Baseball can be a confusing game. The rule book is very thick; not as thick as football’s, but then baseball doesn’t have to define things like “a football move” in order to make sense. Frankly, the unwritten rule book is followed more than the written one. For decades the written rule book said that no fielder could impede the progress of a base runner, yet catchers were routinely praised for their ability to “block the plate.” Several years ago baseball, responding to a catastrophic injury to a popular player (Buster Posey, or maybe Alex Avila) changed the rules about catchers blocking home plate, but all they really had to do was enforce the existing rule.
If we look at the rule book, evaluating the legality of Chase Utley’s slide in the National League Division Series is simple. Rule 708(b) says a runner is out when he “hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.” The comment to the rule is explicit: “If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: with less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out.” So sliding in to second base with the intent of “breaking up the double play” is illegal.
But of course no one believes that. So let’s toss out the official rule book and just talk about what happened and what should have happened.
People who defend Utley’s actions make the same claim: he was “sliding in to second base.” There are only two things wrong with that statement; he didn’t slide, and it wasn’t into second base. But other than that, it’s accurate.
“Sliding” is an essential element if the “take out slide” is legitimate. First of all, it is call a take-out slide, not a take-out body block, so sliding is required. Secondly, the sliding slows down the runner’s momentum so he is not running full steam into the defenseless middle infielder.
Utley did not begin to drag along the dirt in what is commonly known as “a slide” until he was upon Ruben Tejada. There is no effort by him to decelerate as he approached the base. His running at full speed is one thing that makes his action inappropriate.
The next is that he did not slide “into second.” The baseball rule (known as the Hal McRae Rule) acknowledges the basic element that the base must be within the “wingspan” of the runner, that the runner cannot leave the base path to go after a fielder making a pivot away from the base. Utley is within his wingspan of second base, so what’s the problem? The problem is he went over the base to impede the fielder; in fact, he was declared safe despite the fact that it was clear he never touched the base at all.
One thing that distinguishes great middle infielders from average ones is their ability to protect themselves from take-out slides by using the base as a shield. If they can position themselves so the base is between the runner and them, then they are safe from the full onslaught of the baserunner. The runner slides into second and not into the fielder’s legs.
Utley denied Tejada this protection by going over the base and directly at his legs. I don’t think Utley intended to break Tejada’s leg, but that is the natural consequence of allowing Utley to run into Tejada at full speed without being obstructed by second base.
I won’t comment on the appropriateness of the subsequent suspension, or the inability of MLB to hold a hearing in time to determine if Utley should not be allowed to play in the remainder of the series. The Mets have made that discussion moot. But the obvious conclusion is that Chase Utley should have been called out, and the batter as well, because of his interference with Ruben Tejada.
This also ignores the fact that Utley should have been called out because he never touched second and then ran outside the baseline when he returned to the dugout. If he assumed he was out because he didn’t touch the base, who are the umpires to disagree? Awarding him second base was indefensible.
No comments:
Post a Comment