Funny how the same play in football--a hard hit to a defenseless receiver--is illegal. While it might have been legal, that slide was vicious.
1
Thanks for your opinion, but we're from New York, and we'll "move on" when we're damn good and ready.
The slide was illegal by any normal reading of the rules. That other such slides have been tolerated isn't the issue. It's not too much to ask a baserunner to actually try to slide into the bag they're supposed to be attempting to reach.
The slide was illegal by any normal reading of the rules. That other such slides have been tolerated isn't the issue. It's not too much to ask a baserunner to actually try to slide into the bag they're supposed to be attempting to reach.
2
There have always been hard slides into second in order to break up double play attempts. There has also been a history of calling runners out, along with the batter, for interference when their slide takes them outside of the normal path into second base and the umpires rule that this prevented the completion of the double play. The difference here is that Utley could have taken Tejada out with a completely legal slide, sliding in sideways with either his feet or his upper body coming across the bag. Instead, Utley chose to come in straight at Tejada's legs, wide of the bag.
I don't think the issue is Tejada's injury as it is reasonably likely that his leg would have been broken by any rough slide given his position relative to the runner. The issue is the failure of the umpires to enforce the interference rule which is what turned Utley into the target of NYers ire.
The correct target should have been the umpires and the league should have addressed their failure instead of suspending Utley.
I don't think the issue is Tejada's injury as it is reasonably likely that his leg would have been broken by any rough slide given his position relative to the runner. The issue is the failure of the umpires to enforce the interference rule which is what turned Utley into the target of NYers ire.
The correct target should have been the umpires and the league should have addressed their failure instead of suspending Utley.
2
The thing with Rhoden is, he's the designated contrarian at NYT, the guy who always pops up to say "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
The best thing, really, is to not say anything at all in response to Rhoden. We read him because we know his schtick, and we want, really, to be outraged, as if that is somehow a self-actualizing experience in sports. Collectively, these comments, really, are making his day, as well as making his editors happy. And if there were no comments at all?
That would be a fail.
The best thing, really, is to not say anything at all in response to Rhoden. We read him because we know his schtick, and we want, really, to be outraged, as if that is somehow a self-actualizing experience in sports. Collectively, these comments, really, are making his day, as well as making his editors happy. And if there were no comments at all?
That would be a fail.
3
Sorry, Rhoden, I know you are an old time Dodgers fan, but that was not a hard nosed baseball play, under the rules it was illegal. The baseball rules make clear that sliding outside the base line (the rhumb line between first and second base) where it is apparent the runner had no intention of heading towards the bag, with the intent of interfering with the pivot man trying to make a double play, is illegal. If Utley had slid over the bag and then took out Tejada, or was even close, it would technically be legal, but it was clear he had no intent (and that is in baseball rule 605). IN 2007 Marlon Anderson of the Mets did something similar, and was called out at second and the guy going to first was called out as well, for interference. It could be umpires routinely don't enforce this rule, but it is there to protect the guy at second from getting hurt. Torre suspended Utley because he felt the umps should have enforced the rule, and that an illegal (and late) slide ended up causing injury. The umps blew the call, which ended up affecting the game, Torre was trying to bring some balance to it.
4
I'm not a Mets or Dodgers fan and don't really have a dog in their fight. Nonetheless, I greatly disagree with Mr. Rhoden's assessment. Utley never really "slud" at all, he threw a body block. He was way past the bag and therefore way out of the normal baseline when he hit the Met shortstop. His claim that he did not intend to hurt him is really meaningless. Legally, you are presumed to intend the natural and probable results of your actions. Can you flip a lighted cigarette on a pile of straw and say that you didn't intend to start a fire because you were just throwing away your smoke? The shortstop actually moved away from the bag in an attempt to avoid Utley, but Utley sought him out anyway. This was not a rough but normal slide in any way. To say that it was really insults all the Big Leaguers who truly play hard but fair and avoid cheap shotting the opposition.
10
I have said my piece on the slide. I make several observations here to enlighten rather than argue.
With runners on first and third, the Mets infield was at double play depth. Murphy was playing close to second and would not otherwise have had a chance at the ball. He fielded it right behind the bag and made an off balance flip to Tejada that was high and to the third base side of second. Tejada reached for the ball and apparently failed to tag second despite reaching for it with his right foot. Seeing Utley approach second, Tejada turned his back on him. When Utley began his slide, Tejada was faced away. At that point, Utley was 5-10 feet from the bag. Utley slid within reach of second directly at Tejada. He slid on his knees with his spikes facing first (which is unusual) and when he slid, Tejada was facing between 3rd and home. Tejada fell sideways over Utley. Tejada's leg was in the air during his fall and landing. The forceful contact and twisting of Tejada's leg occurred as Utley hit him and as he lost his balance.
With runners on first and third, the Mets infield was at double play depth. Murphy was playing close to second and would not otherwise have had a chance at the ball. He fielded it right behind the bag and made an off balance flip to Tejada that was high and to the third base side of second. Tejada reached for the ball and apparently failed to tag second despite reaching for it with his right foot. Seeing Utley approach second, Tejada turned his back on him. When Utley began his slide, Tejada was faced away. At that point, Utley was 5-10 feet from the bag. Utley slid within reach of second directly at Tejada. He slid on his knees with his spikes facing first (which is unusual) and when he slid, Tejada was facing between 3rd and home. Tejada fell sideways over Utley. Tejada's leg was in the air during his fall and landing. The forceful contact and twisting of Tejada's leg occurred as Utley hit him and as he lost his balance.
Utley did not slide, he threw his body at Tejada in a cross body block.
2
You are right. Let's play. You know who is playing? Curtis Granderson. The guy brings it every time. Batting over .500 in the postseason, 5.1 WAR in the regular season. I am real sure that EVERY team says. "Oh, Jeez, here he comes again. Freakin' Curtis." Lets play.
