Great job, Doug ! An observation that went unnoticed: Not only --> "Utley left the field without ever having touched the base. What rights does he have, given that he left only because he was only “reversibly” called out?
We learned later that the Mets could have tagged him as he headed to the dugout. But why would they have bothered to tag a baserunner who’d already been ruled “out”? Utley not only left the field, but he took a seat in the dugout, isn't he out of play as players are when they run out the baseline to avoid a tag. Sure, self incrimiation does not enter the discusssion, but it should be tell to the umpires that if there was any doubt that Utley though he was safe, why didn;t he make any attempt to occupy second base? What I found curious were he decisions by Collins NOT to play this game under protest, but also his decision to remove a stoney stoic Bartolo Colon who came into the game to get a ground ball double play and as removed after one batter. If there was any time in a game for to have a cagey, steel nerved vet with the ability to Rembradt the plate at an extremely volatile point of the game, to still the waters [ BTW, Colon got a piece of the ball deflected it and slowed it down so it down instead of going through into the outfield. ]
We learned later that the Mets could have tagged him as he headed to the dugout. But why would they have bothered to tag a baserunner who’d already been ruled “out”? Utley not only left the field, but he took a seat in the dugout, isn't he out of play as players are when they run out the baseline to avoid a tag. Sure, self incrimiation does not enter the discusssion, but it should be tell to the umpires that if there was any doubt that Utley though he was safe, why didn;t he make any attempt to occupy second base? What I found curious were he decisions by Collins NOT to play this game under protest, but also his decision to remove a stoney stoic Bartolo Colon who came into the game to get a ground ball double play and as removed after one batter. If there was any time in a game for to have a cagey, steel nerved vet with the ability to Rembradt the plate at an extremely volatile point of the game, to still the waters [ BTW, Colon got a piece of the ball deflected it and slowed it down so it down instead of going through into the outfield. ]
Mr. Glanville, your experience notwithstanding:
Utley made deliberate decisions not to start his slide until at the base, and to slide high into Tejada. Either of these would have impelled a competent umpire to call a double play on the basis of interference, ending the inning with the Mets still leading, 2-1. On replay, that should have been the decision, despite the fact that it was a Dodger review. There's a lot of lip service paid to the concept of "getting the call right." Not only did that NOT happen here, placing Utley, who not only never touched second, but never intended to, either, on that base amounted to adding insult to injury. In fact, that insult proved crucial. Had Utley been the second out, the Seagar pop out would have ended the inning tied, and Adrian Gonzalez never would have batted.
As for the comparison with Gregorius taking out Altuve, Gregorius slid late, but still measurably BEFORE the base, an important distinction between his action and Utley's. Gregorius slid into and over e base, and Altuve was unfortunate to be planting to throw when Gregorius hit him. Altuve, though, was not defenseless, as Tejada was.
Utley made deliberate decisions not to start his slide until at the base, and to slide high into Tejada. Either of these would have impelled a competent umpire to call a double play on the basis of interference, ending the inning with the Mets still leading, 2-1. On replay, that should have been the decision, despite the fact that it was a Dodger review. There's a lot of lip service paid to the concept of "getting the call right." Not only did that NOT happen here, placing Utley, who not only never touched second, but never intended to, either, on that base amounted to adding insult to injury. In fact, that insult proved crucial. Had Utley been the second out, the Seagar pop out would have ended the inning tied, and Adrian Gonzalez never would have batted.
As for the comparison with Gregorius taking out Altuve, Gregorius slid late, but still measurably BEFORE the base, an important distinction between his action and Utley's. Gregorius slid into and over e base, and Altuve was unfortunate to be planting to throw when Gregorius hit him. Altuve, though, was not defenseless, as Tejada was.
5
Utley's knees were in the air, he never touched the base, he slid late past the bag, he is a dirty player and yes had he been able to, Tejada should come from the ground up into Mr Utley's chin with a relay throw. Perhaps in 2016.
Was the slide interference? Yes
Was the slide legal (beyond interference)? No
Is that the same thing? No. A broken rule is a broken rule.
Did Tejada touch the bag? Doesn't matter.
Umps who blew the call should be dismissed from post season.
Replay umps proved they are useless.
Mets should have swept Dodges in three had the right call been made. Instead of the emotional swing to the Dodgers after the blown call, momentum would have swung to Mets had the play been judged correctly.
Two conspiracy theories come to mind:
1) Given LA fans' penchant for beating opposing fans to near death in the stands and the parking lots and what was exhibited in Toronto yesterday, MLB knew it was sitting on a powder keg and could not reverse the call.
2) Mr Utley's suspension hearing will now occur after or during the playing of the NLCS Game 2. Mr Manfred was afraid he would be confronted with a Goodell/Brady/NFL situation where he is stripped of his authority in hist first term of office by a sympathetic judge outside the sport. Better to let Dodgers sit Utley with a gentlemen's agreement made behind closed doors (Mr Mattingly called them "Baseball reasons" when asked why Utley was sitting in NY) and then dismiss the case after the NLDS is completed.
Was the slide interference? Yes
Was the slide legal (beyond interference)? No
Is that the same thing? No. A broken rule is a broken rule.
Did Tejada touch the bag? Doesn't matter.
Umps who blew the call should be dismissed from post season.
Replay umps proved they are useless.
Mets should have swept Dodges in three had the right call been made. Instead of the emotional swing to the Dodgers after the blown call, momentum would have swung to Mets had the play been judged correctly.
Two conspiracy theories come to mind:
1) Given LA fans' penchant for beating opposing fans to near death in the stands and the parking lots and what was exhibited in Toronto yesterday, MLB knew it was sitting on a powder keg and could not reverse the call.
2) Mr Utley's suspension hearing will now occur after or during the playing of the NLCS Game 2. Mr Manfred was afraid he would be confronted with a Goodell/Brady/NFL situation where he is stripped of his authority in hist first term of office by a sympathetic judge outside the sport. Better to let Dodgers sit Utley with a gentlemen's agreement made behind closed doors (Mr Mattingly called them "Baseball reasons" when asked why Utley was sitting in NY) and then dismiss the case after the NLDS is completed.
2
Another silly article by a former player trying to excuse 20th Century "Macho" style of playing when he, Glanville was hearing the cheers of the crowd.
And of coyuse MLB is hiding behind a "suspension' to go into effect after Utley retires.
And of coyuse MLB is hiding behind a "suspension' to go into effect after Utley retires.
1
Doug Glanville has asked too many questions, in my opinion, which has made a simple matter complex and confusing. The simple matter is that Utley ran and slid out of the baseline (in order to take out Tejada). Because he went out of the baseline he should have been called out. That is the simple reality. All the other hypotheses are not relevant to the fact that Utley should have been out for going out of the baseline.
6
Pity that Glanville did not share with readers his answer to the questions he poses. Yet the answer to his first question is not difficult. As the comment from Running in the city of Brotherly Love below noted, existing rules clearly label such a maneuver as interference, resulting in the runner and the batter being called out. Not a close call, not ambiguous, even in real time without the slow motion replays. If only umpires were consistently told they must enforce these rules.
There should be, and hopefully will be, a rule change to prohibit the "takeout slide." This will not damage the game any more than the "Posey rule" did. And note that the Posey rule has resulted in far more athletic and even artistic plays at home plate than in the old days of Pete Rose-Ray Fosse collisions (consider Odor's wonderful slide in the ALDS).
But there is an important corollary to a rule change on this issue. The "neighborhood play" should be sent to the dustbin of baseball history along with the takeout slide. To record an out at 2d base, a fielder should be required to touch the base while in possession of the ball, the same as on every other force play. With Utley-style slides outlawed, the rationale for this awkward exception to normal baseball rules ceases to exist.
There should be, and hopefully will be, a rule change to prohibit the "takeout slide." This will not damage the game any more than the "Posey rule" did. And note that the Posey rule has resulted in far more athletic and even artistic plays at home plate than in the old days of Pete Rose-Ray Fosse collisions (consider Odor's wonderful slide in the ALDS).
But there is an important corollary to a rule change on this issue. The "neighborhood play" should be sent to the dustbin of baseball history along with the takeout slide. To record an out at 2d base, a fielder should be required to touch the base while in possession of the ball, the same as on every other force play. With Utley-style slides outlawed, the rationale for this awkward exception to normal baseball rules ceases to exist.
3
It wasn't a clean play. Utley went too far out of the way to break up the play. If it had ended Tejada's career, would we be analyzing it with any benefit of doubt?
1
may I say that I love this piece? As a Philly fan I have no real dog in this fight, but I love the passion of the arguments over the rightness and morals(?) of the moves in the dance of the game. Oh the beauty of Baseball!!!
Mr. Glanville, my admiration for your reflective mind, and for your skillful prose, increases with every column. Thank you for this one.
Thank you. It's no longer a sport. It's virtual reality. Like Judge Judy.
1
Doug Glanville cited one thing that incensed me most about the reversed ruling on the play. They awarded Utley a base he never touched because if no call had been made he could have touched the base. But, as Glanville points out, if no call had been made a Met could have just as likely tagged Utley or stepped on second with the ball before Utley scrambled back to the base. So why presume him safe and reverse the call? I'm a Mets fan so I'm biased. (And yes, I thought it was a dirty slide, but I can understand how in real time an ump would have a hard time determining that.) But the logic in reversing the call is clearly wrong: The umps--or the league officials reviewing the play--cannot assume Utley would have been safe if no call were made.
We cannot know what would have happened had Utley's out held up, other than there would have been 2 outs in a tie game. But as the next batter was out, it's likely the game would have gone into the 8th inning tied and both teams would have had an equal chance to win. Instead, given the extra out the Dodgers scored 3 more runs. This was literally a case of adding insult to injury.
We cannot know what would have happened had Utley's out held up, other than there would have been 2 outs in a tie game. But as the next batter was out, it's likely the game would have gone into the 8th inning tied and both teams would have had an equal chance to win. Instead, given the extra out the Dodgers scored 3 more runs. This was literally a case of adding insult to injury.
1
I'm very surprised no one but me seems to have noticed that Tejada clearly touched the bag. It happens before Utley's illegal slide; I see it on replays from several angles. Not a neighborhood play because it's not a double play situation? Huh? Watch the replay! Tejada touches 2nd for the out. I sure hope we haven't heard the last of this.
