800 LB Gorilla in the Room - Bad or Good Call on the Utley "Slide" in NLDS

An aside: that's the old rule. The new rule is 5.09a(13). And by MLBUM interpretation of that rule, if a runner can reach the bag, it is not considered interference.

Owners will get a rule change.  Some of the biggest upcoming stars in baseball are the young crop of shortstops.  They are going to protect their assets, as they should.  

If you think "taking someone out" is part of the game, you're overheating a bit in your all wool Ty Cobb throwback jersey.

The problem I have with the whole thing is MLB is just playing the result.

If this was a Thursday night regular season game, and there was no major injury- there would be no suspension, and it may have warranted a single replay on MLB tonight.

MLB has allowed this play for years.  It's dangerous, but nobody bothers to do anything about it until somebody gets hurt.  Now they want to suspend a guy for doing something that is within the rules they designed.  It's nothing more than trying to deflect the blame from their own asinine failure to address this issue previously.

Inertia for protecting catchers at the plate and changing the idiotic (my opinion) collision at home built and built until Posey was injured. The game is moving forward with the new rule. A high-profile injury is often the catalyst that triggers the change.

I'd love to see the neighborhood play go away (or the neighborhood shrinks a LOT) as well as take-out slides. That's just me.

2 game suspension for Utley. Whether that will happen who knows.

Listen we all know that Utley did not mean to cause as much damage as he did.  

My hats off to Torre for making it clear this is unacceptable.

I am wondering what game you have been watching for the last oh maybe 100yrs or so....it is not only taught but been glorified. You don't have it like it but has been part of the game forever. 

And i love throwback unis!!! 

I think it is actually a pussy move by MLB and I doubt Torre pulled the trigger on this. I think it came from higher up the food chain. the way the rules are written there should be no suspension...if you don't like the rule try to get changed. The appeal will be interesting. 

Because it's been such a tradition, it seems to me that just like with the aggressiveness towards catchers at home plate, MLB was simply looking for a good excuse (e.g. a serious injury) to make a change regarding the aggressiveness towards a defending player at 2nd base.  And in addition, money is a key issue given what some of these players are paid.

It wouldn't surprise me if Alderson was the one to make this decision, that it was done fairly quickly, and that was the argument him and Torre were having at the game.

What Utley did hasn't been going on for "oh maybe 100 years or so".  This.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-vu1v1DFM

.....has been going on for 100 years and this is fine.

Go back to my first post and this link addresses what I'm saying about if a fielder is behind the bag he should be protected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl-gkYlEfOs

No matter what you do with the rules there will always be contact because two humans cannot occupy the same space at the same time.  But to take out a fielder viciously like Utley and McRae is ridiculous. It's not about being tough or manly and these incidents are rare so let's not overreact but what Utley did wasn't baseball. 

Check Matt Holiday roll blocking Marco Scutaro in the NLCS, when Scutaro is a good 8-12 inches behind 2b. The entire photo sequence shows Holliday start late, very late, just like Utley and here he even rolls blocks Scutaro. Luckily Scutaro was hurt but not seriously, perhaps because he was so far behind 2b and knew this might be coming. For others who confirm this has been going on for years, it has:

A hundred years ago I was watching a game where the players were indentured for life to their team and paid in pennies.  Now, Correa, Seager, Russell, Lindor are worth close to a quarter billion.  One of them will surpass a half billion in career earnings.

Now loosen that top button on your Walter Johnson throwback jersey!

Utley did not leave the baseline.  Even under this, it is a legal slide.  And the purpose is ALWAYS to try to break up the double play.  Players are taught that from the time they start playing.  Are people suggesting that breaking up the DP shouldn't be taught at all anymore?  Or just taught to do it nicely??  There is going to be a real problem with the suspension being upheld, in my opinion.  Utley, technically, did nothing to violate the rules of baseball.  You can't suspend someone for doing what is legal, just because you didn't like the outcome.  If you don't like it, change the rules, otherwise, let it be.

Scott Cousins was never suspended. I wonder how much this suspension has to do with keeping Utley out of Citi Field in an attempt to lower the heat a bit.

I think that factors in. In general, abiding by the letter of a nebulous rule in an extreme manner that results in an injury is more likely to lead to formal and informal repercussions.

Seems like it took this happening to a New York team to provoke any action.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_...ves-game-knee-injury

https://streamable.com/7cqd

Just days ago, and might have cost the Astros quite a bit more than an essentially equal SS to the one on the bench Flores.

Of course, Didi got some ojt with this impact.

I think this is exactly right.  I've not attended a game at Citi yet, but I went to a lot of games at Shea and (old) Yankee and IMO Game #3, if Utley was on the field, would quickly devolve into a something very ugly. I don't know for a fact that water bottles and/or batteries would rain on to the field, but at the very least the atmosphere would be more Roman Circus than America's Pastime.  Just not the face that the MLB and TV suits want to put on the game right now.

