The Pine Tar Incident was not cheating nor a scandal

What followed was a lengthy and confusing chain of events resulting in a yellow card for SHP’s faceoff specialist over a dispute about the depth of the netting on the stick. As the yellow card was the second of the day for the player, she was summarily ejected from the game.

How I drew the ire of letter writers from the SHP lacrosse world was two-fold. Their biggest grievance centered around my comparing the situation to the George Brett Pine Tar Incident, a banner event in the life of any Major League Baseball fan in 1983. The letter writers also took issue with my description of the faceoff stick belonging to the player; this, I’ve learned, is technically not the case, as the faceoff stick is a specialized piece of equipment that is supplied by the team, not owned by the player.

I stand by both descriptions, and am using this column to delve mainly into the Pine Tar Incident, as these letters questioned why I would compare a lacrosse imbroglio to what one letter termed as a “cheating scandal.” To be clear, what was at issue in the Pine Tar Incident was neither a case of cheating, nor was it a scandal. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

First, I want to clarify I originally termed the stick as belonging to the player because she was in possession of the stick, and it was while she was in possession of the stick that the referee’s ruling was made. It was contended by SHP head coach Steph Sanders that the referee did not follow proper procedure in inspecting the stick. This information, to the best of my ability to describe it for the average reader, is included in the original game story.

Also, I am choosing to not include the name of the faceoff specialist in this column out an abundance of caution, as SHP girls’ athletic director Dawn Hemm confirmed a claim the player is receiving a lot of backlash from the article.

So, for anyone who took the comparison of the dispute over SHP’s lacrosse stick to the Pine Tar Incident as an implication of player misconduct, it absolutely was not. The Pine Tar Incident was never termed a “cheating” incident, nor was it a “scandal,” in that there was no malice in George Brett’s actions and it was ultimately ruled by MLB on appeal there was no wrongdoing on his part.

Upon examining the complaints I received, rereading the game story, and again going over my notes, the mistake I made was in making a blanket comparison to an incident from another sport that occurred 42 years ago, while not offering any explanation as to what the incident entails. So, here it goes....

The Pine Tar Incident occurred when I was 10, so I remember it quite well. Kansas City Royals third baseman George Brett, a career .305 hitter and a first-ballot Baseball Hall of Famer, was batting against the New York Yankees, in old Yankee Stadium, against Yankees closer Goose Gossage, now also a Hall of Famer. The Royals were trailing 4-3 in the top of the ninth when Brett connected with a high fastball and demolished it 10 rows deep into the right-field bleachers for a two-run home run to give the Royals a 5-4 lead.

Before Brett was even done circling the bases, Yankees manager Billy Martin was at home plate insisting home plate umpire Tim McClelland inspect the bat, claiming the pine tar on it extended too far up the handle. Pine tar, literally what the substance is made of, was used by all players during this era to improve grip on the bat. However, there was a seldom enforced rule in the MLB rulebook stating pine tar could not extend farther than 18 inches from the knob of the bat. Upon inspection, the amount of pine tar on Brett’s bat was found to have exceeded the limit, so the home run was disallowed, Brett was called out, and Gossage went on to close out a 4-3 decision in favor of the Yankees.

Royals manager Dick Howser played the remainder of the game under protest. Four days later, American League president Lee MacPhail upheld the protest, ruling there was no malice on Brett’s part, and that the pine tar had no effect on the distance traveled by the ball. The home run was therefore reinstated, the remainder of the final inning went on to be replayed Aug. 18, 1983 from the point after the home run and the Royals went on to win 5-4.

As this applies to SHP’s lacrosse match, I was standing behind the scorer’s table during the dispute over the faceoff stick. One huge contrast I believe to be helpful is the faceoff specialist’s reaction was nowhere near the reaction of George Brett, who infamously charged out of the Royals’ dugout with the intensity of an angry bull looking to gore the home plate umpire. The SHP player’s reaction was the antithesis of Brett’s; to my eye, she calmly complied with all the directives from the official, and abided by the ruling with nothing short of good sportsmanship and grace.

Otherwise, the stick check requested by the St. Ignatius sideline, and the referees’ decision to remove the stick from play, appeared to resemble the bat inspection during the Pine Tar Incident beat for beat.

In one of the letters I received, I was accused of sensationalizing the imbroglio surrounding the faceoff stick. This was not my intention, nor do I believe I did this in any way. The events were extraordinary for a high school lacrosse match, and I did my best to convey these events to my readers. Comparing these events to the Pine Tar Incident was the most succinct and effective way I could think to do so.

One clarification to touch on is the legality of the stick. According to a text from Sanders, “the stick never got checked and deemed illegal.”

Calls to Sanders to elaborate on any backlash the player has received were not returned.

Terry Bernal is a sports writer for the Daily Journal. His views are his own. Please contact by email at terry@smdailyjournal.com, or via telephone at (650) 344-5200 x109.