1
Doug Glanville offers a thoughtful appraisal of how he (and presumably Utley and others) were taught to play the game. The take-out slide at second, knocking the fielder into left-field may have been a long-held and traditional approach to the game. So was "Chin music". Throwing up and in on a batter, particularly if he hit a homer off you earlier was an accepted response. "Staying loose in the box" was the advice many umpires gave to hitters who had homered earlier, when I played ball in college (I caught). Calling for a pitch up and in was an expected part of the repertoire. Today, in the majors, throwing anywhere near the inside half of the plate is often answered by charging the mound and warnings issued to both benches. The game changes and the overt aggression shown in Utley's play (can't call it a slide, as he clearly never intended to reach second base), militate for a ruling of interference. His failure to touch second and retreat to the dugout was neither misleading or unfair. To make it appear the Mets had the advantage in that situation is ludicrous. Be the MLB rulebook, Utley abandoned the base and left the field. He forfeited the right to the bag. Should he have believed the play was reviewable and the out conditional, he should have remained at second base until a resolution was achieved. In leaving the field of play voluntarily , he surrendered his right to the bag.
1
Doug is a scholar of the game, and gives a balanced, nuanced view of the takeout slide. To call this a criminal assault is to misunderstand the history and fundamentals of the grand game. I still hate the designated hitter, by the way, so call me a traditionalist.
I have always argued with my baseball friends that the take out slide should be abolished. In what other sport, after you have been completely removed from the play or game(you are out) can you proceed to impede the next action of the game?
Can a basketball player after being called for a foul block the free throw attempts of the player he fouled?
Can a hockey player throw his stick at a player to trip him who races past him for a break away?
Can a NFL lineman crush a quarterback after he throws the ball down field?
OK that's another rule that needs to be changed because what we are talking about is intentionally trying to hurt a player so they cannot make the play or the next play.
Is that sport?
Can a basketball player after being called for a foul block the free throw attempts of the player he fouled?
Can a hockey player throw his stick at a player to trip him who races past him for a break away?
Can a NFL lineman crush a quarterback after he throws the ball down field?
OK that's another rule that needs to be changed because what we are talking about is intentionally trying to hurt a player so they cannot make the play or the next play.
Is that sport?
3
Doug, you are missing the point. Utley had way more time to think. His effort was a single-minded effort, a clear decision: Point and shoot. Ruben's role in the play was dynamic: Many moving pieces. Shall I list them? Ball in play, two fielders moving; ball in the air to Ruben and Utley coming down the line (single minded). Double play in the mind of Ruben, catch and release, get out of the way. Sorry you are so off with your analysis here. Particularly when you say this: "Did Tejada step into harm’s way and therefore lose some legal protection?" Seriously, man, get a grip. Stand your ground? Move to Florida. George Will? Why don't you move to Fox & Friends?
14
Why not suspend the umpire who blew the call in the first place? Utley did not tag and therefore would have been out number three. The reverse call changed the results of the game and Tejada's career.
2
Wait, what? He wasn't out number three, and the bad call didn't affect what he did to to Tejada at all
Utley would (should) have been the second out, not the third. Kendrick would have been the third, assuming the ball gets there in time, he was down there pretty quick but who knows. Just throwing that out there.
As a fan of the sport, I hope Tejada channels Posey and recovers completely and it doesn't hinder his career.
As a fan of the sport, I hope Tejada channels Posey and recovers completely and it doesn't hinder his career.
1
What next? MLPA institutes a campaign to promote hangnail prevention? These guys make millions while steel workers, welders, construction crews barely make ends meet and they are forced to work injured and in unsafe conditions ALL THE TIME. No wonder this slow, contact-less, riskless boring game has become irrelevant and barely profitable. Every kid I know plays soccer, and the real competitors play hockey. The US is now Whiner Capital of the World. Think of all the time we can save when fans turn their backs on these overpaid whimps and the caprecious greedy owners who get us to pay for their stadiums. If we stopped watching all professional and televised sports, we could probably cure cancer, reverse global warming, put a colony on Mars AND reduce the childhood autism and obesity rates to near ZERO in under a decade.
1
Baseball is not a physical contact sport, period. Those bullies and roughnecks who try to pretend that it is should not be allowed to play, period. When playing simple coed softball I was knocked down several times by big guys who were out to prove what big men they were, knocking me down hard while I wasn't looking, using the lame excuse that I was "blocking the base path" which was baloney, I was playing first or short or wherever and had no intention of blocking their wide around the base path or their deliberately slamming me to the ground with a huge blindside bash. That is how these guys play ball, but it ain't baseball, it's some other kind of ball that was never intended for the sport. Deliberately blocking home plate to stop the runner, ok for contact but not for deliberately trying to wipe the guy out. If you want football then change the rules to make it that kind of game, but don't call it baseball.
5
Mr. Glanville tried way too hard to give the benefit of the doubt to his ex-teammate Utley. The Mets were cheated. (And I'm a Yankees fan.)
11
Interference is interference. Utley should have been ruled out, at least for that reason if not for not touching the bag (somewhere Fred Merkle is tossing back a shot. Not touching the bag figuring into post-season play? Not since 1908….the last time the series was won by the Cu-, by the Cu-…….NAW!)
So if Utley is out, the tying run doesn’t score, the inning is over and the Dodgers are still down to 2-1. If the Mets hold on to that lead, this series would have been over in a sweep.
Instead, because of this play, the Dodgers will most likely advance and face the Cubs.
Baseball was invented by God.
So if Utley is out, the tying run doesn’t score, the inning is over and the Dodgers are still down to 2-1. If the Mets hold on to that lead, this series would have been over in a sweep.
Instead, because of this play, the Dodgers will most likely advance and face the Cubs.
Baseball was invented by God.
3
"Did Tejada step into harm’s way and therefore lose some legal protection? Any shortstop knows that a slow-developing double-play opportunity while receiving an off-line throw, with a fast and aggressive runner coming, is not getting turned contact-free. And a fairly fast runner was going from home to first. Tejada chose not to bail out. (Understandable: No bailing in the playoffs!)"
It is one thing for a former major league ball player to share his experience and insights into how the game is actually played, but it should be free of apologia out to displace the fact that Utley was not sliding into second base to present an obstacle to Tejada's relay to first base. No, as clearly evidenced by the instant replays, Utley was sliding into Tejada for the specific purpose of taking him out of the play, irrespective of the consequences. Mr. Glanville argument here subtly seeks to conflate meaning with some form of competitive justification for Utley's action, reducing it to an implied norm of MLB behavior.
"We’re still not answering a fundamental question: What do we really seek from instant replay? Is it equity? Is it “rightness”? Do we want it to function as a kind of moral police? Can we do all of this and keep the game moving along briskly enough to not invoke the “baseball is too slow” vitriol?"
What is sought from instant replay is clarity of fact from which to infer the proper significance attributable to any action or event pursuant to the rules of the games.
It is one thing for a former major league ball player to share his experience and insights into how the game is actually played, but it should be free of apologia out to displace the fact that Utley was not sliding into second base to present an obstacle to Tejada's relay to first base. No, as clearly evidenced by the instant replays, Utley was sliding into Tejada for the specific purpose of taking him out of the play, irrespective of the consequences. Mr. Glanville argument here subtly seeks to conflate meaning with some form of competitive justification for Utley's action, reducing it to an implied norm of MLB behavior.
"We’re still not answering a fundamental question: What do we really seek from instant replay? Is it equity? Is it “rightness”? Do we want it to function as a kind of moral police? Can we do all of this and keep the game moving along briskly enough to not invoke the “baseball is too slow” vitriol?"
What is sought from instant replay is clarity of fact from which to infer the proper significance attributable to any action or event pursuant to the rules of the games.
10
I presume that the MLB brass will be rooting for the Mets tonight, because a tainted series victory by the Dodgers will make them look very silly.
4
How's this for a rule: On any force play (where evading a physical tag with the fielder's glove is not at issue), the runner must slide with his feet into the bag.
Pretty simple, really.
Pretty simple, really.
17
Pretty simple call to be made in real time, which is how I judged it while watching tv, effectively much farther away than the ump-chump. (Replays proved it, too.) Utley ran outside of the base path, as determined by his deliberate avoidance of the bag. His intention was solely Tejada, who was off the base after dragging his toe against the left-field side (or in the 'hood) and moving to throw to 1st. Outlay is out as soon as he is off the base path. Umpires are making their lives harder than necessary.
14
I give George Will on baseball the same credence I give him on politics--none.
16
All these--and many more--questions might be posed. I'll just state what many, many views of the play tell me. Tejada, if he missed the base, missed it by barely an inch: if that's not "neighborhood," well, what is? Utley slid late, aimed nowhere near the bag. If he is still playing according to the notion of knock the shortstop into the outfield, where has he been for a while? Does he also have a rotary phone? If there is still such a thing as "interference" in the major league baseball rules, that was a textbook case. What did the umps on the field see? what did the people reviewing the play see? Of course I don't know: but I do know what it clearly was, without all those well, gosh, maybe questions: it was interference. Utley and the batter should have been called out.
11
Many many many years ago I was asked to join and play second base on an recreational league team. The manager/player asked if I could complete a DP with a runner coming at me. Gvien the recreational level of competition, I expressed surprise that a runner would try to take me out. He said, oh we play hard. I said, well it would only happen ocne because I would throw at his head as he came in and neither he nor anyone else woudl try again. Tejeda never had a chance as his back was turned . Of course Utley's play was dirty; it could have ended Tejada's career.
11
It should end Utley's career before he maims a player. The era of Ty Cobb is long over.
When I want to watch violent hits, I watch football or hockey. This is baseball, a beautiful game.
The hit was extreme, and, to this day, I don't know how Utley was called safe.
Ban this play already, and let's get on with things.
The hit was extreme, and, to this day, I don't know how Utley was called safe.
Ban this play already, and let's get on with things.
25
A defensive back would get a major penalty minimum for hitting a defenseless receiver in gridiron football for what Utley did.
7
"Did Tejada step into harm's way?". He was off the base and several feet away from it, in order to catch the short throw from his teammate. Then he started to turn to try and reach the base, and that's when and where Utley ran into him (trying very hard to avoid pejorative language). Seems like he was entirely out of harms way, if Utley had actually been trying to reach the base. Mr Glanville may be a talented writer, but he's displaying a few biases here.
