MLB has announced new rules for slides into second base in DP situations.

 

Tough rule to write, but I think it's a good start.

 

I like the parts about not altering the path to intentionally contact the infielder, being able to AND attempting to contact the bag, and putting the neighborhood play to rest.

 

Also some tweaks to pace of game.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/165429062/pace-of-game-changes-new-slide-rule-adopted

I love that it says you don't change your path to deliberately hit the fielder.  

Just curious, but what is everyone's opinion of the slide that took out Kang?

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v485731983

 

Just curious, but what is everyone's opinion of the slide that took out Kang?

http://m.mlb.com/video/v485731983

 

If your leg is two feet from the base there is zero reason why it needs to ever be broken.  The sooner baseball stops trying to be faux tough with this garbage the better.

It's about time. And make sure you step on the base with the ball in hand. No more cowardly take out slides. I love it.

Edited February 26, 201610 yr by h2oface

Leg Whip.  Dirty.  Love the rule.  And love the end of the "neighborhood"  Always hated that.  Like traveling in NBA.  "These guys are pros, they don't need to  follow the rules of the game"  Crap.  Hold everyone to the standards you would hold a 12 year old to.

Just curious, but what is everyone's opinion of the slide that took out Kang?

http://m.mlb.com/video/v485731983

I would call the DP on that slide by the new rule. The runner altered his path and didnt contact the ground first.

If your leg is two feet from the base there is zero reason why it needs to ever be broken.  The sooner baseball stops trying to be faux tough with this garbage the better.

Not sure I understand your response.

 

The Utley slide into Tejada seems completely different from the slide into Kang, with the Swisher slide into Nishioka somewhere in the middle.

 

Just curious, but what is everyone's opinion of the slide that took out Kang?

http://m.mlb.com/video/v485731983

 

Good hard slide. Easily able to touch the base. 

 

Just curious, but what is everyone's opinion of the slide that took out Kang?

http://m.mlb.com/video/v485731983

 

In basketball... that would be a flagrant 2 foul. No intention to really go for the base. The intention was to kick the legs of the player on the fly.  Also, he was already out. Like tackling a player when he is already out of bounds. Cowardly. Good Riddance. Let's play baseball and keep the talent on the field. 

Edited February 26, 201610 yr by h2oface

 

Good hard slide. Easily able to touch the base. 

 

I don't see anything good about it.  He was out already.  Hard sure.  But he should have gotten a hard one on the mouth at next plate appearance.

In basketball... that would be a flagrant 2 foul. No intention to really go for the base. The intention was to dive kick the legs of the player.  Also, he was already out. Like tackling a player when he is already out of bounds. Cowardly. Good Riddance. Let's play baseball and keep the talent on the field.

 

The rule says (dangerous to paraphrase a written rule, but...) but basically I think the rule says if by completing your slide you can still maintain contact with the bag by hand or foot, then it's a good slide.

Good hard slide. Easily able to touch the base.

 

this is my opinion too.

 

The rule says (dangerous to paraphrase a written rule, but...) but basically I think the rule says if by completing your slide you can still maintain contact with the bag by hand or foot, then it's a good slide.

 

This, does not apply, if you are out already, as was the case there...

I don't see anything good about it.  He was out already.  Hard sure.  But he should have gotten a hard one on the mouth at next plate appearance.

I know you take a harder stand against hard slides than most.

 

I think the new rule is trying to remove context. If there's a throw coming in from left field to the short inside of part of the bag on a player trying to leg out a double, you might see that very same slide that took out Kang. I didn't see anything malicious in the slide that took out Kang and the runner would have been able to maintain contact with the bag. JMO

This, does not apply, if you are out already, as was the case there...

I think the runner is already into his slide and the play happens a little too fast for the runner to make an adjustment if the ball was to be dropped.

 

The rule says (dangerous to paraphrase a written rule, but...) but basically I think the rule says if by completing your slide you can still maintain contact with the bag by hand or foot, then it's a good slide.

 

Are we just ignoring this last part of the new rule?

".....and not changing his path for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder."

 

Why else did he do that awkward slide that took him longer to get to the base? Why would anyone throw their legs out there if not to avoid a player with the ball..... instead of make hard contact with him? He changed his path for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder. He went out of his way to make contact. Pretty simple. 

 

Edited February 26, 201610 yr by h2oface

 

I think the runner is already into his slide and the play happens a little too fast for the runner to make an adjustment if the ball was to be dropped.

 

Here is the thing.  The rule is messed up.  It should say:  If you slide with your legs first, the legs better be able to reach the base. 

 

It is silly to think that one would slide legs first with cleats pointing in the fielder and touch base with the trailing hand and have an advantage in getting that base, other than hurting the fielder

 

Simple.

