Can I get a bag, to go?

[Lose Remerswaal]

Suspension is appeal-able, I presume MLB will have the appropriate parties available to adjudicate this before the next game

 

[terrisus]

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. 

 
Agreed. The idea that certain things are "non-reviewable" is beyond absurd.
If a team feels a call is wrong, let them appeal it. If the people doing the review feel the evidence isn't enough to overturn the call, then fine. But no reason at all not to let certain things be reviewed.
 
And the fact that Torre talks about the "neighborhood play" as if it's some sort of official thing is beyond pathetic.
But then, it's no surprise that he's fine with things being called an out as long as they were in the "neighborhood" of making the play...
 

 
Or, you know, the same zipcode at least...

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I questioned this in the NL thread, but I never asked:
 
How would you re-write the rule(s) to accommodate this?

 

[AB in DC]

Simple.  If you slide _past_ second base, it's automatically called interference.  If you want to do a takeout slide, you have to slide into the bag, not through the bag. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I can see that, but runners sometimes over-slide the bag when they're trying to steal (obviously "going for the bag") so a similar legitimate lead running player could be in the same category. Also, the pivot man is often throwing at the runner's head to force him to get down and really fucking with the slide. In those cases it's easy to see how over-sliding can have absolutely no intent behind it.
 
I'm trying to avoid judgment calls - probably impossible - even an over-sliding rule will  involve judgment.
 
This may just be one of those "when you see it you know it" things - like Utley's slide (and a million others)

 

[AB in DC]

I'm trying to avoid judgment calls - probably impossible - even an over-sliding rule will  involve judgment.

 
I guess I wasn't clear.  What I meant was that the runner has to make contact with the bag, and then maintain contact with the bag during the rest of the play -- something that's 100% judgment-proof.  And something that a runner attempting to steal wouldn't do, since he could get tagged out on the other side of the bag.

 

[SumnerH]

 
I guess I wasn't clear.  What I meant was that the runner has to make contact with the bag, and then maintain contact with the bag during the rest of the play -- something that's 100% judgment-proof.  And something that a runner attempting to steal wouldn't do, since he could get tagged out on the other side of the bag.

 
So no more stealing 2nd, sliding in, and then advancing to 3rd when the throw sails into center?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I can see that, but runners sometimes over-slide the bag when they're trying to steal (obviously "going for the bag") so a similar legitimate lead running player could be in the same category. Also, the pivot man is often throwing at the runner's head to force him to get down and really fucking with the slide. In those cases it's easy to see how over-sliding can have absolutely no intent behind it.
 
I'm trying to avoid judgment calls - probably impossible - even an over-sliding rule will  involve judgment.
 
This may just be one of those "when you see it you know it" things - like Utley's slide (and a million others)

 
If the runner is over-sliding the base because the fielder is about to peg him in the face with a throw in order to force the slide, he had no intent of sliding at all.  By that I mean if you are forced into a slide that takes you past the base, the slide attempt was late to begin with.
 
The thing is, on a force play, there is zero advantage for the runner to slide to the side or past the bag in any manner.  On a tag play (such as a steal), the runner is trying to avoid the tag and therefore a slide to the side or past to try to backdoor their way to the base is acceptable (provided the runner isn't out of the baseline to do so).  On a force play, the only goal of the runner is to beat the throw/fielder to the base so as to not be put out.
 
The only reason to slide to the side or past the base on a force play would be to disrupt the fielder.  So I'm not sure how difficult the judgment calls in these cases really are.  If he's not sliding directly at the bag and he takes out the fielder, he's interfering.

 

[twothousandone]

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

I'm surprised they refer to "pivot man." On a slow bouncer up the middle, if the SS grabs it, steps on second base, then throws (awkwardly, all arm?) to 1st, he's not protected by the rule?

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
If the runner is over-sliding the base because the fielder is about to peg him in the face with a throw in order to force the slide, he had no intent of sliding at all.  By that I mean if you are forced into a slide that takes you past the base, the slide attempt was late to begin with.
 
The thing is, on a force play, there is zero advantage for the runner to slide to the side or past the bag in any manner.  On a tag play (such as a steal), the runner is trying to avoid the tag and therefore a slide to the side or past to try to backdoor their way to the base is acceptable (provided the runner isn't out of the baseline to do so).  On a force play, the only goal of the runner is to beat the throw/fielder to the base so as to not be put out.