3
I saw that play. There is no way the broken leg was anything but an unfortunate accident. If Torre is at all fair he will rescind the suspension.
3
Thank goodness! A bit of sanity / measured commentary. We are all sorry for poor Tejada. But lynch mobs are never pretty, and rarely procure anything close to "justice."
5
There has been no lynch mob. This is an absurd comment and should be removed.
2
Um, "lynch mobs?" If we want sanity and measured commentary, then let's have it--by avoiding hyperbolic language.
1
Imagine if the manager of the Mets had been Billy Martin, Joe Girardi or Lou Piniella... They would been out on the field making their presence felt in a quite effective way.
1
Terry Collins has been the perfect manager for this young and deeply talented Mets organization. No hothead manager could have helped the 2015 Mets coalesce the way they did. He has managed the starting rotation, bullpen, and young position players wonderfully. Terry's demeanor has helped the club win. He is a calm and collected even when the situation around him is chaotic. He has set the tone for the first Mets NL East championship since 2006 and I, for one, am grateful for his efforts.
8
But isn't a 13-7 victory that put the Dodgers on the brink of elimination "making their presence felt," too, AND "in a quite effective way?" I'm not sure Terry Collins could've done something to fit your bill that wouldn't also have compromised the Mets' chances in Game 3, even if only a little.
4
Say, Gakka, what effect do you suppose these 3 (hmm, funny, all Yankees managers, any agenda there?) highly effective people would have had? Would they have kicked dirt? stepped on their hats? Would they have been ejected? That's effective. The Mets beat the Dodgers in a blowout the next game (3 garbage time runs at the end off the mop-up man made the final score look closer than the game did). I'll take that kind of "effectiveness" every time. BTW the Yankees have won a total of 2 of their 27 titles with any of those 3 managers at the helm.
1
Calling Utley's "slide" just a "hard baseball play" is laughable. A sports writer like you should be able to recognize a hip check when you see one. And Utley applied it beyond the bag he was supposedly trying to reach to a player with his back turned, and Utley hit him hard enough to break his leg. A hard baseball play? No, it was cheap and dangerous, and the Dodgers will face no real discipline for it, something you fail to mention. Perhaps all the years of the Times fawning over Joe Torre have clouded your judgment.
17
Mr Rhoden's column seems rather ... exaggerated. Citi Field a tinderbox? Now, Rhoden, please back this up with more than rhetoric. Were there arrests? Fights? Did anyone in a Dodgers jersey get anything more than a dirty look and a muttered comment?
Mr. Rhoden no doubt knows that in the United States, Mets and Dodger fans occupy adjacent seats and fights are rare and immedialty controlled. In the oh so civil UK, with the gun laws the editorial board envies, fans of Arsenal and Chelsea set in the same stadium, separated by dozens of security officers and often empty sections. They do not even use the same restrooms. As a Jets season ticket holder, I have often sat close by Dolphins fans. You grit your teeth and watch the game.
Mr. Rhoden seems to attribute the riots and deaths at Heysel to Citi Field on the basis of his own rhetoric. The sport fan readership of this website have granted him a good living by reading his columns and handing him clicks and comments. So we get, in return, a clickbait column insulting the fans. Thank you, Mr. Rhoden. It's good to know how you value us.
Mr. Rhoden no doubt knows that in the United States, Mets and Dodger fans occupy adjacent seats and fights are rare and immedialty controlled. In the oh so civil UK, with the gun laws the editorial board envies, fans of Arsenal and Chelsea set in the same stadium, separated by dozens of security officers and often empty sections. They do not even use the same restrooms. As a Jets season ticket holder, I have often sat close by Dolphins fans. You grit your teeth and watch the game.
Mr. Rhoden seems to attribute the riots and deaths at Heysel to Citi Field on the basis of his own rhetoric. The sport fan readership of this website have granted him a good living by reading his columns and handing him clicks and comments. So we get, in return, a clickbait column insulting the fans. Thank you, Mr. Rhoden. It's good to know how you value us.
6
As a lifelong fan of the NY Mets, I am just happy to have an opportunity to complain and argue about something in October. Go Mets!
10
Indeed...
It all came together..
Let's hope the Wilson's see that for the future.
It all came together..
Let's hope the Wilson's see that for the future.
You're wrong. It was a dirty and illegal play and the fact that they have to comb through decades of footage of thousands of baseball games to find comparable examples only proves that. And those plays were illegal too. No one does--or should, at any rate--watch baseball to see someone get his leg broken. And Utley's statement that he didn't mean to hurt Tejada is about as credible as throwing a punch and saying you didn't mean to hurt someone. In any event, it's Tejada paying the price for Utley's recklessness--missing the post season when he could have been a real contributor. How does Utley feel having done that to a young player, intentionally? It's despicable and should not be tolerated. I'm proud of the Mets though for not retaliating and hope they stay on the high road.
16
Suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules as Mr Utley broke many of them on the play. If Mr Utley plays and a Mets pitcher drills one into his helmet ear hole, will everyone who laments old time baseball rally to the defense of the Mets pitcher because that's the way the game is played? I don't think so.
7
Mr. Utley had no more right to act as he did than he would to slug the left fielder. Why is he not in jail? What he did was not a baseball play as he was out and went well away from the basepath.
10
Mr Rhoden raises some reasonable points, but I'm surprised he doesn't comment on the fact that Mr Utley was breaking a rule. His suspension may have been political, but the umpires should have called Mr Utley out based on rule 5.09 (a) (13), which says that if the lead baserunner goes outside the baseline in order to disrupt a double play, the umpires should call out both the lead runner and the batter. 'The objective 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.' Anyone who has seen the reply - or even listened to Mr Utley's comment - has seen clearly that Mr Utley did exactly that.