 

 

 

I don't see anything good about it.  He was out already.  Hard sure.  But he should have gotten a hard one on the mouth at next plate appearance.

So basically you are saying the punishment for a violent play is more violence? When does it end then?

I think the runner is already into his slide and the play happens a little too fast for the runner to make an adjustment if the ball was to be dropped.

He was already out and deliberately altered his slide to take the guy out. Kangs leg was broken on a dirty slide and, thankfully, the new rule will enforce that.

 

He is a good two feet to the side of the base, there is no justification for the runner to hit him.

He was already out and deliberately altered his slide to take the guy out. Kangs leg was broken on a dirty slide and, thankfully, the new rule will enforce that.

He is a good two feet to the side of the base, there is no justification for the runner to hit him.

"A good two feet" isn't that far and the runner still maintained possession of the bag easily with his hand.

 

There are much more egregious examples of bad slides, such as the Utley one, which is what this rule is in place to eliminate.

The rule seems ok.  It'll still allow the hard slides that guys like Cuddy used to do all the time but it eliminates the more aggressive slides like Utley's.  I'm sure there will some iffy calls during the season while it gets implemented but shouldn't be a big issue.  It'll be interesting to see how the umps enforce this.  

 

"A good two feet" isn't that far and the runner still maintained possession of the bag easily with his hand.

There are much more egregious examples of bad slides, such as the Utley one, which is what this rule is in place to eliminate.

 

Just because there are worse examples doesn't make this one ok.  His slide form was a deliberate take out.

 

I could care less that he could still touch the bag, I care that he's actually trying to slide and be safe and not deliver a flying kick to a middle infielder.

The sooner slides whose intention is not to get to the base as fast as possible, but to hit a fielder, are gone from the game, the better.

I have a hard time believing that every slide is either clean or dirty, black or white.

 

For people who believe the Coughlan slide into Kang was dirty, can you post some videos of some clean slides or slides which you are not sure about?

Maybe I'm just being a simpleton.

Section 7.09 of the rules covers interference. Here's rule 7.09(d): "It is interference when any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

From the moment the runner approaching second base on a potential double play is out he can not hinder or impede the defensive player. At all. This means no take-out slide. Can't this long-existing rule simply be enforced?

 

Maybe I'm just being a simpleton.

Section 7.09 of the rules covers interference. Here's rule 7.09(d): "It is interference when any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

From the moment the runner approaching second base on a potential double play is out he can not hinder or impede the defensive player. At all. This means no take-out slide. Can't this long-existing rule simply be enforced?

My thinking is that that part of the rule was never enforced and what this new rule is trying to do is make sure slides like Utley's don't happen.  I don't think the umpires will be too aggressive but we'll see.  I don't think this changes much since slides like Utley's were pretty rare.  Where we'll end up seeing controversy is if/when umpires call interference on plays most of us think were pretty tame.  We say some problems with the 'catch' rule implemented last year, IIRC.  

 

Generally, I don't think this is a big deal. It gives some consideration to player safety, doesn't alter the game much and will probably be forgotten fairly soon.  I admit, I loved the Hal McRae slides but those have been out of baseball for 30+ years.  The game is fine.  I don't think we're going to be turning into the Japanese game where this is no contact at second, but we'll see.   

 

My thinking is that that part of the rule was never enforced and what this new rule is trying to do is make sure slides like Utley's don't happen.  I don't think the umpires will be too aggressive but we'll see.  I don't think this changes much since slides like Utley's were pretty rare.  Where we'll end up seeing controversy is if/when umpires call interference on plays most of us think were pretty tame.  We say some problems with the 'catch' rule implemented last year, IIRC.  

 

Generally, I don't think this is a big deal. It gives some consideration to player safety, doesn't alter the game much and will probably be forgotten fairly soon.  I admit, I loved the Hal McRae slides but those have been out of baseball for 30+ years.  The game is fine.  I don't think we're going to be turning into the Japanese game where this is no contact at second, but we'll see.   

Hal McRae was not highly respected by many. I wish I could find the picture of him sliding into Glenn Borgmann in 1977. He came in fast and planted his right foot squarely on Borgmann's left knee. I thought it was obvious from the picture that he was intending to injure.

 

Maybe I'm just being a simpleton.

Section 7.09 of the rules covers interference. Here's rule 7.09(d): "It is interference when any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

From the moment the runner approaching second base on a potential double play is out he can not hinder or impede the defensive player. At all. This means no take-out slide. Can't this long-existing rule simply be enforced?

 

This is why many internet writers say the new rule is silly, just have the umps enforce the existing rules......

Everyone used to do it.  Now nobody will be able to do it.  So from a competition perspective, nothing is lost whatsoever. 

 

What is lost is unneccesary injuries.  Good players missing time.  Owners paying guys to not play. Career ending injuries, concussions (Morneau), etc.