Can I get a bag, to go?

[BroodsSexton]

Can someone explain to me why the takeout slide is a legitimate play? Baseball is not a contact sport. The runner should be going for the bag, not trying to physically incapacitate the fielder. Why not make it the umpire's discretion to award the second out if it appears the runner is intentionally attempting to break up the play? Let the fielder try to make the play. Nowhere else is the runner permitted to interfere.

And yes, this is precipitated by the Utley slide tonight.

 

[nvalvo]

https://twitter.com/zacharylevine/status/653062745475014657
 
Honestly have no idea why there was even a controversy here.
 

 

[BroodsSexton]

what does that mean?

 

[riboflav]

That ain't the first time Utley has tried to kill Tejada.
 
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v12416779/nymphi-utley-slides-hard-into-tejada-at-second

 

[rembrat]

That ain't the first time Utley has tried to kill Tejada.
 
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v12416779/nymphi-utley-slides-hard-into-tejada-at-second

 
JESUS CHRIST
 
You would think a middle infielder would have some sense. 

 

[MakMan44]

https://twitter.com/zacharylevine/status/653062745475014657
 
Honestly have no idea why there was even a controversy here.
 

Alright, this is pretty funny. 

 

[riboflav]

 
JESUS CHRIST
 
You would think a middle infielder would have some sense. 

 
What can you do when you're tackled? In both, Utley hits Tejada before he hits the ground yet you have some SoSHers declaring it a slide and not a tackle. 

 

[BroodsSexton]

So this doesn't really address the initial question: should takeout slides, where the intent is to physically disable the fielder, be permitted?

 

[savage362]

I have no problem with a base runner attempting to breakup the play as long as they meet the criteria below:
 

1. Runner can reach the base during the slide. I would go so far as requiring the base runner to make contact with the base during the slide otherwise out #2 becomes automatic.
2. The runner's slide has started soon enough that they are on the ground prior to reaching the base.

In last night's case, the only part that Utley met was being able to reach the base. He did not touch it and he never hit the ground until he was beyond the base and already making contact with Tejada.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I think a slide that late should be illegal. My problem is Utley was still upright and not sliding when even with the bag. You want to break up a double play? Do it with a slide that starts somewhere in the neighborhood of where you'd start to slide if breaking your own ankle on the bag was a concern. Middle infielders shouldn't pivot and see a full grown man executing a hip check. Eliminate the lateness of the slides and you'd solve most of the problems. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

They already are against the rules. The rule is just never enforced. If a runner's intention is to interfere with the fielder they should be called out. It's right there in plain text in rule 7.09 (e) and (f).

 

[shepard50]

So this doesn't really address the initial question: should takeout slides, where the intent is to physically disable the fielder, be permitted?

 
They should not. Which means that takeout slides, where the intent is to physically disrupt the play, should not be permitted. The line between the two is way to gray.

 

[shepard50]

They already are against the rules. The rule is just never enforced. If a runner's intention is to interfere with the fielder they should be called out. It's right there in plain text in rule 7.09 (e) and (f).

 
The rule quoted:

 
 
(e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.
(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.

 
 
I was reading it this morning and decided it was inetentionally about the batted ball and not the ball thrown form one defensive player to another.
 
In the 2015 MLB rules, (which are numbered differently?), 5.09 c specifically calls the runner out when:
 
"(3) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;"

 

[glasspusher]

My sniff test for this play is Ty Cobb would have killed Tejada on the play. 'nuff said.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

How is what Utley did last night any different than what they've already emphatically banned at home plate?

 

[Byrdbrain]

I believe it was Law who was saying the rule should be changed to essentially Savage's point two above. The slide must be started one stride before the base to be legal.
Jason Collette is pointing out that what Utley did in "just trying to break up the out" is similar to what ARod did in slapping the glove and everyone thinks that should be illegal.
 
That Utley ended up safe is very literally adding insult to injury(I assume that's already been said like 1000 times and for that I am sorry).
 
One other point and I am by no means blaming Tejada on this but especially with his history with Utley I'm surprised he took the approach he did. Obviously Utley was going to go after him no matter where he was but you would have thought he would have kept facing the runner and backed off the bag instead of turning his back to him like that.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

They already are against the rules. The rule is just never enforced. If a runner's intention is to interfere with the fielder they should be called out. It's right there in plain text in rule 7.09 (e) and (f).

Yeah, and it's not that difficult.  If on a force play, the foremost part of the runners body isn't going directly at the bag, and at roughly bag height, he's fucking around.  There's no reason for a hook slide or anything that takes the body off a straight line from first to second in that situation.

