NFT: Mets-Dodgers, NLDS Game 2

"What's been done for well over 100 years" is a hard take out slide to break up a double play. Fine. But you tell me where/when did Utley "slide"? There was no slide. He at the very end tried to bend to make it look like a slide but all he did was smash right into the leg, breaking it. Watch Utley when he stands up. Does he look at the ump for the call? No. Doesn't even bother to see if he was out or safe, just starts running back to the dugout. Should tell you all you need to know on what his intention was.

In comment 12540081 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

In comment 12539818 SethFromAstoria said: Quote:why would he go into a take out slide if there was no chance of a double play.? whether the umps/Torre think there was a chance of a double play is different from whether Utley thought there was a chance of a double play at the time. I can only assume Torre made that claim based on Kendrick heading down to first, but Utley can't see that. He is just thinking "break up the double play"

Utley has played 2B in 1,479 games in the majors. He had the play right in front of him. He knew from the speed of the batted ball and from where it was fielded that there would be no double play.

Intentional or not, it was against the rules and the umps blew it.

In comment 12540109 moespree said:

Quote:

"What's been done for well over 100 years" is a hard take out slide to break up a double play. Fine. But you tell me where/when did Utley "slide"? There was no slide. He at the very end tried to bend to make it look like a slide but all he did was smash right into the leg, breaking it. Watch Utley when he stands up. Does he look at the ump for the call? No. Doesn't even bother to see if he was out or safe, just starts running back to the dugout. Should tell you all you need to know on what his intention was.

He did slide. Tejada got over their late because he had a long way to go. So Utley slid late.

In comment 12540085 sphinx said:

Quote:

A batter is out when -- (m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play: Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.

This rule refers to whether a batter (in this case Kendrick) would be out as as result of what the runner (in this case Utley) did. However, the rules clearly state that it is to penalize the runner for leaving the baseline. Utley didn't leave the base line (3 feet on either side of a direct line between the bag). Utley's left hand went right over the bag. He was right in the baseline, so this rule does not apply.

it doesn't matter how long Utley has played. I doubt highly that any player in that situation has a mental clock going as to how long the play was taking and whether there could be a double play. At the crack of the bat, he was off to second base, running as hard as he could to get to the base or to prevent the defense from turning 2.

I find it appalling that some posters on here (and commenters elsewhere) can cry foul, calling the play bush league, dirty, and unsportsmanlike, and then in the same comment, call for the Mets to drill Utley or another Dodger player in the head or anywhere else.

In comment 12540127 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

In comment 12540085 sphinx said:Quote:A batter is out when -- (m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play: Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play. This rule refers to whether a batter (in this case Kendrick) would be out as as result of what the runner (in this case Utley) did. However, the rules clearly state that it is to penalize the runner for leaving the baseline. Utley didn't leave the base line (3 feet on either side of a direct line between the bag). Utley's left hand went right over the bag. He was right in the baseline, so this rule does not apply.

It is debatable if the baseline extends beyond 2B because that's where he made contact. And the rule does NOT "clearly state that it is to penalize the runner for leaving the baseline". That's a comment. The rule IS ...

A batter is out when -- A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play

In comment 12540116 jeff57 said:

Quote:

In comment 12540109 moespree said: Quote: "What's been done for well over 100 years" is a hard take out slide to break up a double play. Fine. But you tell me where/when did Utley "slide"? There was no slide. He at the very end tried to bend to make it look like a slide but all he did was smash right into the leg, breaking it. Watch Utley when he stands up. Does he look at the ump for the call? No. Doesn't even bother to see if he was out or safe, just starts running back to the dugout. Should tell you all you need to know on what his intention was. He did slide. Tejada got over their late because he had a long way to go. So Utley slid late.

He absolutely DID NOT slide...don't know why that's so hard to understand. Watch the video. A weak attempt to fall to the ground after you barrel into the fielder AFTER the bag is not a slide. Most players when they try to disrupt a fielder on a DP start sliding before the bag in the general direction of the fielder. Utley did anything but that. He did not slide.