Not exactly. His other reasonable goal is to not overrun the base, since he is liable to being put out if he does so.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm surprised they refer to "pivot man." On a slow bouncer up the middle, if the SS grabs it, steps on second base, then throws (awkwardly, all arm?) to 1st, he's not protected by the rule?

 
If you want to stretch the definition a bit, even when a fielder fields the ball and touches the bag themselves, they are still the pivot man as the play still turns on them. I'm not sure it's something that's worth getting hung up on.

 

[Lowrielicious]

 
If you want to stretch the definition a bit, even when a fielder fields the ball and touches the bag themselves, they are still the pivot man as the play still turns on them. I'm not sure it's something that's worth getting hung up on.

That and the fact that a SS in that situation will have the runner in front of him and see him coming if he comes after him. Much much easier to avoid the slide/tackle in that situation.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

As I said in the other thread, I think if you really want tighter enforcement you have to word the rule so that the burden is on the runner, i.e., if the runner interferes with the fielder making a pivot throw, the default call is that both runners are out unless the judgment of the ump is that the runner was clearly not trying to interfere and couldn't avoid the contact. If you require the ump to make a definite judgment of intent to interfere, the call will rarely be made. It's just human nature. 

 

[Wake's knuckle]

Personally... I think a fastball in the ribs is too good for him. One of the most despicable plays I've ever seen.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Personally... I think a fastball in the ribs is too good for him. One of the most despicable plays I've ever seen.

I honestly had never thought of Utley as a dirty player before this, although it appears he has a history of taking out Tejada. That said, the play was dirty and malicious and he should be done for the postseason. That was honestly pathetic. The Mets WILL go after him next season, that's a lock.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

As I said in the other thread, I think if you really want tighter enforcement you have to word the rule so that the burden is on the runner, i.e., if the runner interferes with the fielder making a pivot throw, the default call is that both runners are out unless the judgment of the ump is that the runner was clearly not trying to interfere and couldn't avoid the contact. If you require the ump to make a definite judgment of intent to interfere, the call will rarely be made. It's just human nature. 

The rule, as written, already does this. It's never not going to be a judgement call, but any time a runner doesas anything to alter their path to attempt to break up the double play they are in violation of rules. Is kind of baffling that it hasn't been called more often because the wording isn't unclear.

Anything other than the most direct path to the bag on a force play is almost assuredly going to be a violation. That's the baseline... or at least should be.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The rule, as written, already does this. It's never not going to be a judgement call, but any time a runner doesas anything to alter their path to attempt to break up the double play they are in violation of rules. Is kind of baffling that it hasn't been called more often because the wording isn't unclear.

Anything other than the most direct path to the bag on a force play is almost assuredly going to be a violation. That's the baseline... or at least should be.

 
There's a difference between a rule that's worded to make something a violation and a rule that's worded to make it likely the violation will be called. Yes, it's never not going to be a judgement call, but right now the judgement is required to find that a violation has occurred. I'm proposing to word the rule so that the judgement is required in order to find that a violation has not occurred. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but psychologically, I don't think it is.
 
The rule as currently worded:
 
"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..." et cetera.
 
The revision I'm advocating would read something like this:
 
"If a base runner interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference....etc.....However, if, in the judgment of the umpire, the interference was inadvertent and unintentional, then the ball remains in play and the results of the play will stand."
 
It doesn't make anything a violation that wasn't already, but it means that an umpire's ordinary human reluctance to claim knowledge of another's intentions will operate in the opposite direction than it currently does.

 

[SumnerH]

The rule, as written, already does this. It's never not going to be a judgement call, but any time a runner doesas anything to alter their path to attempt to break up the double play they are in violation of rules. Is kind of baffling that it hasn't been called more often because the wording isn't unclear.

Anything other than the most direct path to the bag on a force play is almost assuredly going to be a violation. That's the baseline... or at least should be.

 
Or a hook slide or the like to avoid a tag, which should usually be away from interference anyway.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm going to label this a problem - I don't think infielders should be injured through the application of the "regular rules" of baseball.  I realize Utley was disciplined, but it's not like this was some sort of isolated freak event.   While I'm not strongly pulling for the Mets in this post season, it really sucks when avoidable injuries impact a team's chances. 
 