 

[Ed Hillel]

We have to consider the safety of the runners, as well, and I think that necessitates sliders (those who slide) having leeway to go past the bag from their momentum. However, what I don't understand is why it's considered legitimate to ever slide in a way that turns the body perpendicular to the baseline to maximize the "take out" area. The runner really shouldn't have a right to all of that area around the bag, and I wouldn't personally consider it a baseball play. To get rid of it, I'd award a double play any time it happens.

It should also be illegal to slide as late as Utley did last night, though I am having a much tougher time defining a rule to combat it. It may have to be along the lines of "I know it when I see it." Maybe they could get away with something like "any slide that begins within 3 feet of second base" is deemed illegal, will result in a DP, and could result in further discipline not limited to ejection and/or suspension.

 

[derekson]

Utley's "slide" last night was the closest thing I have seen to a player actually just tackling a middle infielder. There was not even the slightest pretense of going for the bag and he didn't even start his "slide" until he was basically even with the bag. Utley should have been out and the runner on first should've been called out as well due to Utley interfering with the play, even though I don't think Tejada would've turned two without being tackled. The Red Sox had this interference ruled against them a few seasons ago on a much cleaner play, though I don't recall the specifics.
 
Take out slides are against the actual written rules but they're bog standard in the actual application of the rules, but this play was, in my opinion, above and beyond the typical take out slide and escalated to a blatant tackle. The fact that the review crew actually called Utley safe is an utter farce, considering he never even touched the base at all and also considering that it was a neighborhood play and a review shouldn't even have been allowed in the first place. The Mets should have protested the game based on improper application of the rules since they allowed review of a neighborhood play.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
The rule quoted:
 
 
I was reading it this morning and decided it was inetentionally about the batted ball and not the ball thrown form one defensive player to another.
 
In the 2015 MLB rules, (which are numbered differently?), 5.09 c specifically calls the runner out when:
 
"(3) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;"

 
The mention of breaking up a double play is where your interpretation loses me. Any attempt to interfere with a batted ball is illegal and would be covered regardless of whether it was a double play or not. Specifically mentioning that circumstance makes me think that they mean to include any action that is intended to interfere with a fielder's ability to turn the double play, not just preventing them from fielding the ball before it reaches them.

 

[MakMan44]

 
The mention of breaking up a double play is where your interpretation loses me. Any attempt to interfere with a batted ball is illegal and would be covered regardless of whether it was a double play or not. Specifically mentioning that circumstance makes me think that they mean to include any action that is intended to interfere with a fielder's ability to turn the double play, not just preventing them from fielding the ball before it reaches them.

I saw people arguing about this very same thing over on Deadspin last night. Personally, I'm on your side of the argument but I can't think of a single time when it's ever been called that way. 

 

[terrisus]

The fact that the review crew actually called Utley safe is an utter farce, considering he never even touched the base at all and also considering that it was a neighborhood play and a review shouldn't even have been allowed in the first place. 

Don't worry - Joe Torre's right on top of it.
This is the kind of thing MLB has him around for, right?
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/newyork/mets/post/_/id/111882/joe-torre-offers-mlb-viewpoint-on-chase-utleys-little-late-slide
 

 
Q. You said you're still talking about it. In what regard?
Torre: We still -- I'm still in charge of determining if it's something that shouldn't -- like the slide was over-the-top type of thing. As I say, it was a hard slide. ... Looking at it a number of times, I thought it was a little late. So that's what I'm digesting right now.
Q. You would review it to see if you need to impose any discipline?
Torre: Again, I'm looking at it just to see if there's anything we feel should be done.
Q. Just curious in that case, what recourse would you have under the rules to impose discipline on a play like that after the fact?
Torre: What recourse would I have? ... Well, I have to determine if I thought it was excessive, I guess, is the word, on the slide. Not that you shouldn't slide hard, but as I said, just the late slide is probably the only thing that's in question right now.

 

 
Q. Just to follow up on that, can the rule be made better than it is right now to protect infielders?
Torre: The interesting part is we have the neighborhood play that we have in effect in a lot of ways to protect the infielders, having to stay at the base. This wasn't a neighborhood play because spinning around and the reaching for the ball and stuff like that.
This wasn't a neighborhood play. We're certainly aware of the health of the players, so that's why the neighborhood play is part of what we decide on as far as replay or no replay. We're always looking to protect players. I mean, we have the crash rule at the plate and stuff like that. It's a concern. ... What we're doing in the [Arizona] Fall League, and I don't know if I'm supposed to say this, but in the Fall League, we're having the players work on sliding directly into the bag, just to see how that works and stuff.

