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

I think the only question at this point is ribs or ear hole.

Fenway - the picture that you're using is deceptive. It's not from last night game / play - although it does show that Utley comes in hot to break up DP's.   Here's a link to video - http://es.pn/1R5EZg4 .  

 

From this video it sure looks to me like Tejada tagged the bag. Not sure about being out for interference though. Utley slid (tackled) late to break it up. He was not out of base path though.

I don't have skin in the game with these two teams but this type of slide came up in a thread a month or so ago.  Yeah, he was sort of in the base path but didn't start sliding until WELL past the bag.  It seems to be within the MLB rules but they keep letting it get further and further out of control.  I've seen so many of these types of slides where there is clearly no intent to catch the bag and the slide starts or goes well beyond.  This needs to change.  Sliding hard INTO the bag is fine - part of the game.  Taking out the MIF that wants to occupy the space between runner and bag is fine - part of the game.  Going three feet PAST the bag or more should not be fine.  It's fairly easy to see.  I just don't get it.  The pic above is actually a perfect example.  He is well past the bag and just STARTING his slide.  No chance or intention of reaching the bag safely.  I guess it's going to take a flurry of torn up knees and broken legs to bring about obviously needed change, which is unfortunate.

My take is bad, bad, & bad. Utley doesn't hit the ground until after hitting Tejada. Tejada does touch the bag and Utley never tags second. Can't figure that one out there.  Didn't put the neighborhood play in for just that reason?

Can't wait to see who gets beaned on Monday. 

Phanatic,

 

My cut and paste skills aren't what they used to be without my reading glasses.  I've updated my picture.  You are right he is not out of the base path, however he did not slide until he was past the bag thereby initiating contact and not touching the bag on the slide.  

 

The talking heads keep talking about Utley's intent..."nobody knows Utley's intent".  That is absolute horsesh*t.  Utley's intent was to break up the play (score a run) any way possible and put the burden of the post season call on the Umpires  It worked. 

 

 

Made no attempt at bag, should have been ruled out, injury or no injury. IMO went beyond hard nosed and was dirty.

 .

Fenway - that is still the wrong picture. Here is the right one - :*)

 

 

+1 to ribs or ear hole

It's legal in pro ball...I don't agree with it, but it's legal.

Because of replay, the neighborhood play is no more.

I think it's time for Utley to go.  He was a great player but has reduced himself to a thug.

Bad.  If legal (and that is debatable), the rules need to be changed to where there is no debate.

 

Rule change will be called the "Utley" rule.

 

 

Really? Utley a thug? Give me a break.

 

Legal within the current rules, if they want to change it then change it, good hard nosed play. Stop the whining particularly, Pedro, wa wa wa. He can pick on 70 YO coach, but wants to whine about this? 

 

Sorry, move on, next game. 

 

I am a Dodger fan but LOVE those two flame throwers from the Mets! 

I think the Mets will win it also, Dodgers don't have the offense to handle really good pitching. 

I thought that the neighborhood play was non-reviewable?  Has this changed since they first came out with IR?  Thought i remembered them saying they were going to allow the neighborhood play stay and be a non-reviewable play in order to maintain the safety of the MIs?

Good intention to break up double play, bad execution. My two cents

If they make a rule to protect the catcher from getting drilled why wouldn't they protect the MIF from getting slaughtered? The SS was hit behind the bag, he wasn't gaining ground to 1B.

 

I thought the (slide?) was late. I understand these guys play for keeps and this was a must game.  I can even appreciate what Utley did, that type of slide is also dangerous to the slider. At the same time, it sure could be called dirty, but more importantly I thought it was kind of a dumb play by Utley.  That said, it is hard to believe how everything turned out.

 

First of all, Utley should have known this wasn't going to be a double play As soon as he saw the soft toss from the 2b.  Why would he take a chance on what the umpire might call?  If they did call interference, it actually would have been a double play and the Mets would have been out of the inning without scoring.

 

Then after the collision he never went back to touch the bag. A play that should never have happened changed the game completely.  And with the broken leg it could even change the series.

 

I would have called it a double play because it seemed Utley never went for the bag (not even with his hand) And it was late.  Furthermore, I think it was a very high risk play by Utley.  Had he been called out and it was called a double play, today everyone would be talking about how stupid that (slide?) was.

