Mets lineup
1. Curtis Granderson, RF
2. David Wright, 3B
3. Daniel Murphy, 2B
4. Yoenis Cespedes, CF
5. Lucas Duda, 1B
6. Travis d'Arnaud, C
7. Michael Conforto, LF
8. Ruben Tejada, SS
9. Noah Syndergaard, SP
Dodgers lineup
1. Howie Kendrick, 2B
2. Corey Seager, SS
3. Adrian Gonzalez, 1B
4. Justin Turner, 3B
5. Andre Ethier, RF
6. Carl Crawford, LF
7. Yasmani Grandal, C
8. Enrique Hernandez, CF
9. Zack Greinke, SP
Let's go Mets!!!
I can't find anything in the rulebook as it stands or is interpreted that would call was Utley did as "interference" to make him out automatically.
It was as late a slide as you could have while actually being a slide, and the intention was to break up the double play. Unfortunately, MLB has allowed slides intending to break up double plays for as long as baseball has existed, and have yet to institute a "Buster Posey Rule" to specifically address this play. MLB should do that in order to protect middle infielders, and that's on MLB.
5.09 Making an Out
(a) (6.05) Retiring the Batter
A batter is out when:
intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to
catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to
complete any play;
Rule 5.09
43
Rule 5.09(a)(13) Comment (Rule 6.05(m) Comment): The
objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate,
unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in
leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the
pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base.
Obviously this is an umpires judgment play.
This would apply to whether Kendrick, the batter, was out for Utley's action. However, if Utey were deemed in the basepath, then Kendrick would not be out automatically.
(b) (7.08) Retiring a Runner
(3) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a
fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
(13) A play on him is being made and a member of his team
(other than a runner) hinders a fielders attempt to field a
thrown ball. See Rule 5.09(b)(3) (Rule 7.11). For interference
by a runner, see Rule 5.09(b)(3) (Rule 7.08(b)).
(b)(3) does not apply because it was not a batted ball but a thrown ball, and Utley didn't interfere with the ball. (b)(13) does not apply because the out was being made on Utley and so it wasn't a member of Utley's team who interfered.
Next is
6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions
(a) (7.09) Batter or Runner Interference
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any
runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following
play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be
declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment (Rule 7.09(e) Comment): If the batter
or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out,
he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.
Rule 6.01
(6) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully
and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder
in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent
to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire
shall call the runner out for interference and also call out
the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate.
In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of
such action by a runner;
(7) 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
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;
Again, the problem with the 6.01 rules is that this did not involve a batted ball, but rather a "thrown" ball.
Tejada was close enough to the bag that he could have touched it. However, in trying to make a spin move, I think the throw caused him to reach across his body and caused him to short-foot the bag. After watching the replay a number of times, I think Tejada came up short on the bag not to avoid Utley, but because of the spin move combined with reaching back for the ball.
As a result, I think it was fair to review the play and say that he missed the bag.
However, that doesn't mean that my interpretation is correct as people will see different things. Also, it is undeniable that middle infielders have been awarded the "neighborhood" play in many siutaitons where the fielder was not nearly as close to the bag as was Tejada.
Unfortunately, a gap in the rules exist such that because Tejada missed the bag and the ump called Utley out, that a reversal automatically puts Utley on the base as a right.
I hope MLB convenes this off-season and takes a safer approach to breaking up the double play and legislates it out of the game to protect middle infielders.
All of this contributes to the nonsense because the only reason for Utley to illegally injure Tejada was to break up a double play. When the umpires and Joe Torre say that there was no chance of a double play and therefore no neighborhood play, they don't explain why Utley did what he did. If there was no double play and Utley saw Tejada touch the base (whether he did or not doesn't matter for my point), he would have tailed off and not even gone to 2nd base. He would have been out and headed towards the dugout. The end. Hence nothing that Mr. Torre or the fucking morons in the ump outfits say goes together and makes sense. It's all garbage and damage control.
Now if anyone is listening to the asshole on WFAN who thinks he knows it all and says there was no chance of a double play, perhaps you can call in and explain to him that he has no fucking idea what he's talking about because he is not thinking clearly and doesn't understand all the issues and likely is drunk on fish and chips and diet coke.
it's a tie series with Matt Harvey on the mound.
there will be no retaliation, no apology from MLB (who gives a F? if they provide one) and who even cares if the call was right or wrong anyway at this point, this isn't a pine tar game and they'll replay the bottom of the inning and hopefully the Mets win the series.
I'm not thinking about this anymore.
Look at the Chris Coughlan slide that took out Jung Ho Kang for 6-8 months and then look at the Utley slide. Worlds different - Utley's is so far and away not a baseball play.
They should've beaned Gonzalez last night.
/\ /\ this
They are saying that reviewing was correct because it was a forceout play, not a neighborhood play, but they accept the slide as trying to break up a double play.
if you retaliate you do so against someone else like Gonzalez or Turner.
agree
if you retaliate you do so against someone else like Gonzalez or Turner.