 

 
Everybody knew why the play was overturned, right?
 
Q. No, can you explain that, please.
Torre: Tejada showed that he didn't touch the bag, and Utley never touched second base. The fact that he was called out meant he didn't -- he's not required to touch second base once he's called out. So when the play was overturned, he gets awarded second base on that.
Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, if they had tagged Utley just before he went off the field, would that have changed that situation?
Randy Marsh: Yeah, he would have been out.
Torre: In other words, if whoever happened to have the ball had tagged him going by the dugout or something, then he would have been out.
Q. Really? And they couldn't challenge?
Torre: Yeah, because that was before.
Q. And they could challenge because it wasn't a neighborhood play?
Torre: It wasn't a neighborhood play. That's judged on the field. Once it goes to replay, that's not a neighborhood play.
Q. If he went off the field because he was told he was out and then they tagged him because he had been told he was out?
Torre: No, I mean, if the player had had the ball and happened to tag him.
Q. Before he was told?
Torre: Well, he heard he was out, and he was leaving the field. But I'm saying before he left the field, right?
Marsh: Right, he was called out.
Torre: Because the act of tagging somebody, the fact that he didn't touch the bag and now you're tagging him, OK? But once he's off the field and we go to replay, everything stops, so he's awarded second base because he wasn't tagged. But he left the field based on the fact that the umpire called him out.
Q. So he never needed to touch the base?
Torre: He never needed to touch the base because the umpire called him out. You're correcting umpire's mistake. In that situation, by going to replay, and they see the runner never touched the base, but the umpire called him out, by replay rules we can correct the situation and put the runner on the bag.

Yeah, he's right on top of this...

 

[MakMan44]

See that's such bullshit. First off, I don't understand WHY Tejada's actions made it not a neighborhood play, but that's a bullshit rule to begin with so whatever. 
 
My major issue is that the umpire's mistake also fucked the Mets. I suppose you could argue that Utley would have beaten Tejada to bag in a foot race if he didn't think he was out, but Murphy was right there, there's a chance that Utley could have been tagged before he touched 2nd. The Mets were in the same boat and I think the call on the field should stand in this situation instead of just awarding Utley the bag. 

 

[InsideTheParker]

Unfortunately I can't summarize his argument, but Brian Kenny was arguing that there is already a rule on the books that makes Utley's slide wrong and that prescribes that the Dodgers should have been out on a double play (the punishment includes the player going into second plus the nearest runner), inning over, Mets up by two. It would be nice if someone who's had more experience watching baseball and hadn't just had a huge meal with wine could see and summarize his points. It was on MLB Tonight, MLBN, about a half hour ago.

 

[mauidano]

Help me on this but can't it interpreted similarly to the incident at third base with Middlebrooks in the 2013 World Series where he was called out for interference?  Just an example we are all familiar with.  
 
It's like art, it is open to interpretation, you can't "assume the double play" but that was straight up not "intent" on getting into second hard.  Utley is right, you're taught at an early age to break up the double play.  He just went too hard and too far to the right too late.  Unfortunate of course.  Saw a lot of tweets from MLB players and they are coming down on both sides of the issue.

 

[Dehere]

Brian Kenny was arguing that there is already a rule on the books that makes Utley's slide wrong and that prescribes that the Dodgers should have been out on a double play (the punishment includes the player going into second plus the nearest runner), inning over, Mets up by two.

Seems like officiating controversies across all sports often tie back to officials slowly creeping away from the literal meaning of the rules as written. Just enforce what's in the book. Get rid of the neighborhood play altogether and start calling two runners out for reckless breakup attempts and I suspect this all goes away within one season. Enforce the rules that are written.

 

[Average Reds]

Help me on this but can't it interpreted similarly to the incident at third base with Middlebrooks in the 2013 World Series where he was called out for interference?  Just an example we are all familiar with.  
 
It's like art, it is open to interpretation, you can't "assume the double play" but that was straight up not "intent" on getting into second hard.  Utley is right, you're taught at an early age to break up the double play.  He just went too hard and too far to the right too late.  Unfortunate of course.  Saw a lot of tweets from MLB players and they are coming down on both sides of the issue.

You have the play from 2013 backwards: Middlebrooks committed the obstruction and the runner was awarded home, not ruled out.