16
If Joe Torre could determine that the rules were violated by Utley's slide on replay, but the judgment of the umpires at the time was no violation, then perhaps in the future that type of call should be subject to the review by replay umpires, not just a determination as to whether Tejada's toe was on the base or not. They could have overruled the poor judgment of the umpires by having a little more time and many more angles to review. Torre essentially said the umpires' judgment was faulty - why not fix that right away? As much as I despise Utley I think the suspension probably wasn't the right way to handle it. He violated the rule and his team should have been punished at the time.
It will not be quite as easy to change the rules on slides at second as it has been to change the home plate collisions (much whined about but actually not terribly controversial at this point). Allowing nearly the full momentum of the runner to strike a player with a late slide should not be permitted, but there would have to be careful thought as to any rule change. I don't think elimination of the take out slide altogether is the goal.
It will not be quite as easy to change the rules on slides at second as it has been to change the home plate collisions (much whined about but actually not terribly controversial at this point). Allowing nearly the full momentum of the runner to strike a player with a late slide should not be permitted, but there would have to be careful thought as to any rule change. I don't think elimination of the take out slide altogether is the goal.
2
The slide was borderline inappropriate, but not dissimilar to slides witnessed during the regular season from Mets players like Michael Cuddyer, who routinely went in hard on double plays to take out the middle infielder.
The umpiring decision to call Utley safe despite his failure to touch the base before or after being tagged out and walking off the field, is among the most egregious I've ever witnessed.
That said, the 2015 Mets are a very special baseball team. They deserve far better than to have their season derailed by a hard nosed play by Utley. Last night, they proved they could focus their energy on pounding the baseball, and not channeling it towards a washed up former All Star on the last legs of his career.
The umpiring decision to call Utley safe despite his failure to touch the base before or after being tagged out and walking off the field, is among the most egregious I've ever witnessed.
That said, the 2015 Mets are a very special baseball team. They deserve far better than to have their season derailed by a hard nosed play by Utley. Last night, they proved they could focus their energy on pounding the baseball, and not channeling it towards a washed up former All Star on the last legs of his career.
4
The play in game 2 was critical. But the drop off from Tejada to Flores is slight. And Utley will be dumped by the Dodgers after this season -- his ridiculous contract is too much even for them. I think it's sad that what happened at second base has become the story of the series. The Mets have a small franchise payroll. Their three pitcher rotationMets is paid less than the bonus paid Dodger #3 starter, Brett Anderson. Anderson gave up seven runs in 3 innings. The Mets have a composite series ERA of 4.15. The Dodgers composite is 6.23. But that is skewed by game 3. The game 4 matchup between Kershaw and DeGrom is the story line that matters. Does anybody even care that it is pitching that almost always wins out in the postseason?
1
The play was not within the rules, any more than "neighborhood" outs are within the rules. Tejada was most definitely in the neighborhood, yet the out was denied. The inconsistency is maddening.
Time, really, for the rules to be enforced or to not have rules at all.
Time, really, for the rules to be enforced or to not have rules at all.
7
But "neighborhood" outs are protected in MLB's replay rules (Rule V1) which prohibit video replay review of a double play whether the defensive player has touched the base or not. Once Torre publicly relied on MLB Rule 5.09 (13) (a) that requires a double play for its validity, he made the video rule that prohibits video review relevant and decisive :
V ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following calls will NOT be subject to review: 1. The Umpire's judgment that a runner is clearly out on a force play at second base under circumstances in which the defensive player MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TOUCHED SECOND BASE in his attempt to complete a double play and avoid a collision with the runner."
As you correctly state, "the out was denied," by the video replay official even though the ump on the field called Utley "out," and even though the r MLB replay rule referenced SPECiFICALLY FORBIDS any video review of such a call.
If any capable attorney is a Mets fan and passionately supports the team, he or she should have no trouble getting an injunction or TRO to stop the playoffs until MLB complies with its own published rules and orders Game 2 replayed from the point of the illegal review of the "out" call by the field Umpire.
V ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following calls will NOT be subject to review: 1. The Umpire's judgment that a runner is clearly out on a force play at second base under circumstances in which the defensive player MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TOUCHED SECOND BASE in his attempt to complete a double play and avoid a collision with the runner."
As you correctly state, "the out was denied," by the video replay official even though the ump on the field called Utley "out," and even though the r MLB replay rule referenced SPECiFICALLY FORBIDS any video review of such a call.
If any capable attorney is a Mets fan and passionately supports the team, he or she should have no trouble getting an injunction or TRO to stop the playoffs until MLB complies with its own published rules and orders Game 2 replayed from the point of the illegal review of the "out" call by the field Umpire.
1
The author repeats the shop-worn platitude that Utley’s “intent was not to hurt an opponent, but to break up a double play.”
Accepting that Utley wanted to “break up a double-play” means he sought the collision with Tejada, which occurred beyond second base. He also knew the very likely consequence of barrel-sliding full-tilt into a vulnerable player with his back to him was that it was likely to cause injury.
And even if Utley did not have the specific, conscious intent of hurting Tejada, responsibility is commonly ascribed to someone who either knows or should have known that his/her behavior is likely to cause harm. So, at the very least, Utley should have known that the dangerous collision he went out of his way for was likely to cause the harm it did.
Accepting that Utley wanted to “break up a double-play” means he sought the collision with Tejada, which occurred beyond second base. He also knew the very likely consequence of barrel-sliding full-tilt into a vulnerable player with his back to him was that it was likely to cause injury.
And even if Utley did not have the specific, conscious intent of hurting Tejada, responsibility is commonly ascribed to someone who either knows or should have known that his/her behavior is likely to cause harm. So, at the very least, Utley should have known that the dangerous collision he went out of his way for was likely to cause the harm it did.
6
What nonsense.
