2015 NLDS: Mets vs. Dodgers

[Tryptamine]

It wasn't that dirty.

Jumping into the back of someone's legs with no intent at touching the bag is the definition of dirty. That would draw a 15 yard penalty on Sundays, let alone in a baseball game.

[backwardsk]

The Justin Turner knock won me some money on Draft Kings.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OFFNY]

The only question at this point is where Utley's going to take the pitch. I vote hand/wrists, but I suspect someone is going after his head.

I think that the Mets need to rally around each other, and win the next game.

I believe that they would be playing into the Dodgers' hands if they were to be enticed into a pissing match with them over this.

They have Matt Harvey pitching at home in Game Three, and they need to win the game.

I'm fairly confidant that they will revisit the absurd rule that somehow awards a runner who had no intention whatsoever of touching the base a safe call. An out was never recorded, but a base was never reached (or even attempted to be reached), either. It's not like it was a close call on a tag play, with the runner touching the base before being tagged, and the ump incorrectly called him out.

[clapdiddy]

That was a dirty slide...no two ways about it.

[Tryptamine]

Utley has a history of this type of thing. Only a month ago he nearly took out Gyorko in a slide that was even further from the base.

[Superbee83]

Utley has a history of this type of thing. Only a month ago he nearly took out Gyorko in a slide that was even further from the base.

I don't know how the umps called this, but this is a good example of an illegal takeout slide.

As I understand the rule, the runner needs to be able to touch the bag while he slides.

Hopefully, the umps called Utley and the batter out as a result of this play.

However, I do think that the umps got the call right last night.

( Tejada never touched the bag.)

While it can be argued that the slide was late, his slide would have allowed him to touch the bag.

There is no doubt that Utley was trying to take out Tejada, however, I believe that the slide was within the rules.

[Can_of_corn]

It wasn't that dirty.

Yes it was.

It is pretty clear that his intent was on hitting the defender, not the bag.

Hopefully this is the play that gets this nonsense out of the game.

Not sure if Tejada is a big enough name.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't know how the umps called this, but this is a good example of an illegal takeout slide.

As I understand the rule, the runner needs to be able to touch the bag while he slides.

Hopefully, the umps called Utley and the batter out as a result of this play.

However, I do think that the umps got the call right last night.

( Tejada never touched the bag.)

While it can be argued that the slide was late, his slide would have allowed him to touch the bag.

There is no doubt that Utley was trying to take out Tejada, however, I believe that the slide was within the rules.

They could have very easily used Rule 6.01 (6) (interference) and ended the inning.

[Superbee83]

Yes it was.

It is pretty clear that his intent was on hitting the defender, not the bag.

Hopefully this is the play that gets this nonsense out of the game.

Not sure if Tejada is a big enough name.

I think that MLB will revisit the takeout slide this off season as a result of this play and the Kang injury earlier this season.

IMO, the rule should and will be revised to have the runner slide directly to the bag instead of being able to target a fielder.

[Can_of_corn]

I think that MLB will revisit the takeout slide this off season as a result of this play and the Kang injury earlier this season.

IMO, the rule should and will be revised to have the runner slide directly to the bag instead of being able to target a fielder.

I don't know.

When they instituted replay they specifically made the "neighborhood" play unreviewable instead of eliminating the types of slides that caused it to be necessary in the first place. When they made home plate collisions a lot more uncommon in an effort to limit injuries they also didn't see a need to protect middle infielders.

Not sure why a couple broken legs with playoff implications should change their minds.

Someone in charge obviously likes it.

[Superbee83]

They could have very easily used Rule 6.01 (6) (interference) and ended the inning.

Great point.

Obviously, it is a call that the umpires rarely make and I agree that the play last night fits into the scenario.

Maybe the solution is simple, have the umpires enforce the rule.

[SeaBird]

MLB/Torre is not done reviewing the slide last night. There is a possibility that some for of disciplinary action could be doled out. The "lateness" of the slide is the cause for concern.

[Can_of_corn]

MLB/Torre is not done reviewing the slide last night. There is a possibility that some for of disciplinary action could be doled out. The "lateness" of the slide is the cause for concern.

They should also reprimand the replay crew that gave Utley the base when he never touched the bag and walked off the field.

[OFFNY]

MLB/Torre is not done reviewing the slide last night. There is a possibility that some for of disciplinary action could be doled out. The "lateness" of the slide is the cause for concern.

They should also reprimand the replay crew that gave Utley the base when he never touched the bag and walked off the field.

As heartless as it sounds, in a way that may be the bigger issue.

The sliding rule as it currently stands allows the runner to take out the fielder, so long as he is within his fingertips reach of the bag. Utley's slide was BOTH late AND had a clear intent to do nothing but take out the fielder with no intention of touching the bag.

It was very similar to Nick Swisher's leg-whip of Tsuyoshi Nikioka a few years ago. Technically, Swisher was within his fingertips' reach of the bag, so he was abiding by the rule, as it currently stands.

BUT ..... it was clear that Swisher's leg-whip of Nikioka (as well as Utley's take-out of Tejada last night) were both not within what I believe to be within the general spirit of the game. So I suppose that in both of these cases, the baserunner's take-out of the fielder was technically "fair", but not necessarily "square."

Hence, if they do revisit this rule in the off-season, they really need to look at the nuances (or lack of nuances) in the way that the rule currently stands, so that they can make it more clear (and more fair.) Because the way that it currently stands, it clearly is not fair.

Again, I know that this sounds insensitive, but in a way the most infuriating part of all of this is that Utley was awarded 2nd base for no good reason on top of it all ...... and when I say "for no good reason," that includes the possibility that the umpires were technically making the right call last night. Because if they were making the right call, then there is/was no good reason for the rule to have been written that way in the first place.

[backwardsk]

They should also reprimand the replay crew that gave Utley the base when he never touched the bag and walked off the field.

Wasn't Utley originally called out though? If they had it originally called correctly he wouldn't have been called out or safe. He left the field following the umpire's decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk