NFT: Mets-Dodgers, NLDS Game 2

.

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.