According to the invaluable Today in Baseball History website. I will never forget the expression on George Brett’s face when he charged out of the dugout. (Not that I was there, I’ve only seen it a thousand times in clips.)
And 16 years ago today was the infamous Vince Coleman explosives “incident” at Dodger Stadium.
Here’s the best recreation of the incident ever:
Up front: I was a passionate Yankees fan then (only a tepid Yankees fan now).
I hate seeing a game decided on technicalities, so I think it was best to let the home run stand.
Still, I have to wonder… if it had been Earl Weaver that picked up on the rule vilation, rather than Billy Martin, would non-Yankee fans have been equally outraged? Would sportswriters have been equally outraged?
I doubt it- sure, George Brett would have been just as furious, but I’d bet Weaver’s many admirers in the press would have used thsi incident to chuckle, “That Earl, he’s so crafty! You can’t put anything past HIM, can you?”
The beauty of it was that Martin had the rule in his pocket waiting for the optimum use of it. it was perfect. I was not a Martin fan ,but he played that one very well.
I read an essay by Bill James which I can’t find now, but if memory serves James wrote that the umps were wrong because the penalty for using too much pine tar wasn’t to disallow the play and Brett’s home run, rather, it was to disallow the bat. Baseball isn’t like football where plays are redone after penalties are called. If the opposing team wants to complain about an illegally pine-tarred bat, the time to do that is BEFORE the play, not afterwards. By allowing Gossage to pitch to Brett, the Yankees waived the rule violation.
Of course, Bill James just happened to be a Kansas City Royals fan (and former KC Athletics fan) who hates the Yankees with every fiber of his being.
If two other teams had been involved, James wouldn’t have cared enough to write an essay at all.
James’s argument was a bit more nuanced than that; he went beyond the single instance and pointed out that the league had failed both teams in not previously enforcing the rule. His position (which I agree with) is that a rule unenforced isn’t a fair rule if you suddenly trot it out when it suits you.
And in fairness, I think the Royals’ appeal was correct. The text of 1.10(c) at the time clearly stated the remedy: the bat is removed from play. There was no suggestion in the rule that any play be disallowed. (An explanatory note has been added since to make it REALLY clear, but it wasn’t there at the time.)