How can you say he didn't leave the baseline?  Does the baseline extend all the way into the outfield?  He was past the base and the next base is a totally different direction than where he was going.  While I get the whole direction going into the base is the established line to determine if someone is avoiding a tag that does not fall under this.  He's no longer in the basepath because he's no longer attempting to go to a base.

I think the slide that took out Kang was a good one.  It falls within the rules of Coughlan can reach the base and Kang has a chance to protect himself.  If I remember correctly this was another situation where it was a slow developing play and Kang shouldn't have tried to continue on to first.  If the fielder is beside the base then the runner should be able to slide past as long as they are touching the base.  If that happens the fielder has the chance to see what's happening and make a decision to protect themselves or try to continue.  If the fielder is behind the base then you are targeting the fielder.

So, then how do you define going past the base?  How about the runner stealing 2nd?  He goes beyond the base with all of his body, except maybe touching the back of the bag with the tip of his toe.  Is this going beyond, or should the rule be that you can go past the base, but still be able to touch it from the other side?  Also, the baseline is established by the runner as he heads towards the next base.  If the runner is not heading towards the next base, technically, there is no baseline.

How bout the runner that runs past 1st base on a ball in play to the infield?  Should he be called out because he went past 1st base, but not towards 2nd?  More to think about than what initially comes to mind...

I agree it's not as easy as "can't go past the base" but the outcome should be able to help tell you what's going on.  

Stealing second and he goes past the bag.  He's either going to try to get back to second or continue onto third.  That establishes a new baseline in both situations.  The baseline cannot be extended continuously past the bag.  On a bang bang play at the plate and the runner misses the plate he has the circle to create a path back to the bag.  I can see this being applicable in a steal situation.  Plus in a steal the fielder is in front of or on top of the base.  Going past the bag doesn't put him in harm and there's no chance to continue a play to first for a double play.  If the throw from the catcher takes him into the path of the runner then it's just a train wreck.  Like I said earlier you can't take contact completely out of baseball.

As for first base I think it's apples and oranges.  There are established rules for this situation.  But if you want to make it analogous then the the throw causes the fielder to stretch towards the outfield but the out is made.  When he leaves the base he's past the bag.  There's a runner on third trying to score.  What would happen if the runner slid into first and went past the bag and took out the first baseman like Utley did?  The call is going to be interference and probably an ejection.  Each base has it's own ways of handling these situations.  

I do completely agree with you that the suspension is wrong since he technically didn't break a rule.  I still believe if they had called interference off the bat nobody would have said a word.

No. Just no. That would never be the call in pro ball.

Again, no. This was a legal play, akin to those occurring dozens of times this year with no calls, and was looked at by two umpire crews with the same conclusion. If this had been ruled interference, everyone would have flipped.

It depends on what you feel is good.  The play was legal.  All of the plays are legal even Utley's slide, but Kang did shift away from the bag thinking he was providing room for the slide. Coghlan didn't hit the rear leg closer to the bag that wouldn't have caused injury, he stuck it 4 feet or so outstretched to hit the gloveside leg laying out to still contact the bag with his hand only.

My guess is they are going to require a slide within some distance of the bag or that they should try to avoid contact rather than initiate it. 

Coach, I agree, extending the situation to 1st base is a stretch and really not applicable.  Here's another thing to think about.  Runner is trying to break up a DP.  But, keep in mind, chances are, by the time he collides with the fielder, he's out already, so, he's technically not a base runner anymore.  This would end the discussion about a baseline.  At least in terms of going to 3rd or heading back to 2nd.  If he didn't leave the base path on his way to 2nd, and his momentum carries him past 2nd, it makes it more difficult to define the rule.  It is not an easy dilemma to dissect.  Even the play at home is still pretty nebulous.  Catcher has to leave an open base path to the plate.  This is constantly in debate.  Catcher can't stand in front of the plate, but he has to make a tag.  Runner can go as far to the sides of the plate to make some sort of hook slide to avoid the tag, but the catcher has to leave a clear path.  Makes it much harder on the catcher to make the play.  The interpretation of this has been changed several times already to try to make it more clear, but it is still pretty difficult to determine, if you ask me.  

Sometimes changing one thing brings about other issues you didn't think about.  I said it before, if Tejada wasn't hurt, this wouldn't have even been an issue.  And I agree with others.  I think he was suspended in order to cool everyone's jets when the series goes back to NY.  

In the first situation no that will never happen.  There's not a runner in almost any level of baseball that would do this.  I was trying to make a comparison but maybe it's not a good one.

As for the second one.  My rational mind understands you're right but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that there can't be a rule associated with this play.  These types of "slides" are very rare and that's why I don't think we need to overreact and create a ton of rules.  But there has to be some sort of protection given to fielders from cheap shots.  What Utley did was a cheap shot.  It makes me think of in an NFL game on an interception and a lineman 30 yards away from the play gets hit from the blindside.  That used to be legal as well but they figured out cheap shots need to be outlawed.  Cheap shots like this need to be outlawed.