Not after barreling into him.

know what to tell you. Utley threw himself into Tejada. No part of what he did could be construed as a slide whatsoever. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one big time.

He was into his slide before contact.

When you attempt to "slide" and you barrel into the fielder before you even hit the ground to start your "slide"...it's not a slide, it's a tackle.

Just watch

In comment 12540135 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

I find it appalling that some posters on here (and commenters elsewhere) can cry foul, calling the play bush league, dirty, and unsportsmanlike, and then in the same comment, call for the Mets to drill Utley or another Dodger player in the head or anywhere else.

This is the second comment I have read like this. Have Mets fans here really called for anyone to be hit in the head? That could kill someone, I'm surprised that anyone would sincerely want anyone beaned. Plunk smother player sure happens all the time but not beaning a guy.

moment about Utley getting beamed in the head. Obviously I don't want anyone getting a 95 mph heater to the head and it was in poor taste. That being said, Utley deserves the same fate as Tejada. MLB is also not absolved. They have allowed dirty players like him to do this his entire career. This falls on them.

I'm not a guy who generally blames the umps for losses even when they make shit calls because generally you have an opportunity to overcome them. In this case, however, it gave the Dodgers an extra out and a runner in scoring position. It's hard not to see that as crucial.

That said, Mets contributed to the loss as well:

1. Murphy doesn't turn the DP.

2. Clippard has a bad back. Reed had one good month. I like his arm but don't see him as reliable at this point.

3. Collins continues to exhibit ineptitude in managing the pen. Why did he pull Colon? Bartolo pitched brilliantly, getting Kendrick to hit a DP grounder. Then you pull him for a guy who was sent to the minors three months ago?

4. Inexperienced catcher with two rookie pitchers in the rotation. How do you throw a change-up to the number 8 hitter on a 3-2 count in the 7th inning? Ethier or Gonzalez? OK. But not Hernandez.


I think Mets have to come and play their game. Don't focus on retaliation. That's exactly what Utley and the Dodgers want you to do. They missed their opportunity in the 8th inning. Now they have to wait until next year. You can't change what happened. Just move on.

to get over this fucking game..

I'm still fuming today

In comment 12540212 PhiPsi125 said:

Quote:

When you attempt to "slide" and you barrel into the fielder before you even hit the ground to start your "slide"...it's not a slide, it's a tackle. Just watch

I have watched. He hit the ground before contact,

In comment 12540242 jeff57 said:

Quote:

In comment 12540212 PhiPsi125 said: Quote: When you attempt to "slide" and you barrel into the fielder before you even hit the ground to start your "slide"...it's not a slide, it's a tackle. Just watch I have watched. He hit the ground before contact,

He never slid. You keep ignoring that part. May as well legalize tackling.

In comment 12540242 jeff57 said:

Quote:

In comment 12540212 PhiPsi125 said: Quote: When you attempt to "slide" and you barrel into the fielder before you even hit the ground to start your "slide"...it's not a slide, it's a tackle. Just watch I have watched. He hit the ground before contact,

Ugh, no he didn't...but whatever.

Quote:

Still bitter about Headhunter : 1:22 pm : link : reply Jason Heyward eating a Zack Wheeler fastball I see

Wasn't Wheeler and I don't think anyone in a kid's game should purposely cause head trauma.

In comment 12540290 GiantFilthy said:

Quote:

Quote: Still bitter about Headhunter : 1:22 pm : link : reply Jason Heyward eating a Zack Wheeler fastball I see Wasn't Wheeler and I don't think anyone in a kid's game should purposely cause head trauma.

But it's OK to throw a roll block into a defenseless player?

Just got up and left.

When Matt Cain hit Wright in the head, you could tell by his reaction he did not intend to do it. Same thing with Utley but in reverse.

that OBJ got upset about?

thought you were the guy on the other thread. Disregard.

Anywho, Utley is trash and his play was ridiculous. However throwing a 98mph baseball at someone's head should not be a proper retaliation is all.