 

I don't favor either team, you can appreciate the effort, but to me this play was unnecessary and border line stupid, even though it worked out perfectly for the Dodgers.  If MLB calls this a legal slide, it is time to make a rule change to protect those MIF's without any protective equipment, just like they changed the rule to protect the catcher.

I'll be at the game Monday and Tuesday nights (lifelong Mets fan)...the retribution won't come until the game is out of hand or locked up...and don't assume it will come from a pitcher. Somebody may get run over very hard on the basepaths in this one. 

 

Either way the benches will clear on Monday or Tuesday in NYC. 

Unlike a pitcher purposely throwing at a hitter, I don't think Utley's intent was to injure anyone.  His intent was to break up a double play and do what is necessary to win a game the Dodgers desperately needed.

 

As mentioned before, I thought it wasn't a great decision on his part the way he did it and it wasn't necessary, but as sometimes happens, even the wrong play can turn into a winning play.

 

Bottom line, in my opinion, it was unnecessary.  If that is called legal, the rule needs to change.

 

I don't think there will be any retaliation by the Mets, unless it would be something they think will help them win a game.  Then again, it might be interesting if Utley had to turn a double play.

For the win!

Completely agree. I don't think Utley is a dirty player but this was a bad move on his part.  Though it may not technically be illegal it was totally unnecessary and likely to cause injury. 

Pretty sure he will Mets pitchers will not be quite as diplomatic as Collins.  

Here is how one ended up over 40 years ago in the playoffs.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6...uffle-at-second-base

 

 

1st and 10!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIiYw53nGd0

This is one of my favorites.

       
       


Not much has changed over the years, has it?  Other than maybe our collective attitude towards it...

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.

       
       

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

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.

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.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoff...oke-ruben-tejada-leg

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

       
       


Rule is renumbered but reads exactly the same as the 2014 version

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. "

Because every major leaguer has exactly the same intent going into the bag. 

 

I agree with PG that Torre/MLB over reacted, which probably had a lot to do with all the commotion going on in the NY press over it. Had it been the other way around all of the NY papers and talk shows would have been saying that it was a "good hard play". From what I understand the Players Union will be showing pictures of multiple other "hard slides" that did not result in a suspension, I think they have a strong case.  

 

I also agree that the rule needs to be changed, or at least enforced within the language of the current rule. 

 

From what I read this morning the there is a good chance that Utley will play today because of the favorable match ups. That will be fun! I also hope they do not warn teams before the game and just let them play on. 

Probably like most everyone here, I have watched that video numerous times. In regular speed, slow motion, frame-by-frame and I guess I'm just seeing something different. Yes, it was a late slide. But, I see him reaching for the bag. His hand is actually over the bag when his head makes contact with Tejada's knee. That impact is what twisted their bodies and threw Utley in a strange direction past second base. He definitely would have ended up past 2nd even without the violent collision, but I think he would have touched the bag in the process of sliding (on his knees) past the bag.  Below are a couple pics I found. Please disregard the meme and the message in the 2nd pic. Its the best still shot I could find and I don't endorse the message.

It's definitely not his most egregious slide this season, as far as being out of the base path or away from the bag. The 3rd pic is from earlier this season and he has no hope of touching the bag at all, but there was no suspension. I just don't like the inconsistent message from the MLB. It's like an inconsistent strike zone. If you don't know the rules, then it's hard to play the game.

Has anyone here ever seen a slide into 2nd base declared illegal or interference in MLB?  Is there even a precedent for this?

I like it.  It is true.  You can probably find 100 pictures of a BR breaking up the DP in which the runner is WAY further from the base than Utley was.  It was a freak accident on a play that happens many, many times during the regular season that you never even hear about.

Calling this a "slide into second base" seems like a stretch to me.   It was hardly a slide.  And it certainly wasn't "into second base."    Look at how his  body touches  the fielder before making contact with the ground even and after he is almost completely past the bag.  This was an attempt to body tackle the fielder.  Period.  

He wasn't going into 2nd base?  Here's a picture directly down the 1st base line.  He is certainly going into 2nd base...

 

 

I really don't understand all the outrage.  I've said it before, I'll say it again - EVERY player is taught to break up the DP from the time he starts playing baseball.  How can you say that he should be called out because he was trying to "take out" the SS???  It's what EVERY runner does in this situation.  And there are plays in which the runner was WAY, WAY further away from the base than Utley was here.  Look at the 3rd picture in kandkfunk's post above.  Utley isn't anywhere near the bag, yet no one made a stink about it.