5
A fine article that asks some good questions.
I particularly like the point that Chase Utley learned to play when base-runners were coached to "knock the guy into left field," and even then there "was a clean way to do it." I agree with the majority opinion that Utley's slide was not "clean," but I share Doug's belief that the intent was honorable. Utley never seemed to be a dirty player, though he and Tejada had an earlier incident. He was an exemplary player from what I remember, and a nice guy. My sense is that like every aging ballplayer, Utley was aware of the gap between himself and the team, and sensitive about riding the bench. A good team player, he wanted badly to contribute--and did. He got a crucial hit off a tough, though tiring, pitcher. Then running down to second-base, his training took over. He found himself in the zone. Feeling like a kid again, he unselfishly threw his body to break up the play, as he would've back in his heyday, as he was taught. You might say, he started his slide too early--10 years too early. The Mets lost their best fielding infielder, which will surely hurt them, if not tonight, then, perhaps in the next series. Their lack of a good glove in the infield to replace Tejada is something they ought to fix in the off-season, but it is not Utley's fault. Accidents of history change the game, though fans can take no solace in that, and that's not Utley's fault, either. Utley's fault is hanging around too long, and trying too hard.
I particularly like the point that Chase Utley learned to play when base-runners were coached to "knock the guy into left field," and even then there "was a clean way to do it." I agree with the majority opinion that Utley's slide was not "clean," but I share Doug's belief that the intent was honorable. Utley never seemed to be a dirty player, though he and Tejada had an earlier incident. He was an exemplary player from what I remember, and a nice guy. My sense is that like every aging ballplayer, Utley was aware of the gap between himself and the team, and sensitive about riding the bench. A good team player, he wanted badly to contribute--and did. He got a crucial hit off a tough, though tiring, pitcher. Then running down to second-base, his training took over. He found himself in the zone. Feeling like a kid again, he unselfishly threw his body to break up the play, as he would've back in his heyday, as he was taught. You might say, he started his slide too early--10 years too early. The Mets lost their best fielding infielder, which will surely hurt them, if not tonight, then, perhaps in the next series. Their lack of a good glove in the infield to replace Tejada is something they ought to fix in the off-season, but it is not Utley's fault. Accidents of history change the game, though fans can take no solace in that, and that's not Utley's fault, either. Utley's fault is hanging around too long, and trying too hard.
1
One can argue about the individual aspects of the play till one is red in the face (personally I believe that by not even making the pretense of attempting to touch the bag Chase Utley turned the play from a legal take out slide into interference) but I agree that the issue that Mr. Glanville raises is at the heart of the matter...what do we want from instant replay? I won't attempt to answer that question. What I do know is that what we don't want is for replay to apply to only part of a play... yet that is what happened here.
Because replay could only used to determine whether Ruben Tejada had touched the bag or not but could not be used to review whether interference had occurred we ended up with the absurd situation where Chase Utley was returned to second base and an out was taken away from the Mets even though the entire play was arguably illegal. If a play is challenged then the umpires should be allowed to review the play in its entirety not just the part that the challenging manager wants reviewed.
Because replay could only used to determine whether Ruben Tejada had touched the bag or not but could not be used to review whether interference had occurred we ended up with the absurd situation where Chase Utley was returned to second base and an out was taken away from the Mets even though the entire play was arguably illegal. If a play is challenged then the umpires should be allowed to review the play in its entirety not just the part that the challenging manager wants reviewed.
1
Very good piece. I have a few more questions that Doug could ponder:
1. The slide was OK because he was breaking up a double play. But the neighborhood play was unavailable because it was not a double play. Which is it? Is there a right to take out a fielder making a force play only?
2. Was an error charged on the play for failing to touch the base on the force? Of course not. Its not in the box score. That's because its either the neighborhood play and he's out or its interference and he's out. Is there some netherworld in between?
3. We hear from the chief umpire that the Mets could have tagged Utley at any time, even in the dugout. It stands to reason they could just as well have touched second based at any time to force him out. Do we know that did not happen? At no time did a Met with the ball step on the base?
1. The slide was OK because he was breaking up a double play. But the neighborhood play was unavailable because it was not a double play. Which is it? Is there a right to take out a fielder making a force play only?
2. Was an error charged on the play for failing to touch the base on the force? Of course not. Its not in the box score. That's because its either the neighborhood play and he's out or its interference and he's out. Is there some netherworld in between?
3. We hear from the chief umpire that the Mets could have tagged Utley at any time, even in the dugout. It stands to reason they could just as well have touched second based at any time to force him out. Do we know that did not happen? At no time did a Met with the ball step on the base?
4
I can just imagine what would have happened had a Met approached Utley in the Dodger dugout. It would be worse than the violence in the Dodger Stadium parking lot.
I'm not sure how the rule would be worded, but it does make sense, and would not ruin the game, to have a rule that a hard slide has to be a slide has some connection to the base the runner is approaching.
2
What a useless article! Why waste the space that this took? Yes, it was a mess of a call / situation. But Utley was several feet from the bag, was way past where a slide attempting to tag would have begun, and one ought to be within tagging distance in order for it to be a slide. Leaving the appeal to be heard after the series with the Mets - whose player was hurt and not just for the series - is wrong, so what is the Commissioner doing?
2
PARCON ME, THOUGH I'M SORRY ABOUT THE BROKEN LEG . . .
... but, that's baseball ... and it's been that way for over the century plus since it began. In fact of team sports ... just compare it to football or fighting before a hockey game breaks out.
... but, that's baseball ... and it's been that way for over the century plus since it began. In fact of team sports ... just compare it to football or fighting before a hockey game breaks out.
1
Many good points, but the main two are: umpires can only make decisions in "real time" without the benefit of slow motion close ups at differing angles, and, the rule is that the slide must be into the base and not on a vector away from the base, which is what Utley did and resulted in a potential career ending injury.
1
Mr. Glanville, while eloquent and to the point as always, has in this case I believe made it appear as if there is more uncertainty about this play than there is/was. It's was clear to me when live, and clear in replay, that Chase Utley's intent was to interfere with Ruben Tejada and prevent completion of a double play. It was also clear to seasoned baseball fans, that this was a classic 'neighborhood' play, which I'm sure was a factor in why Utley was aggressive in going after Tejada, since Utey expected he would be out whether or not he, or Tejada, actually touched 2nd. There is no doubt that the umpire should have at least called Utley out for interfering with Tejada.
7
Off topic but on replay. Major leagues must adopt computer balls strikes. Every game televised with strike zone. Tired of the ump (who we're not paying to see) arrogantly create his unique strike zone that will be learned by batters and pitchers over the game--with ejection the punishment for any argument. Still need the ump at other levels but spare me this at the major league level.
3
The fact of the matter is that there is already a rule in place, which Utley violated. Rule6.01 read it, it is exactly what Utley did wrong. There is no gray area, and just because "they all do it" doesn't make it right. Utley is a jerk plain and simple
13
rule 6.01 is about batters at the plate. was utley out before he got to first?
"In the slide heard round the baseball world"??? Would we STILL be talking about this play if it happened in a KC, Jays, or Cubs playoff game?? Please!!
1
A waste of editorial space. No new information or interpretation provided. Answered none of the questions he himself posed. But here's another still another question: did contact with Utley even cause the injury? The video doesn't reflect that Utley had any contact at all with Tejada's right leg, just his left leg. Baseball doesn't need any rule changes of this sort -- the rules shouldn't be changed just on the basis of this single occurrence.
1
Right? I'm not even sure Tejada's leg is actually broken.
The Utley type think that they are tough, cool guys.; but they are nothing but gutless players who hide behind the guise of an alleged legal slide to intentionally or recklessly inflict serious physical harm on another player.
4
any idea over the last 15-25 years how many times Utley has been knocked over by a runner trying to break up a double play? He hasn't hid from anything. it was a baseball play, one that has been made for the last 100 years. Maybe he should be out, maybe it was dirty, but it certainly isn't unusual or reckless attempt to injure (certainly not as reckless as the hit by pitches he accumulated throughout his career, 179 times in a 14 year career, 12th all time in the history of baseball!). it was an attempt to break up a double play in the 7th inning of a close playoff game to allow a teammate on 3rd to tie the game.
The analysis seems pretty simple to me. Both aspects of the play that were in question - whether Tejada touched the bag, and whether Utley's slide was proper - involve clear cut rules that are, for the most part, not strictly enforced. The problem with the umpires' ruling is that in reviewing the play, they chose to strictly enforce one rule, while looking the other way on the other.
If the purpose of video review is to "get the play right", they obviously didn't do it. Whether or not Utley's slide was something that's routinely allowed, it was just as clear on the replay that he intentionally interfered with Tejada as it was that Tejada missed the bag. One way or another, Utley was out.
Video review is clearly a mixed blessing, particularly in the way it interrupts the flow of the game, but it's here to stay. The play in question may have been an unusual one, but that's no excuse. If they're going to review a play, they need to look at the entirety of it, and then be consistent on the rules. In this case, they did neither.
If the purpose of video review is to "get the play right", they obviously didn't do it. Whether or not Utley's slide was something that's routinely allowed, it was just as clear on the replay that he intentionally interfered with Tejada as it was that Tejada missed the bag. One way or another, Utley was out.
Video review is clearly a mixed blessing, particularly in the way it interrupts the flow of the game, but it's here to stay. The play in question may have been an unusual one, but that's no excuse. If they're going to review a play, they need to look at the entirety of it, and then be consistent on the rules. In this case, they did neither.
8
The "slide" was very dirty. This has no place in baseball. I feel the suspension was justified. There is a huge difference between playing hard and playing dirty. No definition but we know it when we see it.
8
Utley was permitted to slide aggressively only because it was a double-play situation. On the flip side, the umpires ruled that because the feed from Daniel Murphy was off-line, it was NOT a double-play situation, and thus it was not a neighborhood play, and so Tejada was required to touch the base and the play was reviewable.
So why is it a double-play situation for the runner, but not for the fielder? As Glanville points out, the neighborhood play exists to protect infielders. The litmus test of classifying a play as a neighborhood play should not be if the ball is hit sufficiently hard, or if the throw to second is on line. It’s simple - the neighborhood play rule should be invoked if the fielder’s safety is at risk due to a runner barreling down on him in a double-play situation.
