Changes to rule(s) pertaining to breaking up the DP

[Otto von Ballpark]

A real play of smarts/skill would have been Bautista sliding with his arms extended more naturally, rather than trying to grab the ankle late.  Maybe in the same motion, he could have tried to hook the base somehow to stay on it.

 

Not sure why we would want a game where all of those considerations are thrown out the window, and baserunners feel free to go full Utley on fielders with little regard for anything else.

 

I mean, for example, on a brushback pitch, the catcher sets up like normal and the pitcher does his normal wind-up.  But if you like an aggressive game, maybe we should just let the pitcher and catcher set up a brushback like a "pitch out" but to the batter's side of the plate, and let the pitcher take a few steps first to get a little something extra on his throw.

 

True art and skill often comes through when working within some boundaries.  I think for much of baseball's history, there haven't been enough boundaries on baserunners breaking up DPs.

[alskntwnsfn]

Pedro (Martinez) on the rule change during MLB Tonight:

 

"Da new rulz is gonna turn da game soft, make deez guys look like a bunch of p*ssies."

 

I'm paraphrasing, but that was the basic jist... best part of the segment was watching HR go "bananas." /pedro. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If these two plays are indicative of how the rules will be enforced, I think any hard slide when the throw is a bit late will be in violation of the rule.  We will see.

What exactly is a "hard slide"?  If you mean one that carries the runner well past second base, yeah, that's the rule.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Love these rules, but they have to fine 10% checks the umpires who refuse to enforce them.  The guy was looking at it and did not call it.   If umpires have no accountability rules will never get enforced. 

I'll give the ump a break here.  It was pretty clear on replay but I could see not being confident in calling this interference in real-time, especially if you know replay can help.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The issue for me is that it looks like the runner would have been safe at first even if Bautista hadn't touched the second baseman and what Bautista did couldn't hurt him. So no harm no foul... right?

 

I'm not a wiz with frame capture, but here's a look at the play at first:

 

 

This is after the throw has already bounced once and the first baseman has gone into full lean to try stopping it from going wild.  And the runner's foot still isn't quite on the bag.  The runner might have beaten a throw that reached first on the fly, but it's hardly clear enough to absolve Bautista (setting aside the fact that this kind of discretion isn't part of the rule, of course).

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think it should.  Yesterday, Carlos Correa clearly ran out of the base paths to affect a throw and was rewarded, despite it being against the rules.  So we're in this ugly situation of a bunch of "eye-of-the-boholder" calls, only some are reviewable in NY and some aren't.  

 

I understand that some people don't think a baserunner should try and break up a double play but I'm not one of them.  I would miss that about the game. 

 

That, for some reason, is not reviewable.......if it were, I'm sure he'd have been called out.

[gunnarthor]

 

A real play of smarts/skill would have been Bautista sliding with his arms extended more naturally, rather than trying to grab the ankle late.  Maybe in the same motion, he could have tried to hook the base somehow to stay on it.

 

Not sure why we would want a game where all of those considerations are thrown out the window, and baserunners feel free to go full Utley on fielders with little regard for anything else.

 

 

There is a happy medium between nothing and Utley.  We played it for years.  The Toronto and Atlanta slides wouldn't have made anyone blink last year.  And now we're in the "if he tried to trip him with his arm instead of his hand ..." line of reasoning.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There is a happy medium between nothing and Utley.  We played it for years.

So what would your rule be?

 

And now we're in the "if he tried to trip him with his arm instead of his hand ..." line of reasoning.  

 

Context, my friend.  If he was less blatant about the grab, it probably wouldn't have mattered since he slid way past the base, hence the other condition listed in my post.

[USAFChief]

 

That, for some reason, is not reviewable.......if it were, I'm sure he'd have been called out.

It's not reviewable, but it wasn't interference.  It probably would have been interference if Betances' throw had hit him.  There has to be actual interference in order to be called interference.  I'm OK with that...I don't want umpires making things up.  If it didn't happen, the rest doesn't matter.  In this case, it didn't happen.

