Pine Tar game v2.0

As I was waiting for the Pirates-Giants game to move across the Associated sports wire late last night, I decided to scan some of the Frontier League boxscores from Tuesday. Low and behold, I found this gem from the Florence-Southern Illinois game:

SIL's Niko Vasxquez (sic) called out and ejected from game in bottom of fourth
inning for illegal use of pine tar on bat following complaint from Florence
manager.

Shades of George Brett and the famous Pine Tar Game in New York against the Yankees in 1983.

I did a quick Google News search and found one account of the game, but the pine tar wasn't mentioned. It simply focused on Southern Illinois scoring four runs in the bottom of the ninth inning to win the game 6-5 and move to within one game of the Wild Things and Evansville in the East Division standings.

A check of the Marion Daily Republican this morning sheds a little more light on what happened:

"... It was also important to sidestep any potential drama as a result of Niko Vasquez being called out and ejected from the game in the fourth inning for having pine tar too high on his bat, a result of a complaint by Florence manager Fran Riordan — who was one of the inaugural inductees into the Frontier League's new hall of fame last week — and the implementation of a rule that doesn't actually exist by home plate umpire John Hastings ..."

The pine tar rule doesn't exist? Or does it?

A quick check of the Major League Baseball rulebook revealed this in Section 1.10:

(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated

with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance

that extends past the 18-inch limitation shall cause the bat to be removed from the

game.

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.


Rule 1.10(c) Comment: If pine tar extends past the 18-inch limitation, then the umpire, on

his own initiative or if alerted by the opposing team, shall order the batter to use a different bat. The

batter may use the bat later in the game only if the excess substance is removed. If no objections are

raised prior to a bat’s use, then a violation of Rule 1.10(c) on that play does not nullify any action or

play on the field and no protests of such play shall be allowed.

So, as I understand it, if Florence did not object to the umpire about Vasquez's bat with excessive pine tar until after his at-bat in question (which resulted in a single), then the play should have stood, Vasquez should not have been called out or ejected and the bat should have been removed from the game. Had Florence objected about the use of the bat earlier in the game, the umpire should have checked Vasquez's bat when he went to the plate and tossed it out but not ejected the player or called him out.

I checked with Washington's resident Rules of Baseball expert, Bob Gregg of WJPA Radio, and he threw out the possibility of the umpire in Southern Illinois enforcing Rule 6.06, which states ...

A batter is out for illegal action when ...

(d) He uses or attempts to use a bat that, in the umpire’s judgment, has been altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction on the baseball. This includes, bats that are filled, flat-surfaced, nailed, hollowed, grooved or covered with a substance such as paraffin, wax, etc.
No advancement on the bases will be allowed and any out or outs made during a play shall stand.
In addition to being called out, the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by his League President.

Does pine tar improve the distance factor or cause an usual reaction of the baseball? I wouldn't think so, but this might have been the rule home plate umpire was thinking of when he ejected Vasquez.

As it played out, the umpire's decision and his ejection of Vasquez didn't matter because Southern Illinois won the game, which got the umpires out of a sticky situation (I had to say it).