The play should not have been reviewable, and Utley should have been called out. MLB is stuck in a corner with the suspension not only because Tejada got hurt, but because MLB knows the umps/replay official bungled the call after the play and awarded Utley second base.
So why is it a double-play situation for the runner, but not for the fielder? As Glanville points out, the neighborhood play exists to protect infielders. The litmus test of classifying a play as a neighborhood play should not be if the ball is hit sufficiently hard, or if the throw to second is on line. It’s simple - the neighborhood play rule should be invoked if the fielder’s safety is at risk due to a runner barreling down on him in a double-play situation.
The play should not have been reviewable, and Utley should have been called out. MLB is stuck in a corner with the suspension not only because Tejada got hurt, but because MLB knows the umps/replay official bungled the call after the play and awarded Utley second base.
6
Had Utley been called out (no double play, just out, as I believe a DP should have been called) then the 8th Inning ends 2 - 2. Had right call been made, momentum swings entirely to the Mets after interference/double play is noted, inning is over, Mets lead 2 -1, and Mets sweep in three with Game 3 victory in NY.
Baseball is one of the few topics on which I am still willing to listen to anything George Will has to say.
1
Off the playing field , this pointless violence would be called a criminal assault.
8
so would almost any act in sports. throwing a ball that is near or hits a batter? any football play? a foul in basketball is an assault, no? stupid point.
too many new york fans and non baseball watchers commenting here. the hard take out slide has been around for a long time. Utley waited to slide late to see where the shortstop was going so Utley could upset the double play. the shortshop's awkward receiving of the throw and awkward pirouette resulted unfortunately in the injury.
now we have the internet scorn and outrage crew out in full force. get rid of replay and ban the slide next year if you want, but under tradition and the rules ultey should not have been suspended.
now we have the internet scorn and outrage crew out in full force. get rid of replay and ban the slide next year if you want, but under tradition and the rules ultey should not have been suspended.
4
If it's OK to play "old school" ball and take out the guy trying to turn the pivot at second, is it OK to play "old school" ball and, unintentionally, of course, have the pitcher head hunt?
I'd say maybe the ribs, elbow, etc. but with today's batter's body armor, why bother?
I'd say maybe the ribs, elbow, etc. but with today's batter's body armor, why bother?
1
Mr. Glanville: "...See Didi Gregorius (slide) on Jose Altuve in the wild-card game... Because of Tejada’s serious injury, now we are paying close attention, and even looking for change... Nevertheless, we should heed the words of the baseball aficionado George Will, who once said, “When we try to make something perfect, we make it worse.'"
I am not seeking a rule change.
There are major differences between the Altuve and Utley slides. Altuve began his slide before second base, actually did slide through dirt, and THEN made contact with Gregorius. It was therefore a perfectly legal slide. However Mr. Utley began his slide directly behind and a few feet away from second base, technically in the baseline because he extended his left arm so as not to touch the base but to comply with the baseline rule, but he never actually spent any time sliding through dirt before violently colliding with Mr. Tejada. It was illegal for three reasons, as it was not initiated before second base, never actually commenced (there was no actual sliding, just the appearance of going down low in preparation to slide!), and Mr. Tejada was not in front of second base, blocking Mr. Utley's path to the bag which could have justified a pre-sliding collision.
I strongly disagree with you and with the conservative Mr. Will, whose policy of settling for far less than perfection has led to some very bad results for his party and for our country.
I am not seeking a rule change.
There are major differences between the Altuve and Utley slides. Altuve began his slide before second base, actually did slide through dirt, and THEN made contact with Gregorius. It was therefore a perfectly legal slide. However Mr. Utley began his slide directly behind and a few feet away from second base, technically in the baseline because he extended his left arm so as not to touch the base but to comply with the baseline rule, but he never actually spent any time sliding through dirt before violently colliding with Mr. Tejada. It was illegal for three reasons, as it was not initiated before second base, never actually commenced (there was no actual sliding, just the appearance of going down low in preparation to slide!), and Mr. Tejada was not in front of second base, blocking Mr. Utley's path to the bag which could have justified a pre-sliding collision.
I strongly disagree with you and with the conservative Mr. Will, whose policy of settling for far less than perfection has led to some very bad results for his party and for our country.
16
Utley's slide was not the unusual part. Baserunners have been doing that for decades. The unusual part was the fielder breaking his leg. That generally has not happened in the past.
These playoffs have seen their unusual incidents and we are not even out of the quarterfinals.
C'mon, if everyone was honest, they would have done what the plate umpire did last night after Martin innocently hit the hitters bat throwing the ball back to the Pitcher. Call it a dead ball. Who knew different?
These playoffs have seen their unusual incidents and we are not even out of the quarterfinals.
C'mon, if everyone was honest, they would have done what the plate umpire did last night after Martin innocently hit the hitters bat throwing the ball back to the Pitcher. Call it a dead ball. Who knew different?
1
I've played and watched a lot of baseball (ss, 2nd base) going back to the 1940s, and I cannot recall ever seeing anything called against the "breaking up of the double play". That's how the game was taught and played.
However, I agree that the practice should be altered, perhaps by requiring the base runner to be attempting to tag the base (not slide outside the "base path" as with certain other plays).
However, I agree that the practice should be altered, perhaps by requiring the base runner to be attempting to tag the base (not slide outside the "base path" as with certain other plays).
1
Where is the Met leg break? It appeared that Tejada's shin impacted Utley's crotch area. If so, why so little discussion of crotch attacks or banning cups? Looked like a good hard slide and poor shortstop technique.
Are you serious ("discussion of...banning cups")? Maybe a cup isn't what it was when I was in school. Sounds a bit sadistic.
I saw no slide on Utley's part, only a low jump followed by a roll.
Normally I find Doug's opinion pieces elegant; this is a swing and a miss. Utley was airborne at the time of the collision and did not slide anywhere near the bag, nor even towards the bag. It probably would have been safer for all involved if he had simply tackled Tejada. I'm a Yankee fan who is rooting for the Mets because the Dodgers did not deserve to win that game, and by the time Torre gets around to reviewing the suspenion, the Dodgers season will be over one way or another, and Utley will have retired.
27
I have to disagree with those who blame the umpires for this call. In every major sport, the umpires, referees, game officials are instructed at the beginning of the season in how the rules should be interpreted. Up to this point, the MLB commissioner's office and the head of umpires have allowed plays like Utley's slide to be ruled legal. As many have noted, the rules already exist to judge them differently...but the MLB has not changed the way they instruct umpires to interpret those rules. When baseball execs tell them to call these plays differently...they will.
7
This is the best commentary I've seen covering all this issues that this play, the call, and, and the reviews, (and video review issues in general).
There have always been calls that have been changed in baseball, but this happened very infrequently. With video reviews, we now have it happening significant more often. Which changes the game.
Players now have to continue the play well after it has stopped. (I recall one catcher that tagged two runners coming home after the third out was made, apparently being concerned that the out call would be overturned, and not being sure what the ruling would be. )
In this case, Utley deemed safe without touching the bag, since he would not think to touch the bag after being called out. But as pointed out in the article, the Mets also did not think to tag him or the bag since the call was out. (Tejada was lying next to Utley with the ball in his hand.) Why does the runner's not tagging win out over the fielder's not tagging? Where does the calling of time enter into this? (And the idea of an appeal play doesn't seem to make sense.)
Generally, if a player abandons the base, and enters the dugout, they are out. (MLB even changed it so that batters who don't run to first after an uncaught third strike are out even before the dugout.)
I don't see many issues with the review of home runs, but as MLB has expanded what is covered, more and more issues arise. Sometimes changed the play after it is done create more problems than it solves.
There have always been calls that have been changed in baseball, but this happened very infrequently. With video reviews, we now have it happening significant more often. Which changes the game.
Players now have to continue the play well after it has stopped. (I recall one catcher that tagged two runners coming home after the third out was made, apparently being concerned that the out call would be overturned, and not being sure what the ruling would be. )
In this case, Utley deemed safe without touching the bag, since he would not think to touch the bag after being called out. But as pointed out in the article, the Mets also did not think to tag him or the bag since the call was out. (Tejada was lying next to Utley with the ball in his hand.) Why does the runner's not tagging win out over the fielder's not tagging? Where does the calling of time enter into this? (And the idea of an appeal play doesn't seem to make sense.)
Generally, if a player abandons the base, and enters the dugout, they are out. (MLB even changed it so that batters who don't run to first after an uncaught third strike are out even before the dugout.)
I don't see many issues with the review of home runs, but as MLB has expanded what is covered, more and more issues arise. Sometimes changed the play after it is done create more problems than it solves.
Looks like MLB is racing the NFL to the dull and boring bottom. So far the NFL is only slightly ahead.
After the recent rule modification for the play at the plate, the DP take-out is the last play in baseball where body contact is sanctioned. I’m against ‘unnecessary roughness’ in sports, so I think that they should change that rule also, but until they do, the base runner is expected to take out the pivot man. In that context, I think Utley’s slide was routine, with freakishly unlucky consequences for Tejada.
Meanwhile, the morally outraged sports punditry is assuming/encouraging retribution against Utley. What exactly do they think should happen to him?
Meanwhile, the morally outraged sports punditry is assuming/encouraging retribution against Utley. What exactly do they think should happen to him?
Mr. Glanville's insights are always thoughtful and informative but I do take issue with one of his statements. George Will is not a baseball aficionado; based on his baseball commentary, I doubt he ever caught a ball or swung a bat in his life.
1
I wish all op-ed pieces were this informative, not dumbed down in the least. First rate piece, taught me a ton. Maybe Glanville should also try political reporting.
3
You call it a "hard slide" yet Utley did not slide. He is still upright after he passed the base. He was clearly targeting Tejada to stop the double play. We've all seen runners called out for going out of the base path. You say umpires are in a "tough spot" but aren't they always when they have to make a split-second call? One of the mysteries to me is how Joe Torre can say that the umpires made a mistake and in the same breath excuse them because it was "an extremely difficult play". I don't think it was that difficult. The umpires blew it and might have cost the Mets the game and the series. Maybe we should be talking about the end of on field umpires entirely, as technology has already taken much of their authority. Maybe the system as it is now, with appeals scrutinized on video in another location, is a compromise that is not working.