Utley's slide was not too far to the right of the bag, as he could have easily touched the bag. (His hand went right over it.) But he was waaaaay too late beginning his slide. The rules covering this are all over the place, but there can't really be a question that it was a dirty play. And he should pay a price for that.

 

[InsideTheParker]

I guess this is the rule Kenny was referencing.  I see now that shepard has already mentioned this way at the top of the thread.
 

 
 
(e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.
I. e., Utley is out, and so is the runner at first.

 

[BroodsSexton]

You have the play from 2013 backwards: Middlebrooks committed the obstruction and the runner was awarded home, not ruled out.

Utley's slide was not too far to the right of the bag, but he was waaaaay too late beginning his slide. I don't know if he should have been out or not (MLB can't seem to get out of their own way here) but there can't really be a question that it was a dirty play.

If it's a dirty play, how can he NOT be out?

 

[Average Reds]

I edited my post because it was clumsily worded.

I agree that he should be out.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Also I haven't seen it commented on, but ironic that Utley plays for the Dodgers, no? One would think they'd be the Dodge'ems

 

[terrisus]

Seriously though, Torre always sounds like such a bumbling fool when he's trying to explain/justify something.
No idea how he's managed to stay in that position so long.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

I guess this is the rule Kenny was referencing.  I see now that shepard has already mentioned this way at the top of the thread.
 

That's about a batted ball, not a ball being thrown to a fielder. The rule is in place to prevent a runner on first intentionally running into a ground ball to second.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This is from a few years ago (and features a familar face) but here is a case where the play is ruled dead and the batter is called out at first for a double play due to interference by the runner going into second.
 
http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=22703765&c_id=mlb

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That's about a batted ball, not a ball being thrown to a fielder. The rule is in place to prevent a runner on first intentionally running into a ground ball to second.

 
If the rule only applies to balls off the bat before they are initially fielded then there would be no reason for including language about "breaking up a double play." Furthermore, the fact that Torre is looking into whether the league should respond because of the lateness of the slide means that the rule does apply to fielders in the process of attempting to turn a double play, not just the ball initially heading toward the fielder.
 
And if sliding late is potentially worth a response from the league, then so is sliding wide or not dropping into a slide and coming in high to maximize contact. Utley did all three. The slide was illegal and they really need to start enforcing that rule.

 

[Buffalo Head]

I distinctly remember the Red Sox being called for it in Game 3 of the 1988 ALCS. They were trying to rally in the middle innings and Gedman got called for interference trying to take out the shortstop. It was a brutal call, and really screwed the Red Sox.

Here it is, at the 1:45:35 mark.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W70eIYGwv1A

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

MLB changed the rule requiring a slide within reach of the bag (basically requiring intent to slide rather than intent to take the fielder out) because of Hal McRae and bullshit like this play from the 1977 ALCS.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIiYw53nGd0
 
Plays like Utley's are supposed to be called for interference since his intent was to take out Tejada, not slide into the base.

 

[Lowrielicious]

MLB changed the rule requiring a slide within reach of the bag (basically requiring intent to slide rather than intent to take the fielder out) because of Hal McRae and bullshit like this play from the 1977 ALCS.
 

Apologies if it has already been mentioned, but what is the rule changed due to this (anything mentioning intent to slide?) ? I only see the ones earlier on this page ( 7.09 (e) and (f) and Sheps link to 2015 rules - 5.09 c) which specifically talk about interfering with a batted ball, or fielder fielding a batted ball. I don't see any referring to having to slide into 2b.

 

[terrynever]

Does it matter at all that Tejada made himself vulnerable by turning his back to the runner in order to complete his relay?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Apologies if it has already been mentioned, but what is the rule changed due to this (anything mentioning intent to slide?) ? I only see the ones earlier on this page ( 7.09 (e) and (f) and Sheps link to 2015 rules - 5.09 c) which specifically talk about interfering with a batted ball, or fielder fielding a batted ball. I don't see any referring to having to slide into 2b.

 
Google "McRae Rule" and you find quite a few hits for a change (or emphasis) of rule being made to require a player to slide into a base rather than barrel into the fielder. 
 
I believe the rule in question is 7.08 (b)
 

7.08
Any runner is out when --
...
(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpires judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

All it takes is ruling that Utley intentionally tried to hinder the fielder while not being in contact with a base (or even attempting to make contact with a base).

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Under the 2015 version of the rules it is actually specifically described.
 
