cheating???

[dumbdumb]

is this designed, premeditated, intentional, if in fact the player went too high on the bat, or just accidental. who can read minds no matter what the player may say or the mind reader may say. why even come close to commiting a violation. and if you did know, why would one do it. does it really help to put this higher up the bat like is mentioned, allows hitters to get more power, in the article. so, you spray it in the dugout so you dont get caught. where are you former players to weigh in on this. what other illegal things go on with the bats that teams do even if you personally never did it. dont call yourselves out personally but point out other things you saw when you played and why do it. is this what gets you to the big leagues and everyone does it. not the fact they legally use pine tar up to 18 inches, but going farther than that, and whether intentional or not what did you see or know happened.

and yes, for the legal eagles, the article says the word accused, not the word guilty.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/mlb-baseball-news-bryce-harper-caught-cheating-on-camera-as-alarmed-blue-jays-announcer-spots-phillies-star-breaking-mlb-rules/?utm_medium=website&utm_source=trending_post&utm_campaign=trending_1

one below shows spraying the whole bat

https://www.essentiallysports.com/mlb-baseball-news-bryce-harper-caught-cheating-on-camera-as-alarmed-blue-jays-announcer-spots-phillies-star-breaking-mlb-rules/?utm_medium=website&utm_source=website_internal&utm_campaign=web_link_2

[beerguy55]

Things may be illegal, but so what...what's the penalty?

Jaywalking is illegal.   Nobody goes to jail for jaywalking.  And no MLB player would be suspended under the morality clause for doing so.

The poorly written article references 3.02c but then ignores what that clause actually says about the penalty, and instead goes on to reference the clause about doctoring the baseball. 

This is what the article should have included, if the writer had any integrity:

NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game

MLB clearly documented 40+ years ago, in the George Brett protest game, that the infraction provides no competitive advantage to the batter (consistent with the prior case with John Mayberry) - it should also be noted that Brett was ejected for his outburst, not for the pine tar.  MLB clarified the only appropriate penalty is removing the bat.

The rule was originally designed/created to increase the life of the baseballs, to reduce costs - it might actually be the only economically based rule in OBR (I reserve the right to be wrong)...in today's game where a baseball is NEVER used after it hits a bat, or the dirt, this rule is purely vestigial.

 

 

[Richvee]

Isn’t the rule really to keep the pine tar off the baseballs?  So what’s the difference since they use a new ball on virtually any hit. And wouldn’t that actually help the pitcher? The rule always confused me. 

[beerguy55]

On 6/10/2025 at 4:45 PM, Richvee said:

Isn’t the rule really to keep the pine tar off the baseballs?  So what’s the difference since they use a new ball on virtually any hit. And wouldn’t that actually help the pitcher? The rule always confused me. 

The rule was created in an era where a ball was used until it was hit into the stands. The defensive player who got the third out rolled the ball to the mound, like we all do in amateur ball.  I remember Pete Rose, while playing first base, would spike the ball after getting the third out...and that ball was used to pitch against his team the next half-inning. Getting pine tar on the ball forced them to "waste" a ball.

It wasn't even until at least the mid-80's where you started to commonly see batters demanding that balls that hit the dirt in front of the catcher be checked for scuff marks, to be removed.  Before then, pitchers kept hold of scuffed balls as long as they could.

Today, the cost of 100 baseballs per game is a rounding error in a $12B industry.

Edit: There was a time where fans were required to return any baseball to the playing field, and it really wasn't any different than any amateur ball game seen in any town on any night. No one considered keeping the ball...until one guy refused.

And until Ray Chapman was killed, a ball could end up any color imaginable (except white) and often wasn't even round any more by the end of the game.

[dumbdumb]

the first article said, that other than to enhance the grip

the substance (pine tar) also allows thee hitters to get more power while making a hit.

is that line about power while making a hit true or not

and i think??????? it was Calvin Griffith on the rules committee and other owners that wanted to save money and got the 18" rule installed.

 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

the first article said, that other than to enhance the grip

the substance (pine tar) also allows thee hitters to get more power while making a hit.

is that line about power while making a hit true or not

and i think??????? it was Calvin Griffith on the rules committee and other owners that wanted to save money and got the 18" rule installed.

 

Pine tar does not produce more power to the batter.

You want a loose grip on the bat...almost dangling in your fingers.   The best analogy I can think of would be holding a pet hamster - firm enough it won't get away, but loose enough you don't hurt it.

Choking the SH*# out of the bat deadens the power, and prevents whip action, which drops bat speed.

The pine tar just keeps the bat from flying out of your hands, or in some cases rotating in your hands.  Since the bat is properly in your fingers, and not in your palm, the pine tar helps keep the bat in your hands.

If you wanted to argue that helping your grip helps your power, then fine, but pine tar on the barrel of the bat does neither.

[Richvee]

20 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

the first article said, that other than to enhance the grip

the substance (pine tar) also allows thee hitters to get more power while making a hit.

is that line about power while making a hit true or not

and i think??????? it was Calvin Griffith on the rules committee and other owners that wanted to save money and got the 18" rule installed.

 

The author also cited inappropriate rules, so, what lead you to think he knows anything about batters use pone tar and what it does?  

[dumbdumb]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

The author also cited inappropriate rules, so, what lead you to think he knows anything about batters use pone tar and what it does?  

well, just like auto correct changed pine above to pone or else that was intentional/or not typo, i would guess the person was using retrosheet for 'rule changes over the years' in the 1.10(c) site and then the current rule 3 site for the second one or it was a typo. but hey, i am not a mind reader. and, i figured there might be someone in woodcrafting that might know if pine tar did make a bat harder and if that could affect the the distance gained. some old books might have been written where ty cobb or someone mentioned that, back when slippery elm (whatever that was back then) and stuff like that was legal. and maybe someone here would know.

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

i figured there might be someone in woodcrafting that might know if pine tar did make a bat harder and if that could affect the the distance gained.

Pine tar is not and never has been the equivalent of corking the bat, or anything similar to that effect.  Batter advantage was never a reason for limiting pine tar - or any grip assistance - usage.  This is why the pine tar rule is not under 6.03(a)(5).

The rule in 3.02(c), specifically allowing a substance to improve grip, but limiting it to 18 inches, was to keep whatever sticky stuff off parts of the bat most likely to hit the ball, so that they could keep the ball in the game, for an era where any ball that was still in the playing field remained in the game.  And as I stated earlier, this is moot in today's game.

There is a case if someone is putting wax on the bat, or anything that might reduce friction, but pine tar has never fallen under that umbrella, because it increases friction.  eg. it would be like calling marijuana a "performance enhancing" drug.

If pine tar helped the batter obtain power, then the George Brett protest would have been denied...they would have treated it like hitting the home run with a corked bat.