Meet The Mets! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrrzSXZfzwo
Meet The Mets! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrrzSXZfzwo
3
What exactly was the point of this essay? It did nothing to shed light on the situation between Utley and Tejada, except to say that, "Yep, it was and remains confusing". I had hoped for some enlightenment, but instead wish I had that ten minutes of my life back!
1
Baseball made the non-reversible error of drinking the NFL koolaid. Instant Replay is a travesty leading to the detriment of all games. When players have gained perfection, only then should we expect officials to be the same. How many times does there have to be a question about "slowed-down "nowness"" for someone to reach the conclusion that we could have had that question argued in real time anyway?
2
if the slide was legal because he was breaking up a double play, then Utley must be out because it was a neighbourhood play.
Utley thought he was breaking up a double play. Tejada was trying to turn to throw to first to try to get a double play. And the umpires initially called Utley out.
I think that was the essence of the play and the traditional way umpires have ruled on such plays for many decades.
That was the only standard and time proven call to make on the play. Out at second.
Utley thought he was breaking up a double play. Tejada was trying to turn to throw to first to try to get a double play. And the umpires initially called Utley out.
I think that was the essence of the play and the traditional way umpires have ruled on such plays for many decades.
That was the only standard and time proven call to make on the play. Out at second.
6
Yes, thank you. Perhaps the biggest problem with the Utley-Tejada play is that they gave Utley all the benefit of neighborhood play and Tejada none of the benefit of a neighborhood play, but then said it was not a neighborhood play!
Most hits that cause injury could be stopped if players were suspended for as long as the injured player was out of action. This would be particularly effective in hockey. The "goons" would be a lot less likely to throw a head shot if they knew a concussion might result in their being sidelined for a couple months or, perhaps, their entire career. If a goon does a second serious hit, the coach should also be suspended for the duration of the recovery. If all you get is a couple game suspension, while securing your spot on the fourth line,why not take the shot? The incentive to take the cheap shot is much greater than the risk. Especially for marginal players trying to survive a season. And the coaches have no risk in telling a guy to "take him out".
2
Utley should have been called out and then given a red card. He would then have been tossed out of the game and suspended for the next three games. The Dodgers would then have had to finish the game with only eight men on the field. Such things have happened before in matches which were every bit as important as last week's game.
4
Utley's takeout of Tejada is already, in principle, illegal. Both baserunners could have been called out. The issue is the standard used by the umpires for interpreting the rules already in place. This will certainly be changed by MLB.
Rule 6.05
A batter is out when --
6.05(m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpires 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 umpires judgment play.
7.09(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-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 batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.
No sane person would look at that video and conclude that Utley was trying to reach the base. The issue on this call is not Utley's behavior but, rather, the sentence "Obviously this is an umpires judgement play."
Rule 6.05
A batter is out when --
6.05(m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpires 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 umpires judgment play.
7.09(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-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 batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.
No sane person would look at that video and conclude that Utley was trying to reach the base. The issue on this call is not Utley's behavior but, rather, the sentence "Obviously this is an umpires judgement play."
31
This is a great comment. So the question is, if the officials in the replay booth are as unfamiliar with the rulebook as they seem to have been in this case, how in the world can they be considered qualified to overturn calls on the field?
"...s not as conclusive as one would think." Doug, I don't know which replay you were watching, but this clearly was an illegal slide. Utley knew exactly what he was doing. He had zero chance to touch second base with his hand, although as a veteran he gave a half-hearted swipe at it in hope of covering his illegal butt.
And lack of intent to injure has very little to do with it. "Officer, I was just firing a warning shot over the guy's head. How was I to know he would try to leap at that moment?"
And lack of intent to injure has very little to do with it. "Officer, I was just firing a warning shot over the guy's head. How was I to know he would try to leap at that moment?"
8
Utley went too far, in every sense, and Tejada paid the price.
7
Chase Utley is a cheap, dirty player and he always has been. Did he intend to hurt Tejada? I think that's a less relevant question than asking whether he cared if he did or not. I doubt he intended to hurt him, but the fact that he did surely hasn't kept Chase up at night. I've seen thousands of double plays broken up (or attempts at such) in my lifetime; I've never, ever seen a middle infielder's femur broken in the process.
6
Obviously, this play by Chase Utley was a horrible move that caused a serious leg breaking injury and there is no getting around that. My comment has nothing to do with that because it is what it is.
Having said that, I do want to say that Chase Utley was a very beloved member of the Phillies franchise for many years and most Phillies fans were unhappy about his trade. He and his wife Jen created the Utley foundation that supported animal rights, SPCA and education to children about preventing animal abuse.The foundation also donated to the two major Children's Hospitals in Phila.
I am not defending the play as it was an obvious bad move and am OK with his 2 game suspension. While I do not personally know Chase Utley, I can say I believe him when he claims it was not an intentional hit. To my knowledge, nothing like this had ever occurred in the many years he was a Phillies ball player and his charitable contributions and character should be considered before vilifying this guy all over the media. Just saying...
Having said that, I do want to say that Chase Utley was a very beloved member of the Phillies franchise for many years and most Phillies fans were unhappy about his trade. He and his wife Jen created the Utley foundation that supported animal rights, SPCA and education to children about preventing animal abuse.The foundation also donated to the two major Children's Hospitals in Phila.
I am not defending the play as it was an obvious bad move and am OK with his 2 game suspension. While I do not personally know Chase Utley, I can say I believe him when he claims it was not an intentional hit. To my knowledge, nothing like this had ever occurred in the many years he was a Phillies ball player and his charitable contributions and character should be considered before vilifying this guy all over the media. Just saying...
4
Doug, well written!
I think we need a rule change that any play not carried to the natural conclusion due to umpire error should be replayed. Otherwise, one team benefits but the other is unfairly punished.
Joe Torre said Utley would have been out if the Mets had tagged him as he walked from the bag. But the play didn't go to that natural conclusion because of an umpire error of an out call. You must replay that play.
In yesterday's 7th inning in Toronto, Odor was allowed to score even though the home plate umpire had mistakenly called time. Toronto can't be faulted for not attempting to make a play on Odor. You must replay this play as well.
The current replay rules get the call right, but not always the outcome correct because the players do not finish the play after the umpire error. Replay the play. I know it sounds like a schoolyard move, but it is the only way not to punish the team that was only following the directive of the umpire.
I think we need a rule change that any play not carried to the natural conclusion due to umpire error should be replayed. Otherwise, one team benefits but the other is unfairly punished.
Joe Torre said Utley would have been out if the Mets had tagged him as he walked from the bag. But the play didn't go to that natural conclusion because of an umpire error of an out call. You must replay that play.
In yesterday's 7th inning in Toronto, Odor was allowed to score even though the home plate umpire had mistakenly called time. Toronto can't be faulted for not attempting to make a play on Odor. You must replay this play as well.
The current replay rules get the call right, but not always the outcome correct because the players do not finish the play after the umpire error. Replay the play. I know it sounds like a schoolyard move, but it is the only way not to punish the team that was only following the directive of the umpire.
1
The plate umpire in last night's game did not call "time" in that inning, he waved off the run as occurring during a dead ball. But then he realized, with assistance from the Texas manager, that there was a rule stating explicitly that this situation wasn't a dead ball to begin with, and thus the run counted. There was no "directive" of any sort.
Interesting. When I watch baseball all I see is a bunch billionaires fleecing the public for their palaces filled with spoiled overpayed kids amped up on PEDs, scratching where they shouldn't, spitting in public. All of which, other than maybe scratching, used to be illegal. And the scratching, if not illegal, is an affront to decency.
I watch it when I can't fall asleep.
I watch it when I can't fall asleep.
2
You mention something that irks me too: the spitting. What is it with that?
The only clear conclusion from all this is that Doug Glanville is the best baseball writer out there.
3
There was nobody between Chase Utley and the bag and yet he completely missed second base. Breaking up a double play is technically legal only when attempting to reach the base. Because it is difficult to determine intent, umpires rarely rule on interference at second base and because it is rarely called, base-runners focus only on what they care about -- breaking up the double play. Intent is more easily judged on replay; it's done in the NBA for fragrant fouls. Why not let intereference be a call that can be challenged?
If Utley thought there was a risk of picking up 2 outs from a tackle at second, he wouldn't have done it.
If Utley thought there was a risk of picking up 2 outs from a tackle at second, he wouldn't have done it.
49
Excellent and well written article. I was expecting it to be one-sided and defending Utley, but you took the right road and focused on the right argument. If you want takeouts, watch/play football. Baseball shouldn't be about takeout slides. With a professional game, kids are watching, and then playing, and getting hurt with things like takeout slides. And, mentioning that Utley could have been severly hurt as well is a good point. These players aren't wearing the padding to take a beating like that, especially the fielder.
Thank you for pointing out that Utley did not touch the bag either, and I think awarding him the base might not have been the right call.
I also think the neighborhood play should be thrown away as well.
Thank you for pointing out that Utley did not touch the bag either, and I think awarding him the base might not have been the right call.
I also think the neighborhood play should be thrown away as well.
5
The issue is less that Utley didn't touch the base, but that he took no opportunity to touch the base. He was NOT AT ALL interested in being safe at 2nd, just in taking out Tejada in a manner that the rules make clearly illegitimate.
The game should have been replayed from that point.
The game should have been replayed from that point.
Most base runners in a takeout play make at least a show of reaching for the bag. Utley aimed straight for Tejada, who was behind the bag, and never put out a hand to touch the bag. And after contact, he ran off the field without trying to reach for the bag. That, to me at least, speaks of intent.
32
Again, great insight from Doug Glanville.
" ... we want to believe that technology is synonymous with truth." This is the most profound phrase that I've heard in months.
" ... we want to believe that technology is synonymous with truth." This is the most profound phrase that I've heard in months.
2
Thoughtful article. It's unfortunate though to misrepesent the Buster Posey play - the point was that, just like a shortshop turning a double play, Posey was *not* attempting to block the plate, but the runner went out of his way to target him.
6
Really, you know it whan you see it. Utley's slide was an easy call. If you start your slide on the other side of (past) the bag, it's a classless move and that will be dealt with next season if Utley is still in the league.
14
It should have been dealt with IN the game, not at any future time. According to the rules, Utley and the runner should have been out.
