeah. That was far from cheating. Pine tar that far up the bat gave no advantage to the batter.
Didn’t stop Billy from arguing the call when the game was finished a couple months later.
Technically, it was a rule violation at the time. The commish made a special exception and the rule was then amended.
Edit: Many managers were aware of Bretts using a ridiculous amount of pine tar on his bats and that the rules technically prohibited it. Martin was the only one with the Rawlings to actually attempt to get the umps to enforce it.
No,, the Umpires were correct. It was the rule itself that had to be later changed. Umpires don't make rules, it's just their job to enforce them.
@@RobertSmith-bz5ug The rule wasn't to overturn an atbat. the rule was to remove the bat for future incidents 💀
Leaning into a pitch is not a good way to get to first base.
Hrbek lifting the runner? A-Rod swatting the ball?
My question is intent. The Sox play the 3rd baseman just dove and was on the ground and couldn't get up or out of the way because the runner was on top of him. I honestly don't think it was intentional. So does intent count or not?
Intent does not matter at all. The fielder is obligated to stay out of the way, period.
Very clearly intentional. He bent his legs to trip the runner.
Not sure how that was interference when the guy ran into the fielder who was fielding the hit ball. I know the 1st baseman was beside him when it happened but he didn’t run into the 1st baseman. He ran into the pitcher who was fielding the hit ball. Runner should be out, not awarded the base.
Yea I didn't understand this one. The pitcher even ended-up fielding it and tagging the runner. So idk on that one.
ball was already fielded when the BR got to the pitcher, who had the ball... that's a tag out, not a free base for obstruction.
He ran into the fielder with the ball whilr trying to avoid the fielder without the ball directly in his path. Obstruction.
Look up Kent Hrbeck in the 91 World Series. All I'm gonna say.
The A's interference call against Angels doesn't make sense.
The fielder caught the ball on the high hop before the batter ran into him. Batter getting tagged is out. The fielder catching the ball didn't have to touch 1st base for out.
Sabo should’ve just struck out on purpose if he didn’t want people to find his corked bat, especially since it had cracked on the previous foul ball
He didn't know it was corked because it wasn't his bat.
Ok the brett one is not illegal
so much so that it was overturned haha
The bat was illegal. However, the rule called for it to just be removed from play, and not to have the home run overturned.
@@MadKilroy no his bat was not that's why it was over turned
@@nealroberts5844 the rule was vague and not clear (the AL president had ruled on it before). At most all the umpires could do was confiscate the bat. They had no right to reverse the result of the at bat. No right whatsoever. They could have taken the bat before Brett batted, but they didn't do this either (because they didn't notice, nor did they care at the time).
@@MattRowland In 1983 the rule was very clear. It was MADE clear in 1976 after the last time a team tried to use it. He should not have been called out. The umpires were simply unaware of the rule change, evne though it had been 7 years earlier.
This is why they should still be allowed to play the game under protest.