Can Sammy Sosa use the George Brett Defense?

[Taur]

Remember the Brett/Pine Tar defense?

Gerorge Brett broke the MLB Rule reguarding Pine Tar.
George Brett was caught Cheating this time and probably many other times too.

Even with this obvious rules violation and no hope of being found innocent of this rules infraction Brett's HR was allowed to stand. Why, simple in his corner were employees from Louisiville Slugger and Easton Bat CO. with charts and graphs showing that the Pine Tar would not give a batter a "significant" advantage.

Eventually AL president Lee McPhail overturned McClelland's decision and re-instated Brett's homer. Acknowledging that Brett had pine tar too high on the bat, McPhail explained that it was the league's belief that "game's should be won and lost on the playing field-not through technicalities of the rules."

Did Brett break the rules: yes
Was Brett a cheater: yes
# of games suspended: 0


Now representing Sammy Sosa
1) an Employee of the Louisville Slugger CO.
2) an Employee of the Easton Bat CO.
3) a Lawyer to site the Brett case for precedent

STUPID LAWS: I live in a town where it is still against the Law to drive a horse-less carriage at night without someone walking 10 feet in front of you with a lattern ringing a bell to warn people you are comming. Should I ne arrested every time I drive my car at night?

Bats are now engineered with exact specifications based on the players exact swing and wind-tunnell velocity results. This becomes obvious as you look at yesterdays bats and compare then to todays bats. The days of widdly a piece of hickory for a bat are long gone. If there is not an advantage to using "cork", then the rule reguarding the "Corked bat" should go the way of the Horse-less carriage LAw and be forgotten.

[kcchief19]

Whoa, partner. I've got to call the analogy police on you.

While the reason you quoted above was a reason McPhail gave for upholding the Royals' protest, there was another reason as well -- the game umpires incorrectly applied the pine tar rule. In 1983, the pine tar rule read:

"the bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game."

If a bat was to be found with too much pine tar, the rule book only called for the bat to be removed from the game. There was nothing about calling a batter out for using too much pine tar or an ejection. The umpires assumed that the pine tar rule carried the same penalty as a doctored or cork bat. It did not. The rule book has now been changed to implicitly state violation of the pine tar rule is not ground for ejection or calling the batter out.

To brand Brett a "cheater" in the same way Sosa was a "cheater" is silly -- there is no comparison. Saying that Brett was a cheater because he had too much pine tar is like saying that any pitcher called for a balk or any batter who fails to step on a base is cheating. The rule book says you can't do it, so if you do it you must be a cheater. That's specious reasoning at best.

I don't believe that anyone in their right mind will brand Brett a cheater for the pine tar incident. Unless you're a Yankee fan, it's simply one of the funnier stories in baseball lore. If you're a Yankee fan, who gives a crap what you think.

Debating whether or not Sosa was gaining a competitive advantage from corking his bat is another discussion. To a large degree, there has not been a consensus on whether or not there is a physical advantage of corking a bat. Many people actually believe it is merely a pyschological advantage. If it cannot be proven one way or another that corking a bat is advantageous, then perhaps you're right -- maybe the rule should be discarded.

I think the horseless carriage analogy is a bit weak as well. That is an outdated rule that is still on the books from carelessness. The corked bat rule is not on the books due to carelessness, but due to a genuine concern that a corked bat may provide a competitive advantage.

[Taur]

The rule stated 18 inches. Anything over 18 was illegal. Playing with an illegal bat is cheating. Those who cheat are cheaters.

18 is not 21

[Taur]

What is that I smell?

George Brett: White--caught playing with an illegal bat. The league comming to his defense by not only overturning the umpires ejection, but also allowing the HR he hit with the illegal bat to stand.

Can you smell something?

Albert Bell: Black --caught playing with an illegal bat. The league denoucing him and quickly praising the umpire for his good eye. And, a 10 game suspension was enforced.

Now, I know you can smell that!