That was intentional obviously.

The question is..

Was it a dirty play? That slide should have started well before the bag. I believe it was as dirty as Filthy's socks.

In comment 12540301 GiantFilthy said:

Quote:

that OBJ got upset about?

just for the record, Filthy, you are a good guy, surprisingly so for a Braves fan. So, please don't take any of this personally. Met fans are just upset about this BS, especially because it involves Utley and the Dodgers--two entities despised by all true supporters of the Mets.

Notice that I'm not here trying to rub in the loss (I'll wait until after the series!). I've just always been one that hate the whole unwritten rule when it comes to any player getting hit in baseball, but especially when people don't consider the consequences of a baseball to the head.

I should account for emotional posting during the postseason though.

Fuck Utley though.

truly a nice guy, but don't come into a Met thread to preach, not the time for that Filthy

In comment 12540116 jeff57 said:

Quote:

He did slide. Tejada got over their late because he had a long way to go. So Utley slid late.

He didn't go into second thinking I am going to break this kid's legs, but he went into second thinking I am going to do what I am going to do and fuck this guy I'm breaking up a double play.

I have some lovely scenic Zapruder film style screen caps. Wanna see???!? This will let everyone see just how impossible it was for the ump that is 3 feet away to say the slide was legal AND that Torre and his umps could lie about whether a double play was possible:



Some very nice views of how it was a) not a slide b) after the base and clearly illegal due to lack of intent to get to the base. I don't think it's intent to injure, but see...how would anyone know? If that is a legal slide, then can't you just mean to badly hurt someone and just lie because you are "trying to break up the play"? Seems like it would make perfect sense that the reason why that type of knee slide is not legal is because you can't prove he isn't trying to hurt the SS. Tejada isn't looking at the runner, Utley can not slide that way but sees him and does anyway. It's just unreal.







And some views of why a) the DP was clearly possible even if it was unlikely b) the ball is in Tejada's hand ready to be thrown as he spins before a dipshit drops his knees onto the guy's leg. Someone tell me with a straight face that there wouldn't have at least been a play at first if Utley didn't prevent the play (Which, if he slid to take out the fielder in a legal, normal way, would have actually been a good play).







Seems to me that the play was a very clear double play ball, the throw to 2nd by Murph was not ideal (not a super easy play going toward LF while Tejada went the other way) but it was there and Tejada was closer to the base than most neighborhood plays, spinning to make the throw. As we all know, if it was just considered a double play ball it would not have been reviewable. They somehow decided on the field that it was not a double play ball and therefore the neighborhood play was not relevant and therefore the play became a "force play".

Thanks for bearing with me as I obsess over this play and this game. And I'm not really sorry if you want me to give it up. I just am so amazed by what happened that I have to try to figure out just how absurd and wrong everything was. Never seen anything like it and know we never will again. I'd like to try and understand how anyone who watches baseball could look at the screens and tell me that any single decision or result made the slightest bit of sense. And for that to happen in a playoff game is

snapshots. It's also hard for someone to say that Utley started his slide before he made contact...that's just garbage.

I know the sting of the loss lingers, but I think we've moved on from the loss and are all just flabbergasted at how MLB has handled this...from the inept umpires to running out Bumbling Joe Torre who knows nothing about the rules. MLB couldn't have handled this any worse.

as manager of the Yanks...Albert Belle or someone like that does exactly the same thing into Jeter's leg...

Could you imagine his reaction as a manager to a play like that? He may pull out a 9mm and shoot Belle in the face right on the field. And no Tejada is not Jeter of course but that is completely irrelevant to the point.

embarrassing interview confirmed that for me.

.

Q. Does it help that Chase used his arm to try to grab the bag, trying to sort of sell the play: 'I'm trying on get the bag and not try to hurt anybody'?

