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