Not to mention I think most peoples frustrated reactions is less to do with what Utley did(though thats a big part of it) and more to do with how the umpires blew the call in everyway possible and baseball doubled down on that.

Why does it requiring maiming your opponent to break up a double play?  Why is it ok to go out of the baseline to chop block people at second?

 

Oh, right, so they don't DIE HORRIBLY by the throw to first.  I guess I must've missed the last death on the field from a second baseman completing a double play.

 

What I find ironic is that in other places/cultures bat flipping is seen as fun and they'd never disrespect another player with a takeout slide, but here we flip those reactions.

We commend the intent to hurt and condemn celebrating as the "respectful" way to play. How ass backwards.

I don't see a big deal with either thing to be honest.

 

But if you want to change the rule, do it. Was it a dirty slide? Probably, does it deserve a suspension? Probably not, but Utley has done nothing else than 1000 other guys haven't done/would have done. I still go back to the point if it was a Twin doing it and it would have helped score the tying run would any of us complained? Prob not.

 

Not to mention I think most peoples frustrated reactions is less to do with what Utley did(though thats a big part of it) and more to do with how the umpires blew the call in everyway possible and baseball doubled down on that.

Yeah, him being safe at 2nd is just ridiculous, I will agree all day with that! The proper call IMO was: Runner safe at home and 1st, runner out at 2nd.

Likely Mets get out of that inning before giving up another run.

 

I don't see a big deal with either thing to be honest.

 

But if you want to change the rule, do it. Was it a dirty slide? Probably, does it deserve a suspension? Probably not, but Utley has done nothing else than 1000 other guys haven't done/would have done. I still go back to the point if it was a Twin doing it and it would have helped score the tying run would any of us complained? Prob not.

 

I would have - I hate this nonsense no matter who does it.  Everytime Bert whines about someone "just trying to raise their batting average" I have to strongly consider turning on Dan Gladden.  (UGH!)  I was also clear that the Twins were being whiney babies about the bat flip thing the other day.

 

It has nothing to do with loyalty, this kind of stuff has no place in the game.  

 

And, just think about it - part of the demise of our run came from our first baseman trying to take someone out and getting a concussion for his troubles.  Get rid of it - I don't care who is doing it.

 

Yes it is sad that Tejada got hurt, but I guarantee you that 100% of MLB slides hard to take the SS out on that play.

 

You are probably right, and that is the problem. 

 

That said, I think the suspension is BS because it is an unannounced change in the rules for the players.  One of the games on TV showed at least 3 similar slides(maybe worse, except for the result) that happened just in the last week, and there was absolutely no fuss made over them.  When someone finally, inevitably gets hurt doing what has always been allowed, it's the player's fault and he gets suspended?

 

The only logical rational I can come up with is Torre is pulling for the Dodgers and wants to get Utley out of the lineup any way he can. 

 

 

Edited October 14, 201511 yr by gil4

 

I don't think anyone is saying you shouldnt be able to break up double plays, provided you actually make a baseball play, like a slide. These aren't even slides, they're as levi keeps say chop blocks, or just tackles or flailing recklessly into guys legs. Maybe the rule isn't as black and white and is up to the umpires discretion. Thats ok, thats what its like in every sport.

.

That's what we have now and has led to this discussion.  So we slightly re-write the rule and next year someone will be called out for interference on a similar play and we'll get another round of discussion on this.  If we're going to allow contact sometimes there is going to be contact that some people think goes too far (and others not enough).  So we could adopt the Japanese version and eliminate all contact or we could let the umpires make the call at the moment it happened, understanding that we won't always like their calls.

 

Having watched the slide over an over, how can anyone say the intent was not to hit the bleep out of the INF, and to hit him hard? How can anyone argue he was trying, at all, to get to 2B? It was 100% a dirty slide. The only intent was to hit the INF hard. The ends, trying to break up a double play, do NOT justify the means.

 

And no, I don't want someone that would do whatever it took to win, I want them to play in the rules, and this was against the existing rules.

 

Having watched the slide over an over, how can anyone say the intent was not to hit the bleep out of the INF, and to hit him hard? How can anyone argue he was trying, at all, to get to 2B? It was 100% a dirty slide. The only intent was to hit the INF hard. The ends, trying to break up a double play, do NOT justify the means.

