Here is how one ended up over 40 years ago in the playoffs.
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6...uffle-at-second-base
Originally Posted by PGStaff:
Here is how one ended up over 40 years ago in the playoffs.
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6...uffle-at-second-base
Not much has changed over the years, has it? Other than maybe our collective attitude towards it...
Originally Posted by The Doctor:
Wow, that McRae slide was unbelievable, Way worse than the Rose and Utley slides. I'm a big Utley fan but I thought the slide was late. Not egregiously offline, but definitely late.
Although I am a Chase Utley fan he should have used more finesse. Slide into the short stops lower part of his cleats. This way you take him out without breaking anything. And he would have looked good taking 'em out,
So Chase Utley is suspended for two games for a slide that was deemed legal, for which he was ruled safe by the league office, and which resulted in the tying run being scored? WTH? Small consolation to the Mets and Tejada. What a mess MLB is making of this.
Originally Posted by Smitty28:
So Chase Utley is suspended for two games for a slide that was deemed legal, for which he was ruled safe by the league office, and which resulted in the tying run being scored? WTH? Small consolation to the Mets and Tejada. What a mess MLB is making of this.
I agree. What in the rules made the slide illegal? I know it is unpopular, but illegal??
It's illegal to target the fielder -- which is what he did. Should have been ruled illegal at the time
Originally Posted by SluggerDad:
It's illegal to target the fielder -- which is what he did. Should have been ruled illegal at the time
Nope. Torre is changing the definition of interference under this rule. Until today, this was a legal play.
Originally Posted by Matt13:
Originally Posted by SluggerDad:
It's illegal to target the fielder -- which is what he did. Should have been ruled illegal at the time
Nope. Torre is changing the definition of interference under this rule. Until today, this was a legal play.
Here is a relevant rule
It is interference by a batter or a runner when --
(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.
Originally Posted by SluggerDad:
Originally Posted by Matt13:
Originally Posted by SluggerDad:
It's illegal to target the fielder -- which is what he did. Should have been ruled illegal at the time
Nope. Torre is changing the definition of interference under this rule. Until today, this was a legal play.
Here is a relevant rule
It is interference by a batter or a runner when --
(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.
No, that's not relevant. That applies only to a batted ball.
I asked my son his perspective, he had his leg broken going into his senior HS year on a play just like that while playing in Australia, missed his senior season.
His take was it was a bad slide (interference) but disagreed with the suspension.
Funny, he is down under playing baseball there now and ran into one of his host families kids from back in 2008.
The first game he played there last week was at the same field where he was injured way back then.
Baseball is a small world!
Pretty sure the only way this would be interference is if the runner went out of the baseline to take out the MI. Utley was well within touching distance of the base. It really was a legal slide.
Heard Harold Reynolds say that, as a SS, he thought it was partially Tejada's fault for staying behind the bag. Reynolds thought he should have gotten out of the way because the ball wasn't hit hard enough to get a DP and Tejada should have known that. Makes sense in a way.
Heard Harold Reynolds say that, as a SS, he thought it was partially Tejada's fault for staying behind the bag. Reynolds thought he should have gotten out of the way because the ball wasn't hit hard enough to get a DP and Tejada should have known that. Makes sense in a way.
And BTW, I think if Tejada didn't break his leg, no one would even be talking about this. Just another play. It's unfortunate his leg got broken, but I think it was kind of a freak thing. Same play could happen 100 more times with no injury. Sometimes things just happen...
Utley suspended for games 3 and 4 by MLB. Has filed an appeal.
IMO: That wasn't a slide. Utley threw himself at Tejada's legs. Heat of the moment - playoffs, looking to tie the score, etc. - it's a play every player is taught to make, go in hard, take out the turn, break up the double play. The only place where "a slide shall be deemed appropriate" is in rule 7.13(1)c comment about the play at the plate. Otherwise, you won't find the definition of a "slide" in the MLB rule book, although the FED (high school) rule book has it.
Regardless of how we feel about the result/aftermath, it's an "accepted" baseball play in MLB even though through HS and College it's not. I guess it's felt a grown man making a living off the sport should be "OK" with the play. The fact that the out at 2B got overturned is odd since if Tejada didn't touch the bag and Utley didn't touch the bag before running off the field, then how do you award him 2B when he abandoned his effort to touch the base before running off the field?
As for retaliation - you don't think MLB hasn't said something to the Mets? I don't see retaliation this year, because whomever retaliates is going to be suspended and then where does it end? I would also not be surprised to see an umpire call an out on a similar play from here on in.
Well, there is also rule 6.05 part m
Rule 6.05 reads:
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.
Rule 6.05 reads:
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.
My $5 worth is they don't need a new rule to handle this situation. They just need to tweek the existing rule. First if a fielder is behind the bag that should allow his protection because that means the double play was so quick the relay is being thrown before the runner can get there OR it's act like a first baseman and stretch while touching the bag. In that case there's no chance at turning the double play but you shouldn't be able to slide over the bag and take out a fielder.
Change the "has to be able to touch the bag" aspect. How many times do we see a runner slide at a MIF who is facing the OF instead of actually trying to reach the bag? This needs to be the runner actually has to touch the bag. This should pull the runner back into the basepath a little bit more.
Last - common sense needs to allowed to make judgements. In this case common sense tells you that Utley went out of his way to take out Tejada. Doesn't matter what intent is because that's so hard to figure out. The intent was to break up a double play although as PG said Utley should have realized there was no need to break it up.
I don't want to see the high school rule of only going into the bag. The existing rule is fine with small tweeks.
Also, I don't care how "legal" this slide was - I think any umpire in MLB would have been fine if they called interference because that's what it was - interference.
Originally Posted by soulslam55:
Either way the benches will clear on Monday or Tuesday in NYC.
You mean players and fans in NYC might become violent...but they are known for being such calm peace loving people.
I'm no expert on the rules and their traditional interpretation.
Utley clearly, recklessly, and needlessly took out Tejada's legs. In doing that, he "took Tejada out" of the playoffs. If there was no injury, there would have a been a ton of drama over this but nothing done; however, injuring a player doing it "ups the ante" and I agree with the suspension and hope it is upheld. And, hypocritically, I hope Utley gets NAILED when he steps into the batter's box.