The new “Chase Utley” slide rule was applied in Tuesday’s Jays-Rays game, and raised some immediate controversy, not least because the offending slide was among the most gentlemanly you’re likely to see in an attempt to break up a double play.
After the jump, it’s your turn to weigh in on the new rule.
On the play in question, the Jays trailed by a run in the 9th, but had loaded the bases with one out when Edwin Encarnacion grounded to third. Evan Longoria threw to second to retire Jose Bautista running from first but the relay throw by second baseman Logan Forsythe was wide of the first base bag, allowing two runs to score. Toronto’s lead, though, was short-lived as an appeal by the Rays resulted in a video ruling that Bautista’s slide was in violation of the new rule, turning the play into a game-ending double play and a Rays victory.
Here’s the play, courtesy of MLB.com. Watch Jose Bautista’s left arm as he slides into second, well clear of the second baseman on the infield side of the bag.
As quoted in this ESPN story, MLB.com explains that the new rule 6.01 (j) requires a baserunner to “… make a “bona fide slide,” which is defined as making contact with the ground before reaching the base, being able to and attempting to reach the base with a hand or foot, being able to and attempting to remain on the base at the completion of the slide (except at home plate) and not changing his path for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.”.
The rules interpretation was evidently that Bautista reaching with his hand to make contact with Forsythe’s foot constituted “changing his path” as quoted above (although there was no change in the path of Bautista’s body as he slid directly into the bag). Given how close Forsythe was to the bag, Bautista apparently could have slid directly at the fielder and easily touched the base with his hand, a more dangerous slide that would seemingly have been within the rules, based on the quote above.
Your turn now to weigh in. Do you agree that Bautista’s slide constituted “changing his path” and was thus illegal, despite not being dangerous? If so, what sort of takeout slide would conform to the rule? Would the fielder have to be standing on or straddling the bag for a takeout slide to be legal?
This is something everyone will have to get used to, but within a few years how to slide the “right” way will be accepted and obvious:
Go for the bag, don’t make any obvious effort to contact the fielder. Pretty simple and reasonable.
In Bautista’s interview he (calmly) expressed that he’s been playing a certain way his entire life, and this change is not easy to incorporate in the bang-bang of the moment (my paraphrase).
John Gibbons expressed the classic baseball-old-school attitude about anything that is different (and not “hard-nosed”). His type is eventually going to become extinct. Eventually.
________________________
I want to comment on one other rule from yesterday.
In the Yankees-Astros game, Altuve hit a nubber, Betances fielded, Altuve ran INSIDE the baseline, Betances threw it over Teixiera’s head. The runner interference was NOT called. Run scored. Difference in the game.
When is baseball going to figure out what beer-league softball discovered ages ago? – You need TWO bags at 1st base. One inside the line (for the fielder). One in foul territory (for the runner).
You’ve nailed the situation in the Jays’ game 100%, Voomo. In a couple of years, no one will be called for this anymore if it’s well-enforced, but we might have a “year of the slide rule” this year, just like the “year of the balk” in 1988. Pitchers got used to that; runners will get used to this, and no one will care. Besides, the point is to be safe, not “take out” another player. That’s not baseball.
I remember seeing the double bag at first base in 1996 — I saw it at the Olympics (for softball) and on the campus of Université Laval in Québec City.
I think the play could have been called for interference without the new rule.
Rule (5.09(a) 13): A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play;
It looked like Bautista deliberately reachedout to grab Forsyth’s back foot.
I’m with you on running inside the base line. That seems like a pretty easy call to make, yet it seldom is.
If that rule isn’t going to be enforced consistently, it should probably be eliminated (my preference). If there wasn’t such a rule, then first base would be like the others, requiring the fielder to move to create a throwing angle, or risk the consequences.
MLB should send out a memo informing teams and umps to enforce this rule. Failing that, pitchers or catchers fielding a ball that has to be thrown up the first base line should simply drill the base runner between the shoulders. Do that a few times and MLB will start enforcing the rule that is already on the books.
The call in the Yankees game was correct (Correa was actually the runner, not Altuve). Perhaps the rule needs to be changed, but as presently written, the umps got it correct:
https://www.umpirebible.com/rules/interference.htm
Two important points from the link:
“4. The throw must be a catchable throw. Using the same example, if the catcher comes up with a bunted ball and then throws wild to first base because (in his view) the runner was in the way, you cannot have interference.
5. Note the language of the rule: “… interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base.” Points #3 and #4, above, rest on this most important point: that is, if there is interference, the interference is on the fielder receiving the ball at first base and not on the fielder throwing the ball from the vicinity of home plate. This is important to understanding and applying the rule.”
_____________
As for Bautista, I really don’t see any controversy. He came off the bag which the new rule doesn’t allow, other than at home plate. Beyond that, when has grabbing at the ankles of the fielder ever been allowed? The old rule is still on the books and the old rule also prohibits that sort of behavior.
Good points of clarification, David. I had always thought the runner was required to run in foul territory once he reached where the runner’s lane is marked on the field. But, it seems you’re saying that is only the case if, by not doing so, the runner interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball (or field a batted ball, presumably).