 

Maybe there needs to be a rule change.  Maybe some people feel that he shouldn't have gone in that hard.  But, he did not violate any rule.  He just didn't.  I think if you want to argue about this play, argue that the rules need to be changed.  Not that what Utley did was wrong.  In my opinion, if a player has a problem with this play, they are a hypocrite.  I guarantee EVERY MLB player has gone into 2nd trying to take out the MI to break up the DP.  It is a part of baseball.  

By the same token, you could say this was an attempt to nail the runner with an ill timed spinning back round kick. Perhaps Tejada anticipated that Utley would attempt to take him out, and sought to teach him a lesson with his previously unknown ninja skills.  

I thought Utley took a pretty good hit to the head in that collision. I was actually surprised that no trainer looked at him to check for a concussion.

http://cdn.barstoolsports.com/...2/dwright.jpg?6a89d0

 

Apparently Utley has been on both sides of this 

Haven't read the posts - but for me it's simple: Change the rule.

 

Until that happens, let 'em play.

 

And if they change the rule, get rid of the neighborhood play.

 

 

Pedro Martinez talking about it today. His take is Tejada should have never turned his back to Utley because as nice as he is off the field he is ruthless on the field.  He personally didn't like the play. He more or less agreed he was out to tackle him.  Pedro loves the young kids, I can see why he thought it was unnecessary.

Also, the suspension was just a move to keep Utely off the field while in NY.  He is planning on retiring, so he will never see s suspension.  Oyt more or less was sending a message to everyone.

I have to agree with that point.

Hell of a way for Utley to slide tackle his way into notoriety, er...retirement.

This is funny and simple minded, Utley is a class act and has been for years. If baseball had more like him the game would be a better sport. Quite possibly my favorite player ever. 

 

Smart, hustle, heady he played the game right 

Yes. Like the time he scored from second on a groundout to the pitcher. It's about halfway into this 2-minute clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjoyK5_Ae48

 

Has been 2019Son's favorite player.

 

The fake throw to first and get the out at home in game 5 of the 08 series....but honestly it was just the day to day activities that made him great....oh and the world f***ing champions line that was so honest not even grandmothers were upset with him. Love Chase

MLB + NYPD = suspension umpires vs MLB

Objective is to reduce problems. Enjoy the game.

12 of our former Area Code and Goodwill Series alumni are playing in this game.

 

Bob

 

 

It was a legal slide. He could reach the base. He wasn't out of the baseline. A MLB base runner's responsibility is to take out (within the rules) a middle infielder attempting to turn two. Utley isn't a dirty player. He's a hard nose player. He's old school like most fans wish players would be.

In football there's good reason why a Chop Block gets a heavy penalty.  The same reasoning for the same kind of move should be applied to "taking out a middle infielder".

So you are arguing for a rules change...fair enough but that is a conversation for the winter, next year, the rules committee or whatever. It doesn't change this play or if it was legal.

I'm pretty sure I'm not simple-minded; I'm pretty sure you were being pejorative; and I'm pretty sure you read far too much into my post, which had nothing to do with his preceding career. As for him being your favorite player ever, yes, that is clear. You might as well be his publicist on this thread. But hey, clearly, not everyone thinks as highly of Utley as you do = duh.

Okay as OP, I've given this some time and distance.  Read all the posts and I've changed my mind.

 

1) Was it a dirty play....no.  Tejada should not have turned his back. I believe this led to his injury because he didn't know where Utley was.

 

2) Was it a hard nosed play....yes.  Have there been worse take out slides in the history of baseball...yes.   If Tejada had not turned his back I think this injury could have been avoided or Utley would have got a face full of cowhide.

 

3) Did MLB overreact....certainly.  That is what they do.  They'll have time to figure it out in the off season.

 

4) Does there need to be a rule put in place that prevents someone sliding into a MIF past the bag.....yes.

 

 

 

Here's my question: in order to be a "slide" doesn't the lower body have to be on the dirt at least a little in front of the bag? Utley hit Tejada behind the bag before hitting the dirt at all. In my book that just isn't a slide. It's a hit. 

 

Could I "slide" into first base by taking out the first baseman, hoping to disrupt a throw home to get a runner going from second to home knowing the "slide" play is on?