 

Similarly, a fielder can't obstruct a runner if the runner doesn't attempt to advance.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think it should.  Yesterday, Carlos Correa clearly ran out of the base paths to affect a throw and was rewarded, despite it being against the rules.  So we're in this ugly situation of a bunch of "eye-of-the-boholder" calls, only some are reviewable in NY and some aren't. 

Just had a chance to look at the Correa play.  The issue there was the actions of the pitcher.  It's not against the rules to run on the grass, but I think it can only be interference if the throw hits the runner.  If the runner is on the grass, the pitcher just has to peg the runner with the throw if he wants that call.

 

In that sense, Correa running on the grass there would have been the equivalent of Bautista sliding hard but staying on second base.  Both aggressive baseball moves, fully within the rules, that would probably have benefited their teams, given how the other teams reacted.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's not reviewable, but it wasn't interference.  It probably would have been interference if Betances' throw had hit him.  There has to be actual interference in order to be called interference.  I'm OK with that...I don't want umpires making things up.  If it didn't happen, the rest doesn't matter.  In this case, it didn't happen.

Yup.  They would need to change the rule to "no running on the grass, period" in order for that play to be called interference, as it played out.  Which might be a fine suggestion -- but has no real relationship with replay complaints or the takeout slide at second rule.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Similarly, a fielder can't obstruct a runner if the runner doesn't attempt to advance.  

Similarly, a runner not attempting to advance (i.e. sliding way past second base) isn't allowed to obstruct a fielder.

[TheLeviathan]

God forbid we ask people to slide into the base and not the human.

 

I thought the point of baseball was to safely advance to the next base, not safely advance some body part of yours into the opponents?

 

Where the hell did some of you learn what baseball was?

[gunnarthor]

 

Just had a chance to look at the Correa play.  The issue there was the actions of the pitcher.  It's not against the rules to run on the grass, but I think it can only be interference if the throw hits the runner.  If the runner is on the grass, the pitcher just has to peg the runner with the throw if he wants that call.

 

In that sense, Correa running on the grass there would have been the equivalent of Bautista sliding hard but staying on second base.  Both aggressive baseball moves, fully within the rules, that would probably have benefited their teams, given how the other teams reacted.

Well, the rule actually doesn't need the runner to be hit by the ball but again, it's a judgement call.  

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

Where the hell did some of you learn what baseball was?

Apparently, not Japan.

 

Look, your views on this are pretty well known and most of the discussions on this thread have been pretty good and respectful.  Let's not get away from that.

[dgwills]

 

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

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

That's a dirty play. You'll notice the runner was still out at first too. It's the reason they had to make this rule.

[tobi0040]

 

God forbid we ask people to slide into the base and not the human.

 

I thought the point of baseball was to safely advance to the next base, not safely advance some body part of yours into the opponents?

 

Where the hell did some of you learn what baseball was?

 

Yeah. I am just not sure who is being harmed here. 

 

Players will be hurt less.  Win for players.

 

Owners aren't paying guys on the DL.  Win for owners.

 

Fans get to see the best players playing.  Win for fans.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Apparently, not Japan.

 

Look, your views on this are pretty well known and most of the discussions on this thread have been pretty good and respectful.  Let's not get away from that.

 

You seriously think a flying kick to someone is baseball?

 

Were you taught that in high school?  I was taught to slide hard into the bag, as crazy as that apparently is for some of you.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah. I am just not sure who is being harmed here. 

 

Players will be hurt less.  Win for players.

 

Owners aren't paying guys on the DL.  Win for owners.

 

Fans get to see the best players playing.  Win for fans.

 

Right and all we lose is something that is absurd in the first place.  How many times are these take out slides actually effective?  

 

The only thing they effectively did was force baseball to stop forcing infielders to touch the base.  We got this bizarro "in the neighborhood" rule.  Not only does it hurt players, it doesn't even accomplish anything other than make second base some kind of Twilight Zone for rules.

[gunnarthor]

 

You seriously think a flying kick to someone is baseball?

 

Were you taught that in high school?  I was taught to slide hard into the bag, as crazy as that apparently is for some of you.