There's always going to be gray areas, but it seems there are many ways to solve this.
 
This may sound a little weird, but why not chalk a line into second and third base?  If a baserunner crosses "inside" the line, i.e., closer to home, they've automatically left the basepath and are out.  That'd give umps a clear visual and infielders an automatic safe zone.  
 
Another option is some kind of stronger penalty than just the runner being out/an appealable suspension.  

 

[AB in DC]

The rule as currently worded:
 
"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..." et cetera.
 

 
I think that's the wrong rule -- that refers to interfering with the original fielder to touch the ball..  You want Rule 5.09(a)(13), here and excerpted below:
 
 
5.09 Making an Out (a) (6.05) Retiring the Batter A batter is out when:-
(13) 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 5.09(a)(13) Comment (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.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I think that's the wrong rule -- that refers to interfering with the original fielder to touch the ball..  You want Rule 5.09(a)(13), here and excerpted below:
 
 
5.09 Making an Out (a) (6.05) Retiring the Batter A batter is out when:-
(13) 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 5.09(a)(13) Comment (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.

 
OK--weird, they seem to say the same thing in slightly different language. Either way, the point stands: 5.09(a)(13) also calls for the umpire to make a positive judgment of intent to interfere, which I think is the problem.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Or a hook slide or the like to avoid a tag, which should usually be away from interference anyway.

The most direct path to the bag should only be a factor on force plays... at least in this context. And in the scene of a tag play there will very rarely be a runner behind the guy being tagged to double up.

6.05 (m) also covers this situation as does the comment on 5.09 (a) (13) and 6.05 (m), which provides additional context.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
OK--weird, they seem to say the same thing in slightly different language. Either way, the point stands: 5.09(a)(13) also calls for the umpire to make a positive judgment of intent to interfere, which I think is the problem.

I really don't think this is in any way the issue. It's the old school hard play mentality that's causing issues.

If the existing language deems any alteration of the runner's path for the purposes of breaking up a double play to be illegal then no judgement is required at all. In a double play situation a direct path to the bag, and only a direct path is legal. Every other path a runner can take is illegal because there is no tag to avoid.

If a tag is incoming because of a poor throw the double play is already off and the focus is then on getting one out with the lead runner.

Any actual double play being turned involves a force out which, consequently will cover a good 99% of opportunities for a runner to break up the play in the first place.

The reason it's rarely called is because it's one of those rules that's been ignored so long that people think the rule is different then it actually is. "Within reach of the bag" or "Makes an effort to touch the bag" or whatever. I'm sure Utley thought it was a legal play. They just need to get umpires to start calling it.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I really don't think this is in any way the issue. It's the old school hard play mentality that's causing issues.

If the existing language deems any alteration of the runner's path for the purposes of breaking up a double play to be illegal then no judgement is required at all. In a double play situation a direct path to the bag, and only a direct path is legal. Every other path a runner can take is illegal because there is no tag to avoid.

 
But that's not what the existing language says, at all. The rule that AB in DC quoted says that there must be intent to interfere and that it is up to the umpire's judgment to determine this. The comment goes on to suggest that the intention must be clear--"for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play"--and reiterates that "Obviously this is an umpire's judgment play".

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
But that's not what the existing language says, at all. The rule that AB in DC quoted says that there must be intent to interfere and that it is up to the umpire's judgment to determine this. The comment goes on to suggest that the intention must be clear--"for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play"--and reiterates that "Obviously this is an umpire's judgment play".

 
But in the case of a force play, what other purpose could there be for a runner to slide anywhere but directly at the bag?  If the runner slides two feet to the side of the base and that's where the fielder is or is going to be as he makes the play, how is that not an obvious attempt to intentionally interfere with the play?
 
Something like this....
 

 
...should never be allowed to happen without an interference call.  There is no debate on a play like that.  No grey area where an umpire's judgement can be in doubt.

 

[Average Reds]

Mr. Miyagi must have been working with the Brewers, because that's a textbook crane kick that's about to be delivered. I fear for the base runner.