Torre: I sure hope as hell that Chase Utley -- I mean, he's been a great player for a long time, and he's played hard. I certainly don't feel that he was trying to hurt somebody. I think his goal was breaking up a double play, and in doing that, someone broke their leg. He was, I agree, he was within range of the bag, yeah. It wasn't like the fielder was over here, and he went right at him and couldn't reach the bag. Yeah, that's where it becomes not cut and dry. So it's all this stuff that we're going to look at and digest


Q. Just to follow up on that, can the rule be made better than it is right now to protect infielders?

Torre: The interesting part is we have the neighborhood play that we have in effect in a lot of ways to protect the infielders, having to stay at the base. This wasn't a neighborhood play because spinning around and the reaching for the ball and stuff like that.

This wasn't a neighborhood play. We're certainly aware of the health of the players, so that's why the neighborhood play is part of what we decide on as far as replay or no replay.


Torre: Tejada showed that he didn't touch the bag, and Utley never touched second base. The fact that he was called out meant he didn't -- he's not required to touch second base once he's called out. So when the play was overturned, he gets awarded second base on that.

Q. If he went off the field because he was told he was out and then they tagged him because he had been told he was out?

Torre: No, I mean, if the player had had the ball and happened to tag him.

Q. Before he was told?

Torre: Well, he heard he was out, and he was leaving the field. But I'm saying before he left the field, right?

Marsh: Right, he was called out.

Torre: Because the act of tagging somebody, the fact that he didn't touch the bag and now you're tagging him, OK? But once he's off the field and we go to replay, everything stops, so he's awarded second base because he wasn't tagged. But he left the field based on the fact that the umpire called him out.

Q. So he never needed to touch the base?

Torre: He never needed to touch the base because the umpire called him out. You're correcting umpire's mistake. In that situation, by going to replay, and they see the runner never touched the base, but the umpire called him out, by replay rules we can correct the situation and put the runner on the bag.


I know Joe is a sharp fella and he was put in a spot where he had to actually do his job, and I don't mean hand out awards or go to galas....he had to know the rules. I assume he has to know the rules. I also understand that he has to defend his officials and has to answer on the spot. But what we have here is a guy who has to be the face of the league in this situation and nothing was correct from the Chris Guccione at 2nd base, to the other 5 (!!!!) umpires on the field, to NYC office, to Joe. Whole thing made A-Rod pressers look professional and honest

but he has to protect his umps. If Robles had hit a Dodger, he would not have been suspended--unless it was in the head (and then he would deserve to be suspended). Warnings would just be issued.

Very disappointed at the Mets not retaliating. I think that is one of the reasons the players were so livid. If Robles had plunked someone, it would not have made everything copacetic but would have stopped some of the anger from boiling over.

Mattingly probably sent Puig up there intentionally to get hit as well, so that way one of his regulars could avoid risk of injury. Robles was the perfect guy to do it, especially in as meaningless of a situation as there will be (hopefully). Benches may have cleared and it would have been on to game 3.

That since he was called out Utley didn't have to touch the base because he wouldn't be expected to having been called out yet somehow the guy laying there with a broken leg is expected to still have touched him out even though he wouldn't think the needs to with Utley having been called out on the field? Why isn't he afforded the same assumptions?

I mean why would the rule favor either players thinking one more than the other would have to follow through on a play that was ruled out by the ump. Why does the runner get the benefit of the doubt but the defense doesn't? Does anyone really believe that if there was no call made no Mets player try's to grab the ball and tag Utley while he is on the ground a little hurt and maybe dazed himself?

He's awarded 2nd on the theory that he was told he was out, so he never attempted to retouch the base, and had he not been called out he wouldn't have run to the dugout and instead would have gotten on the bag. It's asinine though because it ignores the elephant in the room that the only reason he wasn't tagged was because the fielder had a broken leg after getting taken out with a dirty hit past the base which should have been ruled as some form of runners interference. Or they should have just said the replay was inconclusive as to whether or not he made contact with the bag somewhere (which I think it was actually).