The video clearly shows that Utley's knee did not touch the ground until after he PASSED second base. That was not a slide. He dove at Tejada.
There is a big diffrence between a hard slide and what Utley did. I played catcher in baseball (and defensive line in football) in college, and I had my share of physical run-ins with baserunners trying to knock a baseball out of my glove. I had no problem with a runner making a legitimate attempt to bowl me over. Just part of the game if it is face-to-face, one on one. I also never bothered to remove my mask on close plays. Works both ways. But what Utley did was not a proper slide with the intention of breaking up a double play. Not when he first "slid" beyond the bag.
The video clearly shows that Utley's knee did not touch the ground until after he PASSED second base. That was not a slide. He dove at Tejada.
There is a big diffrence between a hard slide and what Utley did. I played catcher in baseball (and defensive line in football) in college, and I had my share of physical run-ins with baserunners trying to knock a baseball out of my glove. I had no problem with a runner making a legitimate attempt to bowl me over. Just part of the game if it is face-to-face, one on one. I also never bothered to remove my mask on close plays. Works both ways. But what Utley did was not a proper slide with the intention of breaking up a double play. Not when he first "slid" beyond the bag.
14
We can move on when Tejada is fully healed.
2
Mr. Rhoden,
If you cannot distinguish between a hard slide to break up a double play, and a rolling tackle which is illegal in baseball and football, then we live in alternate universes. It is bad enough that the umpiring crew did not see that Mr. Utley moved to his right and slid late. He remained up long enough that an interference call that would have cost the Dodgers two outs should have been called. Even Yankee fans I know, who have exchanged good-natured heckling with me for years, say the play was dirty. It takes truly oppositional thinking to say otherwise.
If you cannot distinguish between a hard slide to break up a double play, and a rolling tackle which is illegal in baseball and football, then we live in alternate universes. It is bad enough that the umpiring crew did not see that Mr. Utley moved to his right and slid late. He remained up long enough that an interference call that would have cost the Dodgers two outs should have been called. Even Yankee fans I know, who have exchanged good-natured heckling with me for years, say the play was dirty. It takes truly oppositional thinking to say otherwise.
14
Mr. Rhoden, you say you found the Mets’ fan's “vitriol” toward Chase Utlley “unnerving.” As a proud Met fan and season ticket holder in attendance last night at Citi Field, I would call it “therapeutic” for the fans, and “well deserved” with regards to Mr. Utley (although while the camera lingered on him he did appear pretty scared, didn’t he?).
You contend that “some fans attempted to sustain chants of ‘We want Utley.’ But by then the crowd had moved on.” No, Mr. Rhoden: thousands of Mets fans continued a full throated, “WE WANT UTLEY!” cheer far after the game was decided. And to show they haven’t moved on even today, I’ll bet you those same cheers will be back again tonight. Move on? Only to the NLCS. Let’s Go Mets!
You contend that “some fans attempted to sustain chants of ‘We want Utley.’ But by then the crowd had moved on.” No, Mr. Rhoden: thousands of Mets fans continued a full throated, “WE WANT UTLEY!” cheer far after the game was decided. And to show they haven’t moved on even today, I’ll bet you those same cheers will be back again tonight. Move on? Only to the NLCS. Let’s Go Mets!
5
The base is there for both the fielder and the runner and what happens at the base, sliding into the fielder who is on it or the fielder coming down on a runner who is on it is fair and just. The areas between and around the bases are not for the runner. They are for the fielder. If Utley had slid into the base breaking Tejada's leg, then OK, that is fair. Going outside of the base to interfere and consequently severely injure a player is illegal. Baseball should start calling that play every time and not wait for the play-offs to suddenly look into it. Outlay's slide into Tejada was illegal, dangerous and dirty. Torre was right to suspend him and the umpire's lacked the guts in a pressure game to make the right call. The second base umpire should also pay by being taken out of the play-offs. He messed up - what is his consequence?
6
If these are overwrought times, it is because of columns like this one more than anything else. Was Rhoden expecting snipers and mad bombers at Citi Field? Does he think Utley deserves a medal instead of a suspension for his dirty play? Rhoden writing, “Even by New York standards, the vitriol was unnerving.” is the kind of ridiculous exaggeration the media seems addicted to these days.
Chase Utley was safe last night and could have played the whole game at second base without incident. I was at Shea Stadium in 1973 the day after Pete Rose mugged Buddy Harrelson at second base. Shea was noisy and the fans booed Rose and shouted profanity, even suggesting that Pete eat a certain extremely unappetizing item. The whole stadium chanted this peculiar culinary choice at the Cincinnati second basemen when he took the field, but Rose played the rest of series without a scratch.
Chase Utley was safe last night and could have played the whole game at second base without incident. I was at Shea Stadium in 1973 the day after Pete Rose mugged Buddy Harrelson at second base. Shea was noisy and the fans booed Rose and shouted profanity, even suggesting that Pete eat a certain extremely unappetizing item. The whole stadium chanted this peculiar culinary choice at the Cincinnati second basemen when he took the field, but Rose played the rest of series without a scratch.
2
Mr. Rhoden, apparently, has never been at Game 7s involving two of the three local hockey teams. The vitriol is far worse. When I went to school in Pennsylvania, I routinely saw people wearing opposing jerseys at the Spectrum punched, beaten up, and once fall (likely with help) from the third deck, which fortunately is not that far to the second.
I agree, these games are way too important to waste on Utley now.
They'll be plenty of time and opportunity next season.
They'll be plenty of time and opportunity next season.
I watch a lot of baseball games and Utley's tackle was over the top, he went well past 2nd base to drive his body into a turned around Tejada. To add insult to the injury the umpires blew the call and arguably cost the Mets the game. Tough to forget in the regular season let alone the first playoff series in 9 years.