Part of the problem is the relationship between the umpires and the players. One almost never sees rabid confrontations between the referees in football and basketball, where a little back-and-forth is considered normal, professional behavior. In basketball, a ref will even cop to the occasional missed call (without reversing it). In baseball, a player can't even look the umpire in the eyes if he disagrees with a called strike! Furthermore, there are absolutely baseball umpires who escalate, rather than defuse, confrontations. The existential crisis facing umpires was largely caused by their own belligerent culture.
(As for the Utley play, Michael Cuddyer said it best when he pointed out that the runner hit the fielder before he ever touched the ground, and without ever touching the base. There's a rule for that.)
(As for the Utley play, Michael Cuddyer said it best when he pointed out that the runner hit the fielder before he ever touched the ground, and without ever touching the base. There's a rule for that.)
8
Since MLB Video Rule V (1) forbids review and reversal of an umpire's call when a pivot man is attempting a double play -- even when he fails to touch second base -- parsing Tejada's DP pivot is vital to show that the review official violated the rule and Game 2 must be replayed:
Had Tejada been just making a force-out of Utley he would have jumped into the air away from Utley’s reach on his SECOND STEP which would have carried him away from Utley in the direction of left-center-field. But Tejada took THREE STEPS rather than two in a valiant effort to make the DP: Step 1 on his right foot to touch the bag; Step 2 on his left foot to stretch for Murphy’s slightly errant toss, and then the crucial STEP 3, where Tejada bounced from his left foot to his right foot and PIVOTED his right foot towards first base, making his body pivot around towards first at the instant Utley crashed into him with his late slide. This is the classic double play pivot that only an official with a stunning lack of baseball savvy could have missed. Had Tejada merely wanted the force-out he would NEVER have taken that crucial third step pivot; he would simply have pushed off his left foot into the air on his second step and jumped safely away from Utley.
Parsing Tejada's DP pivot proves that he was attempting a double play when the umpire called Utley out at second, thereby activating the MLB video replay rule (V, 1) that prohibits a video review, the rule that the review official violated.
Had Tejada been just making a force-out of Utley he would have jumped into the air away from Utley’s reach on his SECOND STEP which would have carried him away from Utley in the direction of left-center-field. But Tejada took THREE STEPS rather than two in a valiant effort to make the DP: Step 1 on his right foot to touch the bag; Step 2 on his left foot to stretch for Murphy’s slightly errant toss, and then the crucial STEP 3, where Tejada bounced from his left foot to his right foot and PIVOTED his right foot towards first base, making his body pivot around towards first at the instant Utley crashed into him with his late slide. This is the classic double play pivot that only an official with a stunning lack of baseball savvy could have missed. Had Tejada merely wanted the force-out he would NEVER have taken that crucial third step pivot; he would simply have pushed off his left foot into the air on his second step and jumped safely away from Utley.
Parsing Tejada's DP pivot proves that he was attempting a double play when the umpire called Utley out at second, thereby activating the MLB video replay rule (V, 1) that prohibits a video review, the rule that the review official violated.
12
George Will may be an aficionado of baseball--but of little or nothing else, therefore a bad authority to quote. Utley did a vicious thing, Referring to Ty Cobb doesn't excuse him. Putting Utley back on base has arguably given the series to LA -- we'll see tonight.
Violence in America is a problem. Excusing it on a playing field is pathetic. Had Utley done that on the street, he'd be up on charges. But two extra gates and TV revenues excuse it?
Violence in America is a problem. Excusing it on a playing field is pathetic. Had Utley done that on the street, he'd be up on charges. But two extra gates and TV revenues excuse it?
23
With all due respect to a former ballplayer, it's not that complicated. The slide was not a slide -- he hit Tejada before his feet hit the ground -- it was a tackle. Utley did not start his tackle/slide until he was already at the base, very late. Yes, umpires and players make split second decisions with the best of intentions and the umpires are generally very good. But there is already a rule in place to apply to this play -- Rule 5.09(a)(13), which says the player is out if he "intentionally interfere[s] with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball." The umps blew the call, and the review of the call. I'm a fan of Utley -- he was a great player for a long time. But Utley's actions here were nasty and extreme, and deserve suspension.
67
Yes, decisions must be made in a split second. The original call BEFORE Utley slammed into Tejada was out.
Then there was contact and while Tejada was on the ground, Mattingly appeals asking for video review. AT that moment the game was paused for about 10 minutes while Tejada was attended to. So, there was no need to rush to judgment.
There are 6 umpires on the field. They should have conferred, and before looking at video, figured out which rules were in play, which take precedence, and get the call right. If Torre had on opinion and a concern, he has a phone. There's precedent for MLB officials calling down to umpires to provide clarification (an Atlanta playoff game, if I remember).
Then there was contact and while Tejada was on the ground, Mattingly appeals asking for video review. AT that moment the game was paused for about 10 minutes while Tejada was attended to. So, there was no need to rush to judgment.
There are 6 umpires on the field. They should have conferred, and before looking at video, figured out which rules were in play, which take precedence, and get the call right. If Torre had on opinion and a concern, he has a phone. There's precedent for MLB officials calling down to umpires to provide clarification (an Atlanta playoff game, if I remember).
Brian, I think you cut through all the obfuscation that the Glanville article presents - and all the "controversy" of the last few days. Utley went nowhere near the bag.
Utley should be suspended until Tejada is able to play.
1
It's simple. The runner must be deemed to be attempting to reach the next base. If he isn't going for the base and instead is going for the fielder, he is out. Imagine if the batter going to first base takes out the first baseman instead of attempting to reach the base itself; he's thrown out of the game and could be suspended for a long time. As long as he's trying to reach first base, there's no conflict. There's no reason the same logic shouldn't apply at second base (or any other base). And the "neighborhood" rule also should be banned immediately. Touch the base while you're holding the ball or it isn't an out, at any base, including second base and home plate; anything else is ridiculous. That's what Buster Posey sacrificed his body and a year of his career for.
28
At some point, common sense has to trump tradition. We have the technology to correct on-field calls, and this one wasn't even close. The relay man must touch the bag. The runner can make a hard ground slide if he's sliding within the parameters of the baseline (ostensibly, the runner heading to second base is 'trying' to touch the bag before the relay man does). Airborn 'take-out' hits within the baseline or outside of it should be strictly prohibited.
Tejada didn't touch the bag - the runner was then safe. Good call. Utley went airborn far outside the baseline in order to disrupt the throw. It was clearly a dirty play. The fact that Tejada 'turned into harm's way' is immaterial.
Tejada didn't touch the bag - the runner was then safe. Good call. Utley went airborn far outside the baseline in order to disrupt the throw. It was clearly a dirty play. The fact that Tejada 'turned into harm's way' is immaterial.
14
"It was clearly a dirty play"......Utley's job is to try to break up a double play if he can. At the same time he has to get down in his slide in order not to get killed by a low throw to first base. He has to make the decision on what to do in a fraction of a second. The claim that it was a deliberate "dirty play" is the surmise of someone who has never been in Utley's position.
2
Doug, you are a thoughtful writer, but you cannot call what Utley did a "slide". It was a takeout block with the obvious purpose of immobilizing Tejada temporarily knowing full well that there was a high probability of a serious injury was. Tejada did not tag Utley because he was physically incapable of doing so because of his injury. The fact that the latter was rewarded for causing an injury is outrageous. The umpires (who have been far from competent throughout the entire series), should have told Utley to remain on the base until they had time to confer. The fact that Joe Torre (sadly after the fact) stated that the tackle was illegal, leaves open the question of whether the umps might have ruled it a double play.
49
Great piece. I like the way Glanville highlighted a whole host of issues that the average fan may not have considered. As Glanville points out, when you have a play at second that is going to be close in the playoffs with two big competitive men being paid to win, there is ample opportunity for injury.
But that underscores the more important point. If you know the situation is already dangerous and intense, you don't permit via tradition or whatever the opportunity for players to feel an obligation (peer pressure from teammates) to escalate the danger by trying to "take out" the opposing player.
Think about this. These men make millions of dollars. Fans line up to see them play. We are going to allow unnecessary dangerous play that could end their careers and cost them personally millions in future earnings not to mention the imapct on their teammates? And the goal of the high slide? to potentially prevent a second out.
If nobody can do the slide then nobody will feel obligated to do the slide - everybody wins. i
But that underscores the more important point. If you know the situation is already dangerous and intense, you don't permit via tradition or whatever the opportunity for players to feel an obligation (peer pressure from teammates) to escalate the danger by trying to "take out" the opposing player.
Think about this. These men make millions of dollars. Fans line up to see them play. We are going to allow unnecessary dangerous play that could end their careers and cost them personally millions in future earnings not to mention the imapct on their teammates? And the goal of the high slide? to potentially prevent a second out.
If nobody can do the slide then nobody will feel obligated to do the slide - everybody wins. i
7
If a player (runner) fails to complete a play on a force (that is, he does not touch the base) then he should forfeit his right to appeal an out call by the umpire on the field.
12
Will's statement is nonsense, in sports and in life. (It's also completely anti-Constitutional. The very first reason given in the preamble is "In order to form a more perfect union....") Is that supposed to be an excuse for never trying to make things better? It fits with his so-called "conservative" political views, which are nothing more than a veneer for ensuring that the haves keep having and getting more.
24
AJB-
I read the Will quote quite differently, as a comment on the pursuit of perfection vs. improving things better, as in "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Fetishizing perfection, as distinct from improving the situation, seems the goal of the quip.
That is solid conservatism as Bierce defined it: "a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
And if you think that outlook is anti-Constitutionalist, you need to re-read the Federalist Papers, which are replete with references to how flawed our human efforts are, hence the use of the comparative in what you cited.
I read the Will quote quite differently, as a comment on the pursuit of perfection vs. improving things better, as in "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Fetishizing perfection, as distinct from improving the situation, seems the goal of the quip.
That is solid conservatism as Bierce defined it: "a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
And if you think that outlook is anti-Constitutionalist, you need to re-read the Federalist Papers, which are replete with references to how flawed our human efforts are, hence the use of the comparative in what you cited.
I do not believe Utley intended to injure Tejada, anymore than the runner who injured Posey did so intentionally. However, there are two separate issues here: the likelihood of injury due to a rule or tradition that should be changed and whether the rules as they exist currently were sufficient for the correct outcome of the Utley play.
