Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxw.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxw!thor
From: thor@ihuxw.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The George Brett Incident
Message-ID: <431@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Jul-83 10:02:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.431
Posted: Thu Jul 28 10:02:08 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Jul-83 02:31:24 EDT
References: <322@houxt.UUCP>
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 12

Perhaps Brett should not have been called out, but it was reasonable
for Billy Martin to point out the fact that the bat did exceed the
regulation on pine tar. It is a rule and citing it does nothing to 
remove "fun" from the game of baseball. How many zillions of times
do managers, coaches, batters, etc., have baseballs examined for
foreign substances possibly added by the pitcher? This happens all
the time and it does not have a negative effect on the game. 
Why is examining a bat so different?
The basic problem is that the umpire should have told Brett to get a 
new bat when he first came up to the plate. 
			Mark Kohls
			ihuxw!thor