And no, I don't want someone that would do whatever it took to win, I want them to play in the rules, and this was against the existing rules.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he wasn't trying to hit the bleep out of the infielder.  I think we all agree he was.  The question becomes whether it was a legal play.  The umpires on the spot thought it was legal (as did most players in a clearly unofficial poll).

 

So now it developed into was it "dirty" (which is an 'eye of the beholder' thing) and what should be done to make sure it never ever happens again - which would require us to adopt a Japanese version and eliminate take out slides.  (one could say, 'we changed the rules on catchers, so it would work here' but that's not quite right.  We changed the rules on catchers but there still has been contact at home plate - which has led to injuries and questionable calls. If the intent is to eliminate contact it's the Japanese version.  Otherwise, it's just a small rule rewrite and more arbitrariness).  

The rule already exists....slide to get to the base, not out of the base path to cripple a guy (or make him afraid, or hit him hard). Slide as hard as you want when trying to get to the base.....that's not what Utley did.

 

Oh, and lots of players said Harper is over rated, in an informal poll. Some players said it was ok to choke Harper. Uhhhhh, no.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he wasn't trying to hit the bleep out of the infielder.  I think we all agree he was.  The question becomes whether it was a legal play.  The umpires on the spot thought it was legal (as did most players in a clearly unofficial poll).

 

So now it developed into was it "dirty" (which is an 'eye of the beholder' thing) and what should be done to make sure it never ever happens again - which would require us to adopt a Japanese version and eliminate take out slides.  (one could say, 'we changed the rules on catchers, so it would work here' but that's not quite right.  We changed the rules on catchers but there still has been contact at home plate - which has led to injuries and questionable calls. If the intent is to eliminate contact it's the Japanese version.  Otherwise, it's just a small rule rewrite

more arbitrariness).

 

I'm not sure how you could be more wrong.

 

There already is a rule on the books designed to prevent runners from interfering. The example specifically mentions the turn man on double plays. Just start enforcing existing rules. If a runners actions are intended to reach base safely, no problem. If his actions are intended to interfere, he's out, along with the batter in a DP situation. Umpires ALREADY call interference in every othe situation.

 

Nobody is saying there won't be contact. Simply let natural contact occur from a runner sliding as hard as he wants DIRECTLY INTO SECOND BASE.

 

Which, BTW, is how they play in Japan. I wonder if you've ever seen a JBL game.

 

I'm not sure how you could be more wrong.

There already is a rule on the books designed to prevent runners from interfering. The example specifically mentions the turn man on double plays. Just start enforcing existing rules. If a runners actions are intended to reach base safely, no problem. If his actions are intended to interfere, he's out, along with the batter in a DP situation. Umpires ALREADY call interference in every othe situation.

Nobody is saying there won't be contact. Simply let natural contact occur from a runner sliding as hard as he wants DIRECTLY INTO SECOND BASE.

Which, BTW, is how they play in Japan. I wonder if you've ever seen a JBL game.

-sigh-

 

Yes, there is a rule.  Now we'll say, let's enforce it (even though the umps have enforced it at times and in this case, declined to do so).  So we'll still have times where the umps allowed contact and a fan base will scream and bitch and moan that it was an illegal slide and interference should have been called and we'll compare that slide to the Utley one or the Holliday one.

 

The complaining here is that the umps didn't make a discretion call the way most would like.  That will never change so long as there is wiggle room on a call.  We can move the line so that Utley's slide is clearly way over but something else will end up being close to the new line that will draw just as much outrage.  Maybe the next argument is that the shortstop who injured Plouffe didn't do enough to protect the baserunner.  Who knows.  But as long as we allow contact, there are always going to be plays that some people object to.  If we want to allow those, then we have to accept that occasionally the umpires will allow a play that some people don't like.  

-sigh-

 

Yes, there is a rule.  Now we'll say, let's enforce it (even though the umps have enforced it at times and in this case, declined to do so).  So we'll still have times where the umps allowed contact and a fan base will scream and bitch and moan that it was an illegal slide and interference should have been called and we'll compare that slide to the Utley one or the Holliday one.

 

The complaining here is that the umps didn't make a discretion call the way most would like.  That will never change so long as there is wiggle room on a call.  We can move the line so that Utley's slide is clearly way over but something else will end up being close to the new line that will draw just as much outrage.  Maybe the next argument is that the shortstop who injured Plouffe didn't do enough to protect the baserunner.  Who knows.  But as long as we allow contact, there are always going to be plays that some people object to.  If we want to allow those, then we have to accept that occasionally the umpires will allow a play that some people don't like.