Changing the rules (or tradition) regarding take-out slides at second should be handled in a calm, patient and thoughtful manner. Let the outrage die down, examine the body of evidence and act accordingly. The game is the game, it has survived previous change and it will survive whatever changes may come - or things will get changed back.
Current rules would have been sufficient to get the Utley play right. He was out of the base path if only because he was unable to touch second, his intention was to interfere with the completion of the double play and he and the batter should have been ruled out with the inning ending as a result. He could have accomplished the same thing with a more skillful, legal slide, coming across the base slightly sideways, instead of going directly into Tejada's legs. No one can say for certain that Tejada would not have been injured either way but at least we wouldn't be left with this feeling of being cheated.
Utley has become the villain in this story mostly because the umpires failed to enforce the rules. It is the umpires who should have been held accountable by Torre and the MLB front office.
Changing the rules (or tradition) regarding take-out slides at second should be handled in a calm, patient and thoughtful manner. Let the outrage die down, examine the body of evidence and act accordingly. The game is the game, it has survived previous change and it will survive whatever changes may come - or things will get changed back.
Current rules would have been sufficient to get the Utley play right. He was out of the base path if only because he was unable to touch second, his intention was to interfere with the completion of the double play and he and the batter should have been ruled out with the inning ending as a result. He could have accomplished the same thing with a more skillful, legal slide, coming across the base slightly sideways, instead of going directly into Tejada's legs. No one can say for certain that Tejada would not have been injured either way but at least we wouldn't be left with this feeling of being cheated.
Utley has become the villain in this story mostly because the umpires failed to enforce the rules. It is the umpires who should have been held accountable by Torre and the MLB front office.
31
Both umpires on the field AND the ones in Chelsea got the line-by-line, from the book, rules wrong. That is not acceptable. Journalists need to know grammar; Justices know the constitution; umpires need to know the rulebook.
20
The take-out slide is interference with the fielder, plain and simple.
The fact that umpires have always refused to call interference every time there's 2nd base runner violence is simply a tribute to the fact that umpires and MLB like 1920's style baseball and/or lack the ability to evolve.
The rule should be simple - you have to slide into the base; if your slide appears to interfere with the fielder off of the physical base, then the umpire should call interference and call the runner out.
It's not complicated.
'Breaking up' the double play with 2nd place violence is simply one of baseball's troglodytic traditions of gratuitous violence that never rightly belonged in the baseball ballet in the first place.
Ruben Tejada would surely have touched the bag if Utley's brand of 2nd base baseball violence was routinely prohibited AND rewarded with an interference call and automatic out because Utley would have been focused on touching 2nd base instead of being focused on destroying the 2nd baseman.
Interference is really poor sportsmanship.
MLB umpires need to wake up and join the 21st century.
Prohibiting the mauling of middle infielders takes nothing away from baseball, except for those fans who need football mixed in with their baseball.
Let the 'breaking-up-the-double-play-traditionalists' attend NFL games to get their violent kicks.
The fact that umpires have always refused to call interference every time there's 2nd base runner violence is simply a tribute to the fact that umpires and MLB like 1920's style baseball and/or lack the ability to evolve.
The rule should be simple - you have to slide into the base; if your slide appears to interfere with the fielder off of the physical base, then the umpire should call interference and call the runner out.
It's not complicated.
'Breaking up' the double play with 2nd place violence is simply one of baseball's troglodytic traditions of gratuitous violence that never rightly belonged in the baseball ballet in the first place.
Ruben Tejada would surely have touched the bag if Utley's brand of 2nd base baseball violence was routinely prohibited AND rewarded with an interference call and automatic out because Utley would have been focused on touching 2nd base instead of being focused on destroying the 2nd baseman.
Interference is really poor sportsmanship.
MLB umpires need to wake up and join the 21st century.
Prohibiting the mauling of middle infielders takes nothing away from baseball, except for those fans who need football mixed in with their baseball.
Let the 'breaking-up-the-double-play-traditionalists' attend NFL games to get their violent kicks.
99
Your proposed rule "the rule should be"... is a rule that already exists. It even specifies that it is a rule with the intent to punish a runner who intentionally slides into the fielder and not the bag. The result is the runner is out and the batter is out. I was unaware that this rule existed at the time of the play. Apparently so were the umps.
1
I suspect that you're a Met fan.
Because we cut cable this fall, I did not see this play in real time. My first image of it was a photo showing Tejada upended and Utley semi-sliding, helmetess, towards left field. From that instant, the next likely frame seemed to be one of Tejada falling on Utley's badly-exposed head. I immediately flashed back to Justin Morneau (Minnesota Twins first baseman) sliding hard into second to break up a double play-- I don't remember against whom-- and catching a knee to the skull as the leaping shortstop went for the throw. The concussion he suffered, on top of others suffered previously playing baseball and hockey, sidelined him for the rest of that season and much of the next. The take-out slide may be "part of the game," but it is also inconsistent with what we now understand about repeated brain injury. Getting it "right," in this regard, makes a great deal of sense. I'd be more interested in whether replay seriously suggested intent to "knock the guy into left field," than whether it showed a near-touch of the base.
7
Utley slid directly into Tejada, and replays show he never aimed at the base. It was a hard slide tackle, plain and simple. Try as you might to defend your old teammate, the correct call is in the rulebooks: a double play for interference. Yes, takeout slides should be forbidden, but the umps had plenty of chances to get it right, and bungled it by ignoring the rule and then awarding Utley the base.
23
This is my biggest rub:
All of which leads us to conclude that somehow the reversed call (from out to safe) was deemed more deceptive to Utley than the guy with the broken leg and the ball or the entire Mets defense. Utley was awarded second because he was misled into thinking he was out, when he was actually safe. The Mets never tagged him, so his being deemed “reviewably” safe became a veritable “safe” (though Utley didn’t even bother to tag the bag in the first place).
If you watch the replay you will see that after the slide Utley landed on the centerfield side of Tejada's legs. If MLB were seriously asking itself what would have happened had the ump stayed silent rather than signaling an out, than you have to say that Tejada, injured leg and all, had a much better than even chance of tagging Utley prior to Utley being able to climb over him to touch the bag.
All of which leads us to conclude that somehow the reversed call (from out to safe) was deemed more deceptive to Utley than the guy with the broken leg and the ball or the entire Mets defense. Utley was awarded second because he was misled into thinking he was out, when he was actually safe. The Mets never tagged him, so his being deemed “reviewably” safe became a veritable “safe” (though Utley didn’t even bother to tag the bag in the first place).
If you watch the replay you will see that after the slide Utley landed on the centerfield side of Tejada's legs. If MLB were seriously asking itself what would have happened had the ump stayed silent rather than signaling an out, than you have to say that Tejada, injured leg and all, had a much better than even chance of tagging Utley prior to Utley being able to climb over him to touch the bag.
2
The whole process of reviewing plays, and what to do after a call on the field has been changed could lead to highly undesirable changes in the game. In essence, it will be to all players advantage to begin to factor into their behavior what they should be doing if the call is reversed. So, for example, with two outs and a runner on second, if a ground ball leads to a close play at first with the batter being called out, there is nothing that should stop the runner on second from trying to score. And in that case, the first baseman should throw home to make sure he gets tagged out in case the original call of out at first base is reversed. Is that really the way we want games to be played?
"Did Tejada step into harm’s way and therefore lose some legal protection?"
Since when is a fielder cleanly playing his position considered to be "stepping into harms way"?
The Times brings in one of Utley's ex-teammate's to write an opinion piece about the ugly results, for Tejada and The Mets, of Utley's late, leg breaking tackle-slide that he was suspended for, and it shows.
Since when is a fielder cleanly playing his position considered to be "stepping into harms way"?
The Times brings in one of Utley's ex-teammate's to write an opinion piece about the ugly results, for Tejada and The Mets, of Utley's late, leg breaking tackle-slide that he was suspended for, and it shows.
14
Mr. Glanville writes a column from time to time on Baseball for the NYTimes. He was not dragged into this because he was an ex-teammate.
1
Beautiful, thoughtful commentary, from a deeply knowledgeable commentator. Thank you Mr Glanville.
I keep having the uneasy feeling that, had this involved a "nobody" baserunner and a Jeter-level shortstop, the umpires would have seen the play entirely differently, immediately calling baserunner interference and a double play. MLB just has too much money invested in their prestige players to risk one of them receiving a career- and money-ending injury, and this prioritizing shows up, far too often, on the field.
12
that is a fabulous point. If the shortstop in question were Jeter, the call would have been completely different, and the game might have ended differently as well.
1
There is an interesting video posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-d-cxj6LJM
that compares two Utley slides, one from 2008 which it concludes is 'clean', and the recent one which it declares 'dirty'. In both the fielder is shown not touching the bag. In the first Utley never touches or in any way passes over the bag. Clean? In the controversial recent one his hand clearly passes over the bag. So What?
The 'basepath' is not clearly defined at 2nd base or near homeplate. The runner has a right to be in the basepath. The traditional interpretation of the rule has been that the runner must be in the basepath, meaning that some part of him must touch or pass directly over the the bag or plate. Further, in the 2015 slide Utley does drop late into the slide, but has his feet down, not 'spikes high'.
I am deeply sorry to see a Tejada or any other player injured. But he understood the risks of the play, as did Utley, a career 2nd baseman who has also been the target of hundreds of take-out slides. Change the rule? OK. But don't blame Chase for playing within the current fuzzy rules. In NFL lingo it was "a hit on a defenseless receiver". But for now a legal hit. And both teams failed to finish the play by tagging the bag and/or the runner. All Chase did was play ball, which is why it is called hardball.
that compares two Utley slides, one from 2008 which it concludes is 'clean', and the recent one which it declares 'dirty'. In both the fielder is shown not touching the bag. In the first Utley never touches or in any way passes over the bag. Clean? In the controversial recent one his hand clearly passes over the bag. So What?
The 'basepath' is not clearly defined at 2nd base or near homeplate. The runner has a right to be in the basepath. The traditional interpretation of the rule has been that the runner must be in the basepath, meaning that some part of him must touch or pass directly over the the bag or plate. Further, in the 2015 slide Utley does drop late into the slide, but has his feet down, not 'spikes high'.