7
Not so fast! The content of Joe Torre's suspension announcement indicates that game 2 is not actually over and will have to be replayed, at least in part, unless the Mets win the playoff without a replay. Let's connect the dots:
Torre specifically referenced MLB Rule 5.09 (a) (13) which penalizes the offensive team (the Dodgers) when the runner (Utley) leaves the baseline "for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man (Tejada) ON A DOUBLE PLAY (Emphasis added). Torre has therefore publicly acknowledged that Tejada was making a DOUBLE PLAY. But according to MLB's video review rules the issue of a defensive player (Tejada) touching second base on a DP is not subject to video review and the umpire's decision must stand. But the umpire called Utley out at second and the video review official acted contrary the MLB Video Rule V (1) which states in pertinent part:
"V ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following calls will not be subject to review: 1. The Umpire's judgment that a runner is clearly out on a force play at second base under circumstances in which the defensive player may or may not have touched second base in his attempt to complete a double play and avoid a collision with the runner."
The umpire on the field called Utley out. Consequently the game will have to be replayed, if necessary, before the Dodgers can win the playoff.
Had Tejada not been trying for a DP he would NEVER have pivoted towards first; he would simply have jumped safely away.
Torre specifically referenced MLB Rule 5.09 (a) (13) which penalizes the offensive team (the Dodgers) when the runner (Utley) leaves the baseline "for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man (Tejada) ON A DOUBLE PLAY (Emphasis added). Torre has therefore publicly acknowledged that Tejada was making a DOUBLE PLAY. But according to MLB's video review rules the issue of a defensive player (Tejada) touching second base on a DP is not subject to video review and the umpire's decision must stand. But the umpire called Utley out at second and the video review official acted contrary the MLB Video Rule V (1) which states in pertinent part:
"V ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following calls will not be subject to review: 1. The Umpire's judgment that a runner is clearly out on a force play at second base under circumstances in which the defensive player may or may not have touched second base in his attempt to complete a double play and avoid a collision with the runner."
The umpire on the field called Utley out. Consequently the game will have to be replayed, if necessary, before the Dodgers can win the playoff.
Had Tejada not been trying for a DP he would NEVER have pivoted towards first; he would simply have jumped safely away.
7
It's difficult to understand why Mr. Rhoden feels he is justified to lecture Mets fans on how they should feel and act.
This column is more about how he feels than anything else. He makes himself the subject of the article right from the start; "As I..."
New York baseball fans have been on top of every move a player makes, including their own players, for decades and for generations. They make heros and goats out of anyone earning that recognition - they even booed their own pitcher in the 9th last night after he gave up four hits and three runs without recording an out.
New York baseball fans do not need a lecture on how to feel about the sport that was born, raised, and made legendary in their city.
This column is more about how he feels than anything else. He makes himself the subject of the article right from the start; "As I..."
New York baseball fans have been on top of every move a player makes, including their own players, for decades and for generations. They make heros and goats out of anyone earning that recognition - they even booed their own pitcher in the 9th last night after he gave up four hits and three runs without recording an out.
New York baseball fans do not need a lecture on how to feel about the sport that was born, raised, and made legendary in their city.
13
A totally moronic article purporting to know Utley's mind while ignoring his actions. Unless you just started playing and following baseball, you know that Utley's actions were, in fact, dirty. Any "slide" (more accurately, body-block) has to at least pretend to be going for the bag. This had not even the slightest resemblance of that. Perhaps we can "move on" when you magically give the Mets their shortstop back.
6
I'm sorry, but that's baloney. He obviously wanted to take out Tejada. Maybe you can argue that he didn't want to break his leg, but what he did was more than breaking up a double play.
6
Beyond the obvious importance of this play to both teams, I think we should consider what kind of lesson this so called "hard nosed baseball" sends to young people. My 8 year old grandson is a fanatical Little Leaguer and baseball fan. He knows almost all the players, stats, and a lot of history. Sunday morning before church he came running up to me and said "grandma, did you see that Utley play? He was tackled. That was no slide." And he then proceeded to demonstrate the tackle. Of course he hadn't seen the play live (fast asleep) but viewed it over and over on his iPad Sunday morning. Do we want our young people to think that any kind of behavior is acceptable if it's done to advance the team goals? Whatever happened to good sportsmanship? The Mets let their bats do the talking last night (I was at the game) and I hope the "no retribution" holds again tonight, but I say for shame to all those who would say this is just the way it's always been. Let's set an example for our young people!
6
I have to disagree with you, Mr. Rhoden. Utley didn't even feign to be sliding into second base; he completely missed second base and didn't begin sliding until he was about even with the bag. His move was completely designed to interfere with Tejada's ability to complete a double play.
That is different from a hard slide into second that inadvertently interferes with a shortstop.
That is different from a hard slide into second that inadvertently interferes with a shortstop.
2
Fans should get what they pay for and that is to see their team and all of its players play. Fans aren't obliged to 'move on' as the author suggests when the outdated rules, poor decision making of umpires and the rationalization of the entitled press decide to conspire against them. If I told you that another writer could knock Mr. Rhoden down as they raced to the exit to cover a story and if an injury issued that was just part of the competition among sportscasters, would that be okay? How does one arrive at that point of a career as a sport writer that you can actually justify an act of violence against a player on the field? Wow! Where are the ethics and virtue in that? And where is the professionalism of the MLB and the player's(is that only the rule breakers?) union in all of this? Time to fix the rule books and remind everyone that no one should be assaulted while on the job, even athletes.
5
It was a dirty play -- a block rather than a slide and it appeared that Utley was outside of the zone where one is permitted to initiate contact with the defensive player. No excuses, he went too far and deserves suspension.
4
But Utley should not have been suspended. He made a hard baseball play, adhering to the unwritten rules of rough-and-tumble baseball that have guided him throughout his career. His intent was not to hurt an opponent, but to break up a double play. To give his team its best chance to win."