Nobody is promoting flying kicks.  Let's keep it respectful, ok?  You can disagree with someone and still not resort to this patronizing tone.  

[dgwills]

 

The Bautista over turn was so stupid. It wasn't over the top like Utley etc

 

It shouldn't be a reviewable play to begin with, good lord baseball games go long enough without these stupid reviews. The only time IMO you should get "punished" is when you don't even touch the base when breaking up a slide.

I didn't see the Bautista play, but you're saying if a player has no chance to break up a play, slide's into a player with the intent to injure and is able to touch the bag it's ok? I disagree.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nobody is promoting flying kicks.  Let's keep it respectful, ok?  You can disagree with someone and still not resort to this patronizing tone.  

 

So what are you promoting then?  What is fair to do?

 

You got asked before and you ducked it.  If you're against the Utley slides but want some other kind of "bust up the double play" - what are you allowing?

[gunnarthor]

 

I didn't see the Bautista play, but you're saying if a player has no chance to break up a play, slide's into a player with the intent to injure and is able to touch the bag it's ok? I disagree.

No one said that.

[dgwills]

 

No one said that.

From Dave: "The only time IMO you should get "punished" is when you don't even touch the base when breaking up a slide."

It's the comment I was replying too. 

[gunnarthor]

 

So what are you promoting then?  What is fair to do?

 

You got asked before and you ducked it.  If you're against the Utley slides but want some other kind of "bust up the double play" - what are you allowing?

I said it before, on paper the new rule seems fine. From earlier in this thread - "My thinking is that that part of the old 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. The way we 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."

 

But now we're in a judgement zone and the two early judgement calls - esp with being reversed by NY - make it look a lot worse.

[gunnarthor]

 

From Dave: "The only time IMO you should get "punished" is when you don't even touch the base when breaking up a slide."

It's the comment I was replying too. 

The "intent to injure" part was missing.  I think that's a pretty big assumption.  I think a lot plays want to slide with the intention of breaking up a double play.  Very few, if any, want to slide with the intention of injuring the opposing player.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

But now we're in a judgement zone and the two early judgement calls - esp with being reversed by NY - make it look a lot worse.

 

This in no way answers the question.  You continue to bristle every time someone points out that player safety is a real factor and that you are promoting player injury.  But then you also complain about "busting up double plays" going away, as if the injury-causing slides are somehow different than the "bust up the double play slides"  Players are injuring each other with the express intent of busting up double plays.

 

So you seem to want to have it both ways, so better clarity on what you actually want to stick around and want out would be helpful.  Otherwise, you look like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[dgwills]

 

The "intent to injure" part was missing.  I think that's a pretty big assumption.  I think a lot plays want to slide with the intention of breaking up a double play.  Very few, if any, want to slide with the intention of injuring the opposing player.  

I'm using the most extreme example that would be allowed under Dave's rules. 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

That's a dirty play. You'll notice the runner was still out at first too. It's the reason they had to make this rule.

I disagree. The rule was put in to prohibit Utley's football "slide" that took out Tejada, not the slide that took out Kang.

 

It's pretty well documented that middle infielders who learned the game in Asia always have the problem of planting their legs when they make the turn.

[gunnarthor]

 

This in no way answers the question.  You continue to bristle every time someone points out that player safety is a real factor and that you are promoting player injury.  But then you also complain about "busting up double plays" going away, as if the injury-causing slides are somehow different than the "bust up the double play slides"  Players are injuring each other with the express intent of busting up double plays.

 

So you seem to want to have it both ways, so better clarity on what you actually want to stick around and want out would be helpful.  Otherwise, you look like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I think the part where I said the new rule seems good on paper pretty well summed up my view.  If the player primarily slides into the bag to bust up the double play, it should be fine.  But I don't think that is what we're seeing.  I think where we disagree is the judgement of how the rule is being implemented.  Especially when the judgement of the umps on the field view it differently (in real time) then do the reply officials in NY.  Both of these plays were on close plays at second base where the base runner slid hard into the bag.  That should be fine. (And the umps thought so, too).  I'm not sure, based on those two rulings, how any close slide would be considered legal b/c almost all close plays would result in some form of contact.