BTW I hate the Mets

There's a simple solution, and MLB will probably mess this one up like they did with protecting the catchers...they should have simply adopted the NCAA rules concerning illegal contact and obstruction. Here, they should just adopt NCAA's FPSR...it's a stand-alone rule that won't have secondary effects on other enforcement, it's simple to enforce, and it won't dramatically alter the balance between offense and defense.

Now, let's watch MLB use the FED FPSR and wonder why games go 15 innings.

I actually can agree it was marginal but IMO legit and the suspension is garbage, I expect it to appealed and overturned(reference NFL/Goodell) and Utily will be on the field where he belongs....it could get interesting for sure if the game gets out of hand. 

Utley is is such a class act he will just trot to firstbase. 

If game situation allows, and unwritten rules are really followed, it won't be Utley with the "opportunity" to trot to first base.

Going from memory, but I believe that Kang actually completed the double-play on that one.

I thought this article, discussing players' reactions, was interesting: www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-b...players-speak-101115

Especially this quote from a player:

"Watching this play scared me for reasons different than one might expect. With the season on the line, and a 2-1 score the tying run was on third base. If I were Chase, I would have gone through my mental checklist. Half way on a fly ball, but tag if I thought I could divert the OFer's attention away from the man on 3rd. Don't let my self get tagged by the second baseman on a grounder hit to him. Make sure to freeze on a line drive and not get doubled off. And most importantly on a ground ball make sure to do EVERYTHING in my power to break up the double play. I don't know how late I would have slid, or exactly how I would have reacted once I reached the base, but I would have been willing to sacrifice MYSELF physically to make sure to prevent that double play. I believe Chase was thinking the same way. He was not intending to hurt Tejada, he was willing to hurt himself. I place no blame on Chase for his actions and all the blame on the rules surrounding the play. The umpires have never used their discretion to accurately enforce the rule, allowing slides like this to happen. Chase wasn't thinking about Tejada, or his own safety, he was thinking about his team. Watching the play scares because I believe I would have done the same thing and perhaps caused the same injury to Tejada, or one to myself."

Why do people think umpires have such unending discretion? Rules are enforced either by directive or by what the culture dictates. 

I can see this situation leading to eventual restrictments of players.

I've gone back and looked at this thing a few times now, and I see it as less of a dirty play and more of an oh crap play.

It looks like Utley had committed to the slide, and was anticipating Tejada to be further away from the bag.  Usually a MIF will be moving away from the bag on that type of play - but Tejada was actually moving into the bag.  I'm not in Utley's head, but it looks like he intended to do the traditional reach back with the left arm, while sweeping the fielder's legs with his extended right leg.  When Tejada closed the distance between them, Utley didn't get the chance to extend his legs.

Of course this is all a result of MLB allowing the MIF to get taken out, but I think the severity of the collision was more of a miscalculation than anything else.

Utley himself basically said that his intention wasn't to reach the base but to "put a body on the fielder" in order to break up the double play.  If you target the fielder and don't even make an attempt at the base, tell me how that is not interference?  Tell me how that is not unsportsmanlike conduct?

For one thing because umpires can't read people's minds.  They can only interpret rules.  The rule is basically, that when you slide, you have to be within reach of the bag.  Clearly, Utley was in reach of the bag.  EVERY player's intent going into 2nd in that situation is to break up the DP, within the rule set they are playing.  Utley was within the rule set of MLB.  It's really that simple.

Being within reach of the bag is by interpretation to be considered an attempt at the base. As for USC, that's just something entirely different.

I see what you did there.

Utley is eligible to play in game 3 tonight. His appeal will not be heard today. He can continue to play as long as the appeal is in place, but not yet heard.

This is the twitter comments by MLB'ers.  Kinda mixed, like the opinions on  this board

http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/10/...-utley-slide-twitter 

The only possible reason for the suspension from MLB is that they believe the slide was illegal.  In other words they had to view the slide different than the umpires.

Even if the call would have been made and a double play called ending the inning.  I don't think there would have been a suspension.  Is there any precedence for this suspension?  

I can see how this was a tough call by the umpire.  I can see how one could see it as within the rules or how you could see it being against the rules.  Had Utley actually reached for the bag it would have been different IMO.  But his slide was so late, he was actually past the bag before his hand could have reached the ground.

Anyway, no matter what the call, I don't understand the suspension at all. Whether legal slide or not, the intent is to break up the DP and win the game.  When that happens there is always a chance that either the fielder or the runner or both are going to get hurt.

When we were young we were taught how to cleanly take out the MIF at 2B.  We were not taught this rolling block technique.

Do you think they will push this out even further?

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...da-in-game-2-of-nlds

"On Monday morning, CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reported, "MLB wants Utley hearing today (before Game 3). Union wants time to prepare. CBA mandates appeals be within 14 days." Karl Ravech of ESPN reported Utley's appeal won't be heard today, and he will be eligible to play in Game 3. "