That argument is ridiculous. Taken to the extreme (to prove the argument's fallacy), if Utley had pulled a gun on Tejada, he still "should not have been suspended," because "his intent was to break up a double play, to give his team its best chance to win."
His alleged benign intent is irrelevant. If his act was a "slide," the definition of the word has lost all meaning. His was a cross-body-block. He never even hIt the dirt until after having hit Tejada. If THAT can be called a "slide," just about anything (short of pulling a gun) can be excused as a "slide."
That argument is ridiculous. Taken to the extreme (to prove the argument's fallacy), if Utley had pulled a gun on Tejada, he still "should not have been suspended," because "his intent was to break up a double play, to give his team its best chance to win."
His alleged benign intent is irrelevant. If his act was a "slide," the definition of the word has lost all meaning. His was a cross-body-block. He never even hIt the dirt until after having hit Tejada. If THAT can be called a "slide," just about anything (short of pulling a gun) can be excused as a "slide."
2
A runner can break up a double play while going to the bag. Utley did not slide to the bag. He was still upright when he had already passed the bag. He went after Tejada. Whether he "intentionally" tried to hurt Tejada is irrelevant. He knew well enough that he could easily hurt him. Joe Torre stated he broke the rules. Why he excused the umpires is beyond me. They blew the call and the game and maybe the series for the Mets.
"Meet The Met's" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrrzSXZfzwo
"Meet The Met's" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrrzSXZfzwo
4
This is the whole key: "He was still upright when he had already passed the bag." Bingo. How on God's green earth anyone can call what Utley did a "slide" is to pervert language beyond recognition.
Put Tejada ON the bag trying to turn the DP and have Utley do the exact same physical act that he did: he would've RUN smack into him without ever hitting the dirt. Would Utley's apologists call THAT a "slide?"
Move the exact same play over TO the bag, and it's abundantly clear that what Utley did would never have been considered a "slide." It would've been "obstruction," the DP would've been called, and the run would've been put back on 3rd base.
Put Tejada ON the bag trying to turn the DP and have Utley do the exact same physical act that he did: he would've RUN smack into him without ever hitting the dirt. Would Utley's apologists call THAT a "slide?"
Move the exact same play over TO the bag, and it's abundantly clear that what Utley did would never have been considered a "slide." It would've been "obstruction," the DP would've been called, and the run would've been put back on 3rd base.
1
My opinion was and is that it was a dirty play, and should have been called by the umpires.
However, because I realize that I may be biased, even wrong (but I doubt it -- thank you Charles Barkley), I read articles and comments in the Los Angeles Times, AP, Reuters, and ESPN. The preponderance of opinions agreed with me.
Further, after thinking about it, I don't think an MLB executive like Joe Torre, should be deciding whether or not to suspend Utley. And I absolutely don't think the players' union should be appealing the decision -- siding with one of its members against another. For circumstances like this a procedure should be put in place where Utley, or whoever, would be tried by a jury of his peers -- some number of active MLB players not on either team -- selected by the union and/or MLB.
However, because I realize that I may be biased, even wrong (but I doubt it -- thank you Charles Barkley), I read articles and comments in the Los Angeles Times, AP, Reuters, and ESPN. The preponderance of opinions agreed with me.
Further, after thinking about it, I don't think an MLB executive like Joe Torre, should be deciding whether or not to suspend Utley. And I absolutely don't think the players' union should be appealing the decision -- siding with one of its members against another. For circumstances like this a procedure should be put in place where Utley, or whoever, would be tried by a jury of his peers -- some number of active MLB players not on either team -- selected by the union and/or MLB.
20
There *is* a procedure in place where the perpetrator of a dirty play is "tried by a jury of his peers." It's called a baseball game, and the peers are the other players. Been happening a long time. That said, I agree with the author that in this case, the Mets and their fans need to stay focused on winning games and leaving the Dodgers in their dust.
I don't know why this myth continues to be propagated by sports journalists and commentators that that Utley's slide was within the rules. You could argue that other similar slides have been tolerated even though they violate rule 7.08 (e), but not that Utley's slide was legal. And how much sense does it make to argue that the supposed unwritten rules of hard-nose baseball preempt the actual written rules? In Utley's case the violation of both could not have been more blatant. He actually changed direction towards Tejada, began lowering his body at second base, not before, and never even bothered touching the base.
Also missed by those who continue to defend Utley is that Tejada came down hard on his shoulder after being thrown in the air by Utley. Another few degrees of rotation while in the air and we might be praying for Tajeda's recovery from a broken neck.
It is simply ridiculous to continue to defend the practice of the take-out slide. Unless the fielder is in the base line it is simply interference with a fielder. If you allow runners to crash into fielders, you might as well allow the runner to wave his arms and jump up and down in front of the first baseman to interfere with him catching the ball thrown from second base.
If you want to say its time that everyone calm down and move on, fine. But its hard to convince people when you start with the incorrect premise that Utley's slide was legal.
Also missed by those who continue to defend Utley is that Tejada came down hard on his shoulder after being thrown in the air by Utley. Another few degrees of rotation while in the air and we might be praying for Tajeda's recovery from a broken neck.
It is simply ridiculous to continue to defend the practice of the take-out slide. Unless the fielder is in the base line it is simply interference with a fielder. If you allow runners to crash into fielders, you might as well allow the runner to wave his arms and jump up and down in front of the first baseman to interfere with him catching the ball thrown from second base.
If you want to say its time that everyone calm down and move on, fine. But its hard to convince people when you start with the incorrect premise that Utley's slide was legal.
56
Some of you guys are correct. I have a great idea. Let's force the NFL to change to the N F F L (National FLAG Football League) and require players to wear pads outside their uniforms to protect the other players.
It's really, really a bummer that Tejeda was injured, but really, some of you should consider shopping at Forever 21 instead of watching professional sports.