 

OK, you win. We'll still have a chance at controversy. We'll also have a chance at fewer broken legs and concussions.

 

OK, you win. We'll still have a chance at controversy. We'll also have a chance at fewer broken legs and concussions.

If you're really worried about injuries, this isn't the place to start.  But baseball could (and probably will) try to change the take out slide rule a bit and it won't make much difference, just like the catching change didn't.  

Wait, don't fix anything because you can't fix everything? That's not logic. Don't fix anything because someone still wont' think the world is good enough? That's not logic.

 

There is a rule. Leagues decide how much to enforce rules all the time. The argument you are making is the same argument made about enforcing the strike zone, frankly.

The home plate changes, as far as I know, eliminated any nasty, injury causing collisions this year. And the game is still alive and being played hard.

 

It's just no longer recklessly dangerous for no reason.

 

If you're really worried about injuries, this isn't the place to start.  But baseball could (and probably will) try to change the take out slide rule a bit and it won't make much difference, just like the catching change didn't.  

Are you serious?  You don't think the catching rule change is saving catchers from big hits and injuries? 

 

Are you serious?  You don't think the catching rule change is saving catchers from big hits and injuries? 

They were pretty rare in the first place.  They may have helped a little but probably not all that much - Suzuki got steam rolled a few times even with the new rule.  

I think it's been pretty clearly a help.  And next year, when this changes, we won't have any Kangs or Tejedas to regret.  That'll be a good thing too.

 

Actually, the main reason they slide is so they don't die.  The short stop or second baseman can throw the ball through a runner and then both runners would be out.  Cal Ripkin was great at that.

 

The obvious reason for the take out slide is to prevent a second out (as opposed to your other instances).  If you want MLB to adopt a Japanese version, fine.  That's what you'd like.  I think that would be boring but to each his own.

 

Those are all reasons WHY takeout slides happen, not why they should be allowed. I'm looking for a reason for why you think a slide like Utley's should be allowed but other forms of contact and interference, like the ones I listed, should not and are not.

 

 

Wait, don't fix anything because you can't fix everything? That's not logic. Don't fix anything because someone still wont' think the world is good enough? That's not logic.

There is a rule. Leagues decide how much to enforce rules all the time. The argument you are making is the same argument made about enforcing the strike zone, frankly.

That's the point - as long as you leave it open for interpretation, you're going to have to accept calls you don't like. The umpires and many players thought the slide was legal.  (You and many others do not).  Umpires do call interference (although they do seem more inclined to call it when guys are out of the baseline). We can (and probably will) move the line but it won't change the discussion if we still allow contact.  Someone will take it further than others think is right - look at home plate collisions.  The Twins/Royals game late this year was decided in part on a non-interference call on Suzuki that upset Royals fans a great deal.  

 

 

Those are all reasons WHY takeout slides happen, not why they should be allowed. I'm looking for a reason for why you think a slide like Utley's should be allowed but other forms of contact and interference, like the ones I listed, should not and are not.

What were you're other suggestions?  Plowing over a fielder in the baseline?  

No, players agreed that it is the way baseball has been played and that it is allowed under the current unwritten rules.  That doesn't mean that it should be part of the game.

 

That's what we have now and has led to this discussion.  So we slightly re-write the rule and next year someone will be called out for interference on a similar play and we'll get another round of discussion on this.  If we're going to allow contact sometimes there is going to be contact that some people think goes too far (and others not enough).  So we could adopt the Japanese version and eliminate all contact or we could let the umpires make the call at the moment it happened, understanding that we won't always like their calls.

I don't know the Japanese game, but a "malicious contact" rule already exists in the US, at least at the high school level that I am familiar with.  Slide into the base and you're fine, even if you contact the fielder.  Hasn't caused any confusion or controversy that I am aware of.  Pretty simple really, especially compared to the new MLB home plate collision rules (which have also been implemented pretty seamlessly).

 

No, players agreed that it is the way baseball has been played and that it is allowed under the current unwritten rules.  That doesn't mean that it should be part of the game.

 

Where can I find the list of current unwritten rules that supports this statement?

 

Where can I find the list of current unwritten rules that supports this statement?

Listen to Bert.