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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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 rule was that pine tar on a bat shouldn't interfere with (discolor) a ball in play. It had a length maximum from the bottom and they used the plate as reference. In this case, the batter was ruled out but it was later overturned on the technicality that the ball was no longer in play due to it being a home run. If it stayed in the park, even if he somehow got an in-the-park home run, he would have been ruled out, making the whole thing an interesting circumstance that resulted in the game being picked up a few weeks later from the point of the home run with several people including the batter being ejected before the make-up even began. Look up 'The Pine Tar Incident' for more info.
@@postbroadcast The original rule on it's own didn't actually specify the reason behind it (the one you gave is correct) so even on a homer, it was still technically enforceable. The commish made a special exception based on the spirit of the rule and the rule was then amended for clarification.
@@postbroadcast Nope. That was not the ruling. The ruling was simply that the umpires were unaware that the rule was CHANGED in the 70s. And that it no longer called for the batter to be called out, or ejected, or ANYTHING about his at bats changed at all. For several years leading up to this incident, the rule simply said "The bat is removed from play, and could even be given back to the player if he wants to sit in the dugout and clean it up before his next at bat." There was no technicality or anything. Simply that the umpires got it wrong. No matter what George Brett did, the play would have stood. A single. Double, inside the park home run. Any of those would have still won on appeal. It is CRAZY how people just make up their own bullshit, or believe made up bullshit that others have made up rather than just go online to research the actual rule and why the appeal was upheld No technicality, no "spirit of the rule" That is all just repeated BULLSHIT 40 years later. None of that was said in the ruling of upholding the appeal.
The bat couldn't be covered with pine tar more than 18" from the tip of the handle, so measuring it against the long side of home plate, which was 17", was an easy way of seeing whether the pine tar was too high up on the bat.
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.
I always thought that obstruction on Will Middlebrooks was kind of crap because he was not in the natural running lane of Allen Craig. Craig practically broke for first in order to even run into Middlebrooks.
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"
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't obstruct the runner, even if the runner runs somewhere unusual. The only judgment against obstruction here would be if the umpire judged that the runner altered his line for the purpose of running into the fielder to draw an obstruction call, which is obviously not the case.
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 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.
0:46 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
Forgot this little gem. Rodriguez even acted like he was shocked. He knew what he did lol m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xQyY-azd2vk.html
I could see the runner leaving the basepath to avoid the fielder with the ball (Which he must do-if the runner doesn't get out of the way of a fielder fielding the baseball, the runner is out for interference), but there happened to be another fielder right there without the ball, which is type-1 obstruction. That calls for time to be immediately called, and the batter/runner awarded first base. So I can see why the plate umpire awarded first base there. Definitely a tricky play nonetheless, so definite props to that umpire for being able to rule immediately and so confidently on that. My credentials: 2x professional umpire school graduate, one time getting recommended for a job out of umpire school, entering my third season of high school, travel, and college baseball as an umpire. Dang I'm up late, but oh well. Thank you.
@ 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?
If you were do to some research, the George Brett play was put under protest and the protest was upheld. Therefore I don't believe this clip should be in this video.
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.
That play at about one minute- A’s and Angels, wrong call. The defense has the right to play the ball. Subaru ran into the defender. He should have been called out
@@tomfinn6579 i commented wrong.. look at 0:52 the defense have the right to go catch the ball and the runner have the right to run to base.. its just unfortunate both end up same place.. that should have been a no call..
@@josephsaeteurn9158 I think it should have been an out. The pitcher had the ball and tagged him. He had no chance to make it to first base even if the first baseman wasn’t there. While the umpire may have been technically correct, no one would have complained if he just called the runner out.
@@josephsaeteurn9158 pitcher had already fielded the ball... that's a tag out. 1000%. Blue was dead wrong there, just looking for some screen time in an otherwise boring game.
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".
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.
On calls like the first one in this video I wish the ump's would just call them out. I'm not sure how it's worded in the rules but I'm assuming it's just called a dead ball possibly? I was lead to believe intentionally being hit was an out when I was a kid and played and I think that's how it should be. Especially something so blatant as the first clip.
NCAA now has an automatic strike for leaning into a pitch that is not within the batter's box. In other codes and levels it's a strike if it was in the strike zone when it hit the batter. No code has a rule that would allow the batter to be called out for intentionally being hit by a pitch. I've long wished for the penalty strike to be adopted in other rulesets, but I think calling the batter out would be a bit extreme.
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.
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.
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.
totally disagree with the angels/a's call at about 1:00. the batter/runner was past the point where the runner's lane begins. therefore, if there is ANY potential play at first, the batter/runner, by rule, should assume a position inside the runner's lane. it is clear that angels' #2 clearly diverted into the field of play (and therefore totally away from the runner's lane) in an intentional effort to run into a defensive player; in this case, the pitcher. batter/runner out.