The (colored) History of illegal bats
Sosa(black) 2003 8 game suspension
Guerrero(black) 1997 8 game suspension
Sabo(white) 1996 7 game suspension
Belle(black) 1994 7 game suspensionj
Hatcher(black) 1987 10 game suspension
Brett(white) 1983 Zero game suspension
Nettles(white) 1974 Zero Game suspension

100% of Blacks caught playing with an illegal bat have served time.
33% of whites caught playing with an illegal black have served time.

Damn, does it stink in here!!

Announced today Sammy Sosa is going to appeal his suspension......

Oh, Hello Mr. Cochrain.

[TroyF]

I really think Sammy is only appealing the suspension to play the Yankees.

They might give a token defense later on, but I don't think he'll get much of a reduction. I think the standard has been set: 7-10 games. Sosa deserves to get that and I think he will.

TroyF

[GrantDawg]

Your right. Even though those are two completely seperate rules that had two completely seperate penalties, George Brett got off only because he was white. He gave the commisioner the "double super-secret" handshake of a white man, and they did not punish him.

[Taur]

Originally posted by TroyF
I really think Sammy is only appealing the suspension to play the Yankees.

They might give a token defense later on, but I don't think he'll get much of a reduction. I think the standard has been set: 7-10 games. Sosa deserves to get that and I think he will.

TroyF

Then I don't understand why he is waiting. Sammy is still not 100% healthy from his toe surgeryand in the middle of a slump, so why not take the suspension now? Take the days off to fully heal while getting out of town. Go home and break out of your slump. Then, come back to Chicago a refreshed man a set the world on fire.

If Sosa does not actually planning to fight his suspension he is a fool for not taking it now. Who will benifit the most from Cubs vs Yanks? I say MLB and their TV counter part. The Cubs would be better off having Sammy sit against these intrleague games and have Sammy back when they are playing games that mean something for their pennant races. Sammy would be better off sitting and letting his body heal now rather than sitting when he is fully healthy. Sosa looked pretty upset on ESPN when asked about his suspension and something tells me he won't set foot on the field untill he talks to Selig and gets some inside info on his appeal.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Taur
The rule stated 18 inches. Anything over 18 was illegal. Playing with an illegal bat is cheating. Those who cheat are cheaters.

18 is not 21

Rules also state that pants legs can't go below the top of your shoes, or something close to that. Bonds wears long pants. Bonds breaks the rule, he cheats.

And people were suspended b/c thats what the breaking of that rule called for. By your logic, a player should be suspended for taking more than 3 minutes warming up b/t innings, or whatever the rule says.

[Taur]

[i]

And people were suspended b/c thats what the breaking of that rule called for. By your logic, a player should be suspended for taking more than 3 minutes warming up b/t innings, or whatever the rule says. [/b]

Then explain to me why the Brett HR was allowed to be reversed? The rules clearly states that you can not use a bat with more than 18 inches of pine tar. The Illegal bat should of at least resulted in the HR being called back. Hmmmm...

Sammy can use this kind of thinking in his defense. Quoting the AL commish:"game's should be won and lost on the playing field-not through technicalities of the rules." Not by suspending Sosa or Brett on some technicalities.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Your right. Even though those are two completely seperate rules that had two completely seperate penalties, George Brett got off only because he was white. He gave the commisioner the "double super-secret" handshake of a white man, and they did not punish him.

Sshhhhhhhhhhh!!! GrantDawg, you know you can't go spouting off about the double super-secret handshake of the white man.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Taur
Then explain to me why the Brett HR was allowed to be reversed? The rules clearly states that you can not use a bat with more than 18 inches of pine tar. The Illegal bat should of at least resulted in the HR being called back. Hmmmm...

Sammy can use this kind of thinking in his defense. Quoting the AL commish:"game's should be won and lost on the playing field-not through technicalities of the rules." Not by suspending Sosa or Brett on some technicalities.