 

Open the MLB rule book:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloa...l_baseball_rules.pdf

 

now search for "slide".  Tell us what you find. I think you'll find there's some verbiage about a "legal slide" at home base, but that's about it. Without a definition or rule, an umpire would be hard pressed to create his own. Thus he goes with the accepted practices.

 

 

I believe you have described the "accepted terminology" for a slide and what youth players are taught. You've also somewhat described what is found the High School Federation Rules handbook where there's quite a few points detailing what an illegal slide is.

 

Not sure what your "play" above references... On a ball in the infield where a play is being made at 1B and the runner slides to take out the fielder so he cannot throw home to get a runner from 2B?  That's two very speedy runners. If it was a ball to the outfield and the runner "slides" into 1B to take out the fielder - that's interference if there isn't a play being made on the runner.  You'd need to be more specific with what you're asking (and of course ask it in the umpire forum ;-)).

 

There is a reason youth league rule books go in great detail about sliding and also why there's always controversy whether it's a "must slide" or a "slide or avoid" rule.  If you haven't seen a youth coach acting like Billy Martin on such a play, then count yourself as "lucky" unless you like the entertainment value.  By the written rule, a player sliding into a base, without play being made on him, and the ball not in the possession of the fielder is probably one of two things - obstruction on the fielder for standing in the baseline or on the base or interference on the runner for taking out the fielder. In HS if that crash was harsh enough (at any base BTW) you can have malicious contact. That's when you get to see a HS coach act like Earl Weaver.

 

Interesting piece on Utley causing season-ending injury to SFG OF Gregor Blanco. Inadvertent it seemed at the time. But was it....?

 

http://www.mccoveychronicles.c...rkknee-gregor-blanco

Tune in tonight to Coast To Coast AM with George Noory to find out.

Once again, according to Pedro, he had a rep among players to watch out for him.

He sat the bench for two games. I guess they were afraid he would get hurt...awwwwww poor Chase.

 

You got a thing for Pedro, TPM?

The author wonders in his piece about the possibility of confirmation bias on his part.

 

I think that's the best explanation for how anyone could look at this video and see evil intent on a play in which the infielder has to a) run to second base to cover the bag, b) change direction the moment he reaches the bag because the ball is tailing back into the runner, and c) get low enough to be in position to block and field a ball that arrives off line and late while the runner is diving into him.

 

It strains credulity to assert that Utley "caused" the injury to Blanco. It looked to me like two guys playing hard and happening to be in the same spot at the same time, a spot Utley arrived at because the ball led him there. 

 

It also looked like the two players were about equally exposed to risk of injury. If that helmet had hit Utley a little lower or at a different angle, Utley could have been the one whose season had been ended. 

 

There's no way a non-superhuman could do everything Utley had to do on that play while also intentionally putting his knee in just the right spot that the impact would hurt the runner but not him. 

 

 

So with the Dodgers now out, does MLB quietly make this go away or do they follow the NFL's example and make a mountain out of a molehill for something that's "part of the game"...

I believe it just goes away.

Neither mountain nor molehill.....Owners change the rules to protect their assets.  If a $20M a year shortstop is out for a year, the game is damaged.  Imagine if it was a May game and Jeter was hurt.

I agree with Go44dad.  The owners have to protect their assets and I would assert the rules are not very clear on what is a slide and not a slide.  Even someone who doesn't watch baseball (my mother) noticed that he didn't slide, made no attempt to touch the bag and initiated contact past the bag.  

 

I see this going the same way as the Buster Posey situation at home plate a few years ago.  Some "smart guys" (not executives) will get together and modify the sliding rules at 2nd base to protect the players.  Frankly, I have no problem with it. 

 

There are many changes I would make if I was commissioner for a day.  This would go to the top of the list because it has to do with safety and it is something that can be avoided by simply altering the rule book language.  There is always going to be contact at 2nd base in baseball but there is a significant difference between being slide into for the purposes of breaking up a double play and being tackled on a blitz. 

 

As always JMO.

To my knowledge, there is no rule in MLB that you even have to slide in this situation.  The only qualifier I'm aware of is when you go into 2nd base, you have to be close enough to touch the bag.  Definition of a slide doesn't matter, because it's not even something you are required to do.  

Legal??  Yes, according to the rules...or lack of.

 

Dirty??  In my mind...absolutely!  Everyone has an opinion...that's mine

 

Rule change on the way??  I think so.

 

Congrats to Utley....he will now be the source behind "The Utley Rule"....lol