This. When Utley comes up, just whizz one up at his head. He will duck like the turtle that he is.
Now they can't retaliate because baseball will warn both clubs.
Torre: It wasn't a neighborhood play. That's judged on the field. Once it goes to replay, that's not a neighborhood play.
Ok, so a non-reviewable play is no longer non-reviewable once they start reviewing it. Makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Q. And they could challenge because it wasn't a neighborhood play?
Torre: It wasn't a neighborhood play. That's judged on the field. Once it goes to replay, that's not a neighborhood play.
Ok, so a non-reviewable play is no longer non-reviewable once they start reviewing it. Makes perfect sense.
This is what I mean! This is why I can't just say oh well and move on. Yes the players should do that...but I'm a fan and what I saw was an umpire make a call and then decide that the play was reviewable but only if they decided to change the description of how they saw the play. And altered their view of the play in a way that allowed them to review it. If its a double play its a neighborhood play call, which is what anyone watching would have assumed since the SS made an attempt to get himself in position to make a throw to first, and the runner made every possible attempt to stop the throw to the point that he body checked a guy while he was prone and unable to protect himself. And that happened as the runner ignored the base. The argument that the SS didn't have a great chance of making the play is not relevant to the use of the neighborhood call because ws we all have seen and know quite well, SS's always eat it and decide to not make the throw, or the runner attempts a (legal) take out slide and a throw can't be made without risk of an error.
SO HOW THE FLUCK IS THIS DIFFERENT?
Just driving me insane how bad this all looked.
I've watched the play carefully several times. The shortstop was in back of second on the right field side. Utley veered to the right and threw himself at the fielder without making even a pretense of trying to touch the bag. He didn't hit the ground until he was already past the base. This wasn't "hard nosed baseball". This was a clear violation of the rules, at least as the rules have been applied in similar circumstances.
The umps blew the call. That is part of the game. I don't like it but at least but the Mets are leaving LA with a split. That isn't so bad.
They really have to have another ss on the roster.
What Utley did was not a "hard nosed" baseball play. His whole intent was to upend the fielder and that shouldn't be allowed. My explanation above should be a simple fix but baseball will no doubt discuss this for months and come up with some convoluted rule that makes no sense. Just require them to touch the bag or at least reach for the bag. Not barrel into a fielder AFTER the bag with no attempt to slide. If the runner reaches for the bag and can't reach or misses touching it, they should be out and interference should be called. It's a simple solution that will still allow runners to make hard slides. And maybe dissuade douchebag players like Utley from hurting people.
Seriously? Just put Flores on at SS. He's better than Tejada anyway. Reynolds can be a backup.
Quote:
Don't think there's any other choice really. Maybe EY Jr., but he is not a SS.
Seriously? Just put Flores on at SS. He's better than Tejada anyway. Reynolds can be a backup.
I thought that's what the poster meant. As a backup. Flores is the starter now at SS. I would have to believe.
That was not a slide and that is not how u 'go in hard'!
Right Steve. I agree with you. My point is that if the runner is attempting to reach/touch the bag, at least their entire focus isn't on taking out the fielder which will at least lessen the impact while remaining a baseball play. I've seen too many players not even attempt to touch the bag or be so far away that they cannot even reach the back (Werth is another one who does this...not shocking both were long time Phillies). Those are not baseball plays and should be penalized. It couldn't be easier to enforce. It makes too much sense. This doesn't need to be rocket science.
It's nice to see Yankee fans and Mets fans on the same page though. Except for Mike, of course. There's always one. Thanks guys!
It was Tejada again...in 2010. But he's done this time and time again to the Mets (and I'm sure other teams).
Quote:
In comment 12539940 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
Don't think there's any other choice really. Maybe EY Jr., but he is not a SS.
Seriously? Just put Flores on at SS. He's better than Tejada anyway. Reynolds can be a backup.
I thought that's what the poster meant. As a backup. Flores is the starter now at SS. I would have to believe.
Got it. I misunderstood then. That makes sense.
Wasn't it Ruben that time also?
And no; he was nowhere near 2B.
2) If you get the chance, clatter Seager when he's trying to turn a double play
2) If you get the chance, clatter Seager when he's trying to turn a double play
3) If they have a game completely in hand let one of the guys in the pen throw at one of theirs
2. Utley tried to break up the DP as best as he knew how because like Pete Rose he plays the game all out and hard.
3. His slide was not good in that he was able to roll up on the ankle. Had he slid with feet first, it would have been low enough and clean to not cause injury. I guess he wanted it to be hard and high figuring this gave him a better chance to break it up.
4. I don't like seeing that kind of stuff either, especially with the SS behind the base, but apparently he did not break any rules, although it seemed unsportsmanlike to me.
5. I don't know this for sure, but being a SS, I'm thinking Utley is having a difficult time living with his actions today.
I do not believe the Mets should try to purposely injure a Dodger player not named Utley. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if the player is not named Utley.