 

[terrisus]

Mr. Miyagi must have been working with the Brewers, because that's a textbook crane kick that's about to be delivered. I fear for the base runner.

 

Well, hey, maybe if the fielders would start fighting back, this whole thing would sort itself out.
And eventually we'd just be playing American Football.

 

[AB in DC]

 
But in the case of a force play, what other purpose could there be for a runner to slide anywhere but directly at the bag?  If the runner slides two feet to the side of the base and that's where the fielder is or is going to be as he makes the play, how is that not an obvious attempt to intentionally interfere with the play?
 
Something like this....
 

 
...should never be allowed to happen without an interference call.  There is no debate on a play like that.  No grey area where an umpire's judgement can be in doubt.

 
I think the umps do call interference on occasion when the runner is out of the baseline like that.  But that's pretty rare now; for most of the examples I've seen lately, the runner is at least making a pretense of reaching for the bag.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I think the umps do call interference on occasion when the runner is out of the baseline like that.  But that's pretty rare now; for most of the examples I've seen lately, the runner is at least making a pretense of reaching for the bag.

 
That pretense doesn't matter, though. If you deviate your path to break up the double play, whether you can reach the bag or not, your slide is illegal. It still doesn't take any judgement to rule on it. Any time a runner alters their path to line up with a defender instead of the bag, they are in violation of the rule. You are either going directly for the bag and are sliding early enough to ensure you won't over-slide it, or you are in violation of the rule. A foot to the left or right is the same as a yard. It's really easy to see because the runner will be shifting their path in the same direction the defender is moving. Short stop coming across the bag headed toward right center? If the runner goes from directly to the bag to the right side of it, make the call. If a second baseman is moving toward third base while trying to turn it and the runner adjusts to slide to the left of the bag, make the call. Runner starts their slide late? Make the call. Runner comes in high... make the call.
 
It's not hard to spot a take out slide as they are really really obvious. The only reason they aren't called is because they aren't expected to be called. If the league comes down and starts pushing for that call to be made, it will be made and it won't be difficult for an ump in the vast majority of cases. Shortly after that, takeout slides will stop happening just like collisions at the plate have stopped happening. The wording of the rule isn't the problem and changing the wording won't change anything on the field if the league doesn't make it known that they expect umpires to start enforcing it as it is written and not as it's been called historically.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Why did Utley appeal the suspension if he wasn't going to play in the two games anyway? Now he's looking at the possibility of being suspended during the NLCS which will leave the Dodgers with a 24 man roster for those two games. This seems like a selfish decision on Utley's part. Why wouldn't management step in and force his hand on this one?

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Games 3 and 4 were in New York. How does MLB not do the appeal before Game 3.

 

[BigJimEd]

Games 3 and 4 were in New York. How does MLB not do the appeal before Game 3.

Seriously? What a joke! No matter where the games were they need to have the appeal done before the next game.
The fact that it is in NY just makes it all the more baffling. Well, baffling is the wrong word since this is MLB but it is still pathetic.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
That pretense doesn't matter, though. If you deviate your path to break up the double play, whether you can reach the bag or not, your slide is illegal. It still doesn't take any judgement to rule on it.

 
You keep saying this, and the wording of the rule keeps making nonsense of it. If it really requires no judgment, then why does MLB go out of its way to affirm twice, once in the language of the rule itself and again in the following comment, that judgment of intent is not only necessary but essential to this call--"obviously" so in fact?
 
If you were right, then the rule would already be worded quite differently, and in a way that would make the call easy: it would say something like "if the runner deviates from a direct path toward the base, the play is dead and both the runner and batter-runner are out." If it were a simple matter of geometry, why wouldn't they say so? The writers of the rule apparently disagree with you--they think it's possible to slide into second base in a way that is not direct, yet doesn't imply intent to interfere. They may be wrong, you may be right, but you didn't write the rule, they did.
 
Maybe a directive from the league would help, but I think without a rewording, it won't help enough. It needs to be made clear to the umpires that calling a violation on the play does not require them to read the runner's mind or judge his intent. As the rule stands, that's far from clear.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Okay. Then explain to me how a runner could justify adjusting their path to align with the fielder instead of the base if the intent is not to break up the double play.

It really is binary. You are either trying to get to the base first or you are trying to break up the play.