I am deeply sorry to see a Tejada or any other player injured. But he understood the risks of the play, as did Utley, a career 2nd baseman who has also been the target of hundreds of take-out slides. Change the rule? OK. But don't blame Chase for playing within the current fuzzy rules. In NFL lingo it was "a hit on a defenseless receiver". But for now a legal hit. And both teams failed to finish the play by tagging the bag and/or the runner. All Chase did was play ball, which is why it is called hardball.
You can clearly see that he slides prior to the base and also his back foot does indeed touch the base in the first slide.
The rules need to be changed to punish the illegal slide. If the slide is ruled illegal, both the runner and the batter should be called out. In addition, the runner should be automatically suspended for two games. The play needs to be judged immediately by the umpire at second, or via instant replay in New York if the affected team requests one. Letting the double play stand and punishing the runner would remove all incentives for a take-out slide.
5
Doug Glanville's views are interesting and his questions perceptive, but he missed the most important question of all: "Did the video review and reversal of the field ump's decision (he called Utley out) violate MLB's video review rules, even though Tejada did not touch the bag, thereby requiring a replay of Game 2 from the point of that crucial rules violation?"
Even a cursory look at MLB Video Replay Rule V(1) shows that an attempted double play, even when the pivot man (Tejada) misses the bag, is NOT subject to video replay review. All that's required to prohibily the video review is that Tejada was in fact attemting to make a double play and the video evidence that he was in the process of atempting a DP is incontrovertible. Even Joe Torre showed he agrees that it was a DP attempt when he cited MLB Rule 5.09 (a) (13) -- a rule which requires a DP to be validly applied.
The evidence, therefore, clearly shows that Tejada was attempting a DP and MLP replay rules prohibit video replay review and reversal of the field ump's "out" call. Therefore, Game 2 must be replayed in order for the Dodgers to win the playoff, even if the win tonight.
Even a cursory look at MLB Video Replay Rule V(1) shows that an attempted double play, even when the pivot man (Tejada) misses the bag, is NOT subject to video replay review. All that's required to prohibily the video review is that Tejada was in fact attemting to make a double play and the video evidence that he was in the process of atempting a DP is incontrovertible. Even Joe Torre showed he agrees that it was a DP attempt when he cited MLB Rule 5.09 (a) (13) -- a rule which requires a DP to be validly applied.
The evidence, therefore, clearly shows that Tejada was attempting a DP and MLP replay rules prohibit video replay review and reversal of the field ump's "out" call. Therefore, Game 2 must be replayed in order for the Dodgers to win the playoff, even if the win tonight.
2
More pro sport cheating. I'm sick of it. This penalty is laughable.
4
Doug Glanville's views are interesting and his questions perceptive, but he missed the most important question of all: "Did the video review and reversal of the field ump's decision (he called Utley out) violate MLB's video review rules, even though Tejada did not touch the bag, thereby requiring a replay of Game 2 from the point of that crucial rules violation?"
Even a cursory look at MLB Video Replay Rule V(1) shows that an attempted double play, even when the pivot man (Tejada) misses the bag, is NOT subject to video replay review. All that's required to prohibit the video review is that Tejada was in fact attempting to make a double play and the video evidence that he was in the process of attempting a DP is incontrovertible. Even Joe Torre showed he agrees that it was a DP attempt when he cited MLB Rule 5.09 (a) (13) -- a rule which requires a DP to be validly applied.
The evidence, therefore, clearly shows that Tejada was attempting a DP and MLP replay rules prohibit video replay review and reversal of the field ump's "out" call. Therefore, Game 2 must be replayed in order for the Dodgers to win the playoff, even if the win tonight.
Even a cursory look at MLB Video Replay Rule V(1) shows that an attempted double play, even when the pivot man (Tejada) misses the bag, is NOT subject to video replay review. All that's required to prohibit the video review is that Tejada was in fact attempting to make a double play and the video evidence that he was in the process of attempting a DP is incontrovertible. Even Joe Torre showed he agrees that it was a DP attempt when he cited MLB Rule 5.09 (a) (13) -- a rule which requires a DP to be validly applied.
The evidence, therefore, clearly shows that Tejada was attempting a DP and MLP replay rules prohibit video replay review and reversal of the field ump's "out" call. Therefore, Game 2 must be replayed in order for the Dodgers to win the playoff, even if the win tonight.
7
I don't think it's as impossible as your column seems to imply. If baseball fans, and certainly umpires, graded slides on a "dirty" scale, Utley's would have to up there as an 8 or 9 because he started his slide right at second base and outside the implied baseline. As you said, he never touched second. He didn't intend to break anyone's leg, but he wanted to upend Tejada as hard as possible with no care about touching second. The problem is that the umpire didn't call that. The runner's intent was clear. He and the batter should have been out under existing MLB rules.
That rule exists. It's a judgment call, but just as the NFL has tightened up its calls on helmet hits and quarterback protection, MLB can have the umps apply the existing rules more consistently on flagrant instances like Utley's slide. It won't change the game. It will just eliminate a handful of dirty slides that go beyond clean takeouts when the runner is in the base path and when he isn't trying to spike the second baseman.
That rule exists. It's a judgment call, but just as the NFL has tightened up its calls on helmet hits and quarterback protection, MLB can have the umps apply the existing rules more consistently on flagrant instances like Utley's slide. It won't change the game. It will just eliminate a handful of dirty slides that go beyond clean takeouts when the runner is in the base path and when he isn't trying to spike the second baseman.
10
The issue here is that the rule needs clarification. As I understand it, Utley's slide was legal because he was close enough to the base to make contact (had he wanted to). Rewrite the rule to make contact illegal unless the runner is already into his slide. Replay can verify, and if contact is illegal let's make it an automatic double play.
It's unfortunate that we only react when a shortstop broke his leg. Or when that shortstop is on our favorite team. As Glanville noted, there have been plenty of similar plays (minus the injury) in these playoffs alone. The rule will now be changed. It's too bad a player had to suffer a terrible injury for that to happen.
It's unfortunate that we only react when a shortstop broke his leg. Or when that shortstop is on our favorite team. As Glanville noted, there have been plenty of similar plays (minus the injury) in these playoffs alone. The rule will now be changed. It's too bad a player had to suffer a terrible injury for that to happen.
3
Wonderful column, fully--or almost fully--discussing the utter confusion we are left with after this play. Let me add one more confusing point. When Joe Torre suspended Chase Utley, he cited Rule 5.09(a)(13). This rule begins "A batter is out when," not "A runner is out when." Was Torre telling us that, in his judgment, the umpires should have ruled a double play, ending the inning? The "comment" following this rule would seem to indicate as much.
2
Has there ever been an instance where a force play at second with less than two outs ( aka the neighborhood play ) was reviewed under replay and reversed ?
The ruling was that the neighborhood play wasn't applicable because the throw took the fielder off of the base.
OK, maybe; but has that ruling ( making that particular type of unreviewable play suddenly reveiwable ) ever been made before ?
Ever ?
The ruling was that the neighborhood play wasn't applicable because the throw took the fielder off of the base.
OK, maybe; but has that ruling ( making that particular type of unreviewable play suddenly reveiwable ) ever been made before ?
Ever ?
2
The low bridge throw on the double plays performed by Shawon Dunsten is reminiscent of another Cub shortstop a few decades before. Roy Smalley, ironically an oversized shortstop at about 6' 3", used to throw that way. I don't recall that he ever hit anyone but he was part of a lot of DPs. One of the good things about baseball is that there is nothing new. Whatever happened yesterday has happened before probably a hundred years ago, even the Toronto catcher's routine throw back to the pitcher which hit the Rangers batter's bat and the ball careened into foul territory and the runner on third scored. I'm sure that has happened before but I don't recall it. Baseball should do away with the appeals following the ump's call. At least the part of allowing some unnamed bureaucrat to make the call from a remote location. Whatever is decided should be done on the field in a reasonable time.
2
The craziness about safe or out is one thing. The "neighborhood play" is a gentleman's agreement that cannot be defined as a written, and therefore enforceable, rule even though it does serve the valuable purpose of safety.
The apparent intent to take out the baseman in a dangerous way (to both the runner and baseman; Utley is lucky he didn't get a concussion!) can be judged by the lateness, location, and manner of the slide. Not perfectly, but a judgment that umpires are trained to make.
The apparent intent to take out the baseman in a dangerous way (to both the runner and baseman; Utley is lucky he didn't get a concussion!) can be judged by the lateness, location, and manner of the slide. Not perfectly, but a judgment that umpires are trained to make.
29
The "neighborhood play" is not entirely unwritten, Michael. It's validity is acknowledged, albeit circumspectly, in MLB's video replay rule V (1) which states in pertinent part: "V ... 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." By sustaining an umpire's "out" call and prohibiting it's review and reversal even if the fielder "may or may not have touched second base," video replay rule V(1) recognizes the validity of the "neighborhood play" even to the extent of prohibiting its review.
This is relevant to the Utley play because the video replay official did, in fact, review and reverse the field umpire's "out" call even though Tejada was clearly in the process of attempting a double play. In doing so, the review official, in my judgment, violated the replay rule. Consequently, I believe it is incumbent on MLB to order a replay of Game 2 from the point of the review official's violation of the rule.
This is relevant to the Utley play because the video replay official did, in fact, review and reverse the field umpire's "out" call even though Tejada was clearly in the process of attempting a double play. In doing so, the review official, in my judgment, violated the replay rule. Consequently, I believe it is incumbent on MLB to order a replay of Game 2 from the point of the review official's violation of the rule.
3
There is no infallible logic to dictate whether or not a baserunner should or shouldn't be allowed to abandon his attempt to reach a base to physicallly stop a fielder from throwing the ball or tagging the bag. It's a human decision based on what we think the requirements of the sport are if we want to see it played at the most demanding level for its players. For that reason, while none of us likes to see an athlete injured, the truth is that sports are full of injuries because players push themselves and their opponents, sometimes quite literally, to the limit. Indeed, great players in most sports are great in part because they perform in spite of physical abuse.
Seen in this way it is not relevant that we consider baseball a graceful, contact-free sport. sport's not ballet. Athletes need to give their all and take their competition to the limit. That is not a purely physical thing; it is also psychological, and the elements of intimidation and danger - call it bullying - are necessary parts of the test of players' endurance and ability to perform under pressure.
Rules need to balance that inherent requirements of competition against the obvious need to limit how badly someone can be injured. But any game where someone throws a ball past someone at 100 miles per hour is dangerous.