Read the damn rule. The only penalty stated in the pine tar rule is the removal of the bat from the game. The baseball rulebook is very specific about instances in which plays are nullified and reversed, or the batter or runner is called out. If that were a possible penalty for violating the pine tar rule, the rulebook would say that. It doesn't.

[ISiddiqui]

Quoting the AL commish:"game's should be won and lost on the playing field-not through technicalities of the rules."

Yeah, that's a reason for allowing the Home Run... that doesn't mean a player should not be tossed! This defense would allow ANYONE who was tossed to say, games should be won and lost on the playing field, so I shouldn't have been tossed! Ludicrous!

[pjstp20]

Originally posted by Taur
What is that I smell?

George Brett: White--caught playing with an illegal bat. The league comming to his defense by not only overturning the umpires ejection, but also allowing the HR he hit with the illegal bat to stand.

Can you smell something?

Albert Bell: Black --caught playing with an illegal bat. The league denoucing him and quickly praising the umpire for his good eye. And, a 10 game suspension was enforced.

Now, I know you can smell that!

The (colored) History of illegal bats
Sosa(black) 2003 8 game suspension
Guerrero(black) 1997 8 game suspension
Sabo(white) 1996 7 game suspension
Belle(black) 1994 7 game suspensionj
Hatcher(black) 1987 10 game suspension
Brett(white) 1983 Zero game suspension
Nettles(white) 1974 Zero Game suspension

100% of Blacks caught playing with an illegal bat have served time.
33% of whites caught playing with an illegal black have served time.

Damn, does it stink in here!!

Announced today Sammy Sosa is going to appeal his suspension......

Oh, Hello Mr. Cochrain.

Alright Jose Canseco. Out of curiosity anyone know why Graig Nettles wasn't suspended for his bat incident? OTHER than the fact that he's white.

[kcchief19]

Well, this has a gone a whole new direction. If the plan is to make this a color issue, I think you unfortunately fall short there too.

Everyone on the Indians -- black, white and hispanic -- have confirmed that Albert corked the hell out of his bat. When Jason Grimsley (white) snuck into the umpires to steal the bat so there wouldn't be any evidence against Belle (black), they replaced it with a non-Albert bat. Why? As Omar Vizquel, his teammate turned enemy, said: "Because all of Albert's bats were corked." And yet Albert got the same penalty as Chris Sabo (white). Hmmm...

Forget pine tar with Nettles and Brett. It's not the same. The penalty is not the same.

[clintl]

Nettles wasn't pine tar, it was superballs, so it's basically the same offense with him, just different material. Anyway, the only thing that I can think of is that Nettles was the first, and at the time of his incident, MLB didn't decide to start suspending players for the offense until later. Just speculation on my part - I don't know if that's actually the case. I know they have never hesistated to suspend white pitchers caught doctoring the ball, which is pretty much the equivalent offense on the pitching side.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by Taur
Then explain to me why the Brett HR was allowed to be reversed?

According to Gammons:

"The day after George Brett's famous homer in Yankee Stadium was overturned because he had too much pine tar on his bat, American League president Lee MacPhail learned that the rule was enacted in 1957 by parsimonious Senators owner Calvin Griffith because he felt too many players were using too much pine tar, ruining batting practice baseballs and costing him too much petty cash.

"The intent of the rule," said MacPhail, one of the game's greatest leaders, "does not warrant altering the outcome of a game." The next day, he overturned the ruling."

[tucker342]

Oh ya, in the state of Iowa, it's against the law to kiss for more than five seconds in public

Sosa needs to just let it go, admit he made a mistake, and move on...

[clintl]

I always wondered why that rule existed in the first place. It figures that one of the game's all-time cheapskate owners was responsible.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Taur

100% of Blacks caught playing with an illegal bat have served time.
33% of whites caught playing with an illegal black have served time.

Do you realize that by crying "racism" every time a black person is punished for something that you make it harder for people to listen to a serious argument about race when it's actually warranted?