The biggest mistake was changing the call on the field from a neighborhood play (which I actually don't think they did). I think they mistakenly went to the review when they should have and now they need to stick to that story. That is the exact right circumstance to have a neighborhood play because while it wasn't a perfect throw it didn't pull him off the bag. He was simply trying to maneuver with a runner bearing down on him.

Bottomline is MLB HQ ruled that as long as you injure your opponent enough that he can't tag you, hold on to the ball, or hold on to the base you should go for it.

Yeah but why is Utley afforded the luxury of being excused for not trying to tag the bag because the umps ruled he was out yet the defense not the same luxury of not trying to tag him out because he was ruled out? I don't follow that logic.

In comment 12540878 steve in ky said:

Quote:

Yeah but why is Utley afforded the luxury of being excused for not trying to tag the bag because the umps ruled he was out yet the defense not the same luxury of not trying to tag him out because he was ruled out? I don't follow that logic.

Steve, you are trying to find logic in something illogical. All any official has done is talk in circles. This was discussed when IR first came out. The offense is always going to get the benefit in these circumstances because of the way the rules are written. Even though the fielders decisions are also affected by the call on the field as well. Torre can look back at his lackey all he wants for clarification and say that Tejada or any fielder could have picked up the ball and tagged out Utley...but why would they if the ump already called him out? Makes no sense.

is it therapeutic to talk about it?

it sucks, but I have found moving on is healthier (for me) than dwelling on it.

I feel for you, obviously I can say this as someone who knows how you all feel, just let it go.

the silver lining is we have Matt Harvey on the mound, and then probably Steven Matz. Flores at SS.

it could have been worse. I guess.

In comment 12540878 steve in ky said:

Quote:

Yeah but why is Utley afforded the luxury of being excused for not trying to tag the bag because the umps ruled he was out yet the defense not the same luxury of not trying to tag him out because he was ruled out? I don't follow that logic.

this is completely correct. That "rule" makes literally NO sense and sounds like they made it up on the spot. Even if they didn't. Again the whole situation just reeks of incompetence and lies. Like they made up random things every step of the way to legitimize the multiple mistakes. Ho hum, not like it was an important moment in an important game. They'll get it more right next time.

In comment 12540988 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

is it therapeutic to talk about it? it sucks, but I have found moving on is healthier (for me) than dwelling on it. I feel for you, obviously I can say this as someone who knows how you all feel, just let it go. the silver lining is we have Matt Harvey on the mound, and then probably Steven Matz. Flores at SS. it could have been worse. I guess.

The thing is. It very well could have been a series altering mishap. If its interference we are out of the inning and likely win the game. We are up 2-0 going to NY with Harvey on the mound. In other words the series is over. Now even if Harvey wins, they have Kershaw and Greinke going again for them which will be brutal to beat. And if God forbid Harvey loses, its likely over for us. It was a HUGE pendulum swing especially considering we had the lead in the 7th and Syndergaard had outpitched Greinke.

I know, but what are you going to do? they're not going to give the Mets a W. They're not going to do anything other than the suspension.

big deal, Utley is a PHer.

I'm just saying I personally have to move on.

for games 3 and 4 subject to appeal.

In comment 12541243 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

I know, but what are you going to do? they're not going to give the Mets a W. They're not going to do anything other than the suspension. big deal, Utley is a PHer. I'm just saying I personally have to move on.

You're right of course. Its just brutal. I think this will be talked about for some time. Lord help that this doesn't end up defining the series and we somehow pull this out.

I also think the anger and emotion could work against us. I hope Im wrong.

Does the appeal happen?? Before tomorrow?

I know utley isnt a major part but the guy kills us and he doesnt deserve to play. Id hate for him to be able to play during a long appeal process.

In comment 12543162 NJGiantFan84 said:

Quote:

Does the appeal happen?? Before tomorrow? I know utley isnt a major part but the guy kills us and he doesnt deserve to play. Id hate for him to be able to play during a long appeal process.

MLB is indicating they will hear and rule on the appeal before the game.

Makes me feel better. Hopefully MLB standa behind the ruling. Guy deserves much worse.