Under the definition for interference we have:
 
 
 

2.00 (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

 
Then under rule 6 we have:
 

6.05 A batter is out when—
 
(m) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play;
 
Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.

 
So it is addressed specifically and clearly. Utley's slide was illegal.

 

[BroodsSexton]

MLB changed the rule requiring a slide within reach of the bag (basically requiring intent to slide rather than intent to take the fielder out) because of Hal McRae and bullshit like this play from the 1977 ALCS.
 
Plays like Utley's are supposed to be called for interference since his intent was to take out Tejada, not slide into the base.

Amazing how similar those plays were. Strange thing is, I don't see anything wrong with the slide against the Yankees.

Terrible plays, both, obviously.

 

[Cellar-Door]

https://twitter.com/SInow/status/653379249026547712
 
Two game suspension.

 

[shepard50]

Small recompense to the Mets, a mediocre player suspended, when they have lost their starting SS for the whole postseason and a game they might have won.

 

[Jettisoned]

Does it matter at all that Tejada made himself vulnerable by turning his back to the runner in order to complete his relay?

 
Why should that matter?

 

[MakMan44]

It's annoying to see that they call his slide illegal but that wasn't reviewable last night. What's reviewable and non-reviewable is a such a shitshow. 

 

[Gdiguy]

God, it drives me up the wall that they call his slide illegal but outcome of the game is still going to stand. 

 
I agree, but realistically they were never going to re-play the end of the game for a call like this. Honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised they suspended Utley, which is far closer to an apology than I was expecting.
 
 
On the original topic, I just don't see this situation remaining - between the concussion focus and re-writing the catcher blocking rules, the writing was on the wall for takeout slides already, and it happening in a playoff game is going to push the timeline up. Irregardless of any sort of 'judgement call', there's no question that Utley wasn't making a normal slide into 2nd base, and I think that's where the rule is going to go towards - extend interference to basically anything that's not an effort to slide into 2nd base to beat the throw. Irregardless of where you set the boundary on 'normal slide', Utley's is clearly beyond that line, and it'll get rid of the vast majority of dangerous plays.
 
More generally, I think Pete Rose accidentally helped this along as well - his 'walk it off' concussion comments made it so one of the biggest stories so far in the MLB playoffs has been 'you get rewarded for body checking infielders, and worrying about brain injuries make you a wuss'... which is clearly not where MLB wants to be going (at the game yesterday in Dodger Stadium, every half inning had at least one video add for MLB's 'Play Ball' initiative, and I don't think either of those messages is the one they want kids picking up).

 

[MakMan44]

 
I agree, but realistically they were never going to re-play the end of the game for a call like this. Honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised they suspended Utley, which is far closer to an apology than I was expecting.

Yeah, I edited my post to better reflect my grievance. 

 

[derekson]

 
I agree, but realistically they were never going to re-play the end of the game for a call like this. Honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised they suspended Utley, which is far closer to an apology than I was expecting.
 
 
On the original topic, I just don't see this situation remaining - between the concussion focus and re-writing the catcher blocking rules, the writing was on the wall for takeout slides already, and it happening in a playoff game is going to push the timeline up. Irregardless of any sort of 'judgement call', there's no question that Utley wasn't making a normal slide into 2nd base, and I think that's where the rule is going to go towards - extend interference to basically anything that's not an effort to slide into 2nd base to beat the throw. Irregardless of where you set the boundary on 'normal slide', Utley's is clearly beyond that line, and it'll get rid of the vast majority of dangerous plays.
 
More generally, I think Pete Rose accidentally helped this along as well - his 'walk it off' concussion comments made it so one of the biggest stories so far in the MLB playoffs has been 'you get rewarded for body checking infielders, and worrying about brain injuries make you a wuss'... which is clearly not where MLB wants to be going (at the game yesterday in Dodger Stadium, every half inning had at least one video add for MLB's 'Play Ball' initiative, and I don't think either of those messages is the one they want kids picking up).

 
The Fox studio crew has been an embarrassment for the sport. Rose, Thomas, and Karros jumped down Nitkowski's throat for even suggesting that there was anything wrong with Utley's slide on the pregame for tonight's ALDS coverage. And Nitkowski's rebuke of Utley's slide was actually pretty mild.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Snodder wrote an article about the rule and the illegality of the slide at the .com today:

 
 
These slides are rarely done with the intention of causing an injury, but they are always illegal. The rule states that the runner’s intention is the determining factor so any time they deviate from the most direct path to the bag with the goal of disrupting the play they are in violation, and umpires should be reacting accordingly.