It's really, really a bummer that Tejeda was injured, but really, some of you should consider shopping at Forever 21 instead of watching professional sports.
3
No problem
Let's see Utley in the lineup
And we'll move on
And btw, I haven't read of and Dodger fans in critical condition having been at CitiField last night (as if such stones exist on the West coast) so maybe you might do some shopping (soul searching?) since your season is about to end.
Let's see Utley in the lineup
And we'll move on
And btw, I haven't read of and Dodger fans in critical condition having been at CitiField last night (as if such stones exist on the West coast) so maybe you might do some shopping (soul searching?) since your season is about to end.
1
MLB is not the NFL. I am not sure about NFL rule but this play would likely caught a flag in college football.
1
He was suspended because his play was reckless. After tonight it will likely be academic.
"Some commentators mumbled that Utley's slide was just 'good old-fashioned baseball'; we retreat into cliché to avoid thought." - Michael Powell, NY Times.
William Rhoden might want to have a quick chat with his colleague to get a reality check. The author's annoyance with the anger of the Mets fans seems to be the only real motive behind this poorly thought out column. Tejada doesn't get to move on from the slide after 72 hours, don't expect the fans to.
William Rhoden might want to have a quick chat with his colleague to get a reality check. The author's annoyance with the anger of the Mets fans seems to be the only real motive behind this poorly thought out column. Tejada doesn't get to move on from the slide after 72 hours, don't expect the fans to.
36
Mets fans still remember Rose v. Harrelson, and that didn't result in any broken legs. You are mistaken if you think this episode will be forgotten that quickly.
22
The take out slide is no different than roughing the kicker in football. Nobody is intentionally trying to injury another player. That is not the point. Its a dangerous action that can result in serious injury and is therefore against the rules. I work in the construction industry where many more are injured every year than in sports and we are constantly trained that no benefit of time or money that accrues is worth the injury to yourself or another of taking risks. The penalties should have been enforced but this incident is behind us and Mr. Utley needs to rethink the damage he could have caused another human being in pursuit of an advantage. He, the Dodgers, and any other teams so inclined need to rethink how they play the game and move on.
25
Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post wrote this week about how the Utley play has only been an issue for baseball middle infieiders for over 100 years.
Perhaps the current noise may encourage those running the game to save their talent pool. Baseball has better information now and should make the appropriate change ASAP.
Perhaps the current noise may encourage those running the game to save their talent pool. Baseball has better information now and should make the appropriate change ASAP.
8
Thank you for the well-said rationality. The problem is, though, that "fandom" is not rational behavior. As you correctly noted, being in the seats can create a mob mentality. Bring me the head of Chase Utley!
That being said, the play was illegal, clearly, and Torre responded properly (always loved that guy). My lingering question is whether Utley was out, based on something I thought was in the rulebook but couldn't find: a player is out if he does not reach a succeeding base. Utley never touched the bag, and left the field. How could he possibly be safe?
I would appreciate input on that question, and I again thank you for your insightful writing.
That being said, the play was illegal, clearly, and Torre responded properly (always loved that guy). My lingering question is whether Utley was out, based on something I thought was in the rulebook but couldn't find: a player is out if he does not reach a succeeding base. Utley never touched the bag, and left the field. How could he possibly be safe?
I would appreciate input on that question, and I again thank you for your insightful writing.
2
Before we move on, let's send our thoughts and prayers to the Mets fan who is in critical condition after yet another fight right outside the hallowed grounds known as Dodger Stadium after one of the first two playoff games. Which of course brings to mind Giants fan Brian Stow, the lack of adequate security at Dodger Stadium and its vast parking lots, and the growing distinction between perception (that New Yorkers act this way), and reality (it is currently fans in city's such as Los Angeles and San Francisco - and many others, particularly at NFL venues - where fans act like criminals).
36
Got it - so move on even though it was a dirty tackle and a man's broken leg just happened to be the result.
Completely understood, Mr. Rhoden. Sportsmanship is now out the window because, in the end, who cares about the mangled means to the End.
Completely understood, Mr. Rhoden. Sportsmanship is now out the window because, in the end, who cares about the mangled means to the End.
32
All the umpires have to do is enforce the rule against interfering with fielders and the violent Utley slides would come to a halt.
It doesn't matter if you think 2nd place assault and battery violence is just good old fashioned baseball; one can always play or watch football if that's what you're really interested in playing.
The umpires are stuck in 1920's Ty Cobb era baseball.
They ought to buy a calendar and call runners out when they tackle infielders.
The best revenge is winning.
Let's go Mets.
It doesn't matter if you think 2nd place assault and battery violence is just good old fashioned baseball; one can always play or watch football if that's what you're really interested in playing.
The umpires are stuck in 1920's Ty Cobb era baseball.
They ought to buy a calendar and call runners out when they tackle infielders.
The best revenge is winning.
Let's go Mets.
48
Crawford was correct. If David Wright had made that slide he would have been a hero. To their credit the sportscasters on WFAN said the same thing. However, the umpires got the call wrong......again. Utley should have been called out and there is precedent for awarding a double play in that situation.
9
But David Wright would never have made that slide.
He isn't, from what many of us Mets Fans know, a jerk or an animal. He's a gentleman who knows how to play without bringing harm to the joy of the game.
He isn't, from what many of us Mets Fans know, a jerk or an animal. He's a gentleman who knows how to play without bringing harm to the joy of the game.
29
David Wright would not make that play. Wright plays hard, but not dirty.
And no Met who made that play would be a hero to me.
And no Met who made that play would be a hero to me.
The "slide" was away from the bag. The contact was an intentional barrel roll tackle that anyone can see who is not preoccupied with the pathetic bromides of "unwritten rules" blah blah. The same rules would dictate that Utley gets one in the ear. That's how you know the play was dirty. His intent does not matter. Obvious interference that the umpires could have and should have fixed. This article is lame.
79
The argument against suspension is that this exact type of slide (late, away from bag, high) is performed all over MLB many, many, many times a season. EXACT. SAME. SLIDE. Without punishment. Yeah, MLB needs to change the rules. No, Utley did not deserve to be suspended.
Watch the reply again. Utley was reaching towards the bag with his left hand.
But really, this discussion would not be taking place were Tejeda not injured.
But really, this discussion would not be taking place were Tejeda not injured.
1
I'll move on when Ruben Tejada is back on the ball field.
And it was a dirty, dirty play. Everyone but Dodger fans and supercilious columnists knows this to be the case.
And it was a dirty, dirty play. Everyone but Dodger fans and supercilious columnists knows this to be the case.
46
I've actually seen a good number of comments from Dodger fans who were upset by the play.
MLB rule 7.08 (e) clearly states Utley broke the rules/umpires erred, etc: (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." NOT hard nosed baseball wcr; you can break up a double play w/o being dirty.
28
I agree with you that the play could have resulted in a call of 2 outs (the runner and the batter), but the key words are:
1) in the judgment of the umpire
2) willfully
3) deliberately
4) in the act of fielding a batted ball
5) obvious intent
The umpire didn't judge it this way.
1) in the judgment of the umpire
2) willfully
3) deliberately
4) in the act of fielding a batted ball
5) obvious intent
The umpire didn't judge it this way.
1
......and just where did you get your degree in sports law? Other than the blowhards in the media, the vast majority of those in the know, INCLUDING THE METS MANAGER, clearly agree with the call.
But the problem with that mindset James is that MLB itself didn't agree with the call. If Utley was not suspended you would have a stronger argument here, but he was.
7
The insightful comments I've come to rely on from Mr. Rhoden. I too was pretty hateful of Utley and his antics. After a day to calm down I've realized that his actions could well have been within the rules, just a matter of interpretation. The larger issue needs to be addressed by MLB in the offseason as these reckless slides have been allowed for far too long.
Truth is that the umps are the most culpable. They could have struck some balance by at least calling Utley out .
Truth is that the umps are the most culpable. They could have struck some balance by at least calling Utley out .
3
Why move on? Its called a take out slide and its intent is to take out the 2nd baseman before he can complete the double play! Why move on before the player who intentionally took the 2nd baseman out is punished and the game is changed? Should we move in if it is a career ending injury? Should we move on if a pitcher intentionally hits a batter in the head with a 97 mile an hour hard ball killing him or rendering him disabled for life? You move on. I am not moving with you!
28
Just because there is one serious injury after thousands of take out slides doesn't mean the rule should be changed. Bringing up a pitcher INTENTIONALLY hitting a batter in the context of the take out slide discussion tells me that maybe someone should consider laying off the Old Number 7 before writing.
Maybe that logic is correct. I knew a guy who ruptured a disk after a hard sneeze. Should we outlaw sneezing?
Maybe that logic is correct. I knew a guy who ruptured a disk after a hard sneeze. Should we outlaw sneezing?
It's not just "one serious injury." The Pirates lost their shortstop, Jung-ho Kang, to a similar play just two weeks before the Utley play, and that slide was less egregious.
2
This happened just a few weeks ago to Jung Ho Kang of the Pirates, so it's hardly a 1/1000 occurrence. MLB has been contemplating a rule change requiring runners to slide directly into bases for some time now, and it's too bad it required additional bad injuries to finally compel them to do it.
And I think you need to understand the difference between a fair, hard play, and a dirty one. This wasn't a conventional take-out slide--it was barely a slide at all. Utley struck Tejada's planted leg, which was *behind the bag* (and out of the basepath) with both feet off the ground, leaping into the "slide" late. Though he was near the base, he made no effort to touch it. It was a clear interference call, and I'm really angrier at the umpires for screwing it up, than I am at Utley, who has played like a caveman on the basepaths his entire career--why should he change now?
Since you seem to like hypotheticals, what, in your interpretation of the rules, keeps a runner, once he is near the bag, from punching a second baseman in the face, or attempting a two-footed flying karate kick? If a player is clearly not making any play for the base, is there any limit at all on the amount of physical force they are allowed to inflict on the middle infielder trying to make the play?
And I think you need to understand the difference between a fair, hard play, and a dirty one. This wasn't a conventional take-out slide--it was barely a slide at all. Utley struck Tejada's planted leg, which was *behind the bag* (and out of the basepath) with both feet off the ground, leaping into the "slide" late. Though he was near the base, he made no effort to touch it. It was a clear interference call, and I'm really angrier at the umpires for screwing it up, than I am at Utley, who has played like a caveman on the basepaths his entire career--why should he change now?
Since you seem to like hypotheticals, what, in your interpretation of the rules, keeps a runner, once he is near the bag, from punching a second baseman in the face, or attempting a two-footed flying karate kick? If a player is clearly not making any play for the base, is there any limit at all on the amount of physical force they are allowed to inflict on the middle infielder trying to make the play?
2
Tejada made a mistake by turning his back on the play and Utley made a mistake -- as Darling pointed out -- in slamming into a defenseless player.
The take out slide should be taken out. It is a relic of the old days, when players didn't socialize on the field because they were playing for their lives. "He's taking food off your table" is how it used to be characterized.
And in the old days if the Mets were really aggrieved there would have been -- as old Bob Murphy used to call it -- a good old fashion pier-six brawl breaking out on the spot with punches thrown with evil intent. Whens the last time anyone saw that?
Lets face it, when you're set for several lifetimes, the players just don't have the same hot blood level they used to. Fans do, sure. But players don't.
Let the game evolve. If the ball beats you to the bag, you're out.
No slamming into anyone anymore.