The “old rule” I’m assuming you’re referring to would be 7.09 (e) which reads: “Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;”
Doug – I’m hardly an expert on the rules but based on what I read, the runner is only considered out when leaving the base path if he runs into a fielder making a play on the ball or if he’s trying to avoid a tag.
The “old rule” I was referring to is this one, though yours seems applicable as well.
(5.09(a) 13):
(13) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play;
Yep, Betances should have pegged Correa with the ball. Then the interference would have been called. Not an ideal scenario. Put in a 2nd bag, make the runner stay in foul ground.
If you think Bautista slide was legal then maybe the infielders should stick legs out as runner goes by and trip them would be same thing
I tend to agree with Dr. Doom and Voomo’s sentiments. Like every other rule change, there will be growing pains – these first few rulings will elicit a lot of verbiage from retired players about how the game is becoming tainted and wussified, and current players will wonder how to negotiate the new rule. Eventually everyone will be used to it and we’ll barely even notice that takeout slides at 2nd base are largely a thing of the past.
I’m sure if social media existed at the time, there would have been the same kind of uproar over just about every big rule change. Some sample tweets: (which are totally fake)
“Foul balls are strikes? What next, do they want us to play in tutus and frilly sunhats? This is a man’s game, consarnit!” @Afoulaintastrike1901
“Baseball at night? If God wanted us to play baseball at night, he’d leave the sun in the sky for 24 hours. Baseball is meant to played during the day!” @Daybaseballrulez1935
I’m glad you said “largely” as I hope hard slides are not a thing of the past. The new rule still allows for a conforming hard slide that could disrupt an infielder’s relay throw if the fielder is in close proximity to the base.
I italicized “could” because in large measure those slides do not interfere with throws because of the adeptness of the fielder is avoiding the sliding runner and still making an accurate throw. To me, that dexterity by the fielder is a beautiful part of the game and it would thus be a shame if it was no longer a critical skill for a middle infielder because runners were reluctant to make hard slides for fear of running afoul of rules like this new one.
I agree, I think that a properly executed takeout slide to disrupt a double play is a perfectly legitimate baseball play that has been with us since the very beginnings of the game, and I wouldn’t want it to disappear. Certainly the acrobatic feats of skill performed by middle infielders in the act of avoiding a takeout slide to turn two are some of the most fun and visually impressive plays on the field, and I also hope those stay with us.
I think that, just like the Posey rule didn’t get rid of plays at the plate, the Utley rule won’t get rid of takeout slides. Players (and umpires, honestly) will be feeling out the new rule this year, and eventually everyone will have a good idea of what constitutes a legal slide and what is no longer allowed. The new method will hopefully trickle down to the lower rungs of baseball, and will be taught as the new standard in the little leagues, HS, college, and the minors. Eventually rookies will come into the league who have only ever been taught how to slide within the confines of the Utley rule, only vaguely aware that there used to be a different way.
At least, that’s my hope, and I think that’s what baseball history tells us will happen.
Surely there will be better examples of a controversial decision than this play. This one seems pretty cut-and-dry: Bautista broke two rules, the old one that you can’t interfere with a fielder and the new one that you must remain in contact with the bag after the end of the slide. He clearly violated both of those.
I think the controversy (maybe that’s not the right word) stems from the fact that the play seemed so innocuous. Yes, he violated the rules (not sure about the new rule, as it requires only a reasonable attempt to not overslide the bag, for which a case can be made since he overslid by no more than a foot or so), but there was no rolling block and the little business with the second baseman’s foot was trivial to what infielders have to deal with on most slides into the bag.
The larger question is whether this is the standard MLB wants to set. Will every hard slide that breaks up a double play now be subjected to video review? The intent of the rule was to eliminate dangerous slides. Does penalizing slides that are not dangerous because technically they have violated some aspect of the rule as written help achieve that goal, without losing something valuable (i.e. the clean, hard slide) in the process? Seems to me that just as umpires exercise their judgment in making decisions on the field, video reviews should also include some judgment as to the spirit of the rule being interpreted.
Doug –
I think the controversy also stems from the fact that:
1) It was the first application of the new rule.
2) It happened at easily the most critical juncture of the game, turning a 1 run lead into a game ending double play.
3) Gibbon’s comments after the game were completely over the top.
Take away those three elements and my guess is that this play barely gets mentioned or talked about.
Runner just needs to stay in contact with the bag. Slide TO the bag, not Through it. Just like you would if you were actually trying to safely occupy the base.
It’s not that complex a concept, and I’m betting players figure it out within a month.
Without the new rule in place, that play would not have been reviewed and the game would have proceeded. I find it interesting that Cash asked for a review based on the Utley rule (which was NOT violated) and the call was overturned on the basis of a different rule which was already in place but rarely called. After defending the correctness of the call to the press, I hope Cash is having his players slide gingerly in the future because he will definitely be challenged on anything resembling that play. There was no intent to injure (justification for the rule, if Utley’s play didn’t cause an injury we wouldn’t be at this point today), and I believe Encarnacion would have been safe at first, even without the contact.
We had another game-ending DP called because of a takeout slide last night. I don’t like this call at all because it defies common sense.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25548215/watch-another-game-ends-on-the-controversial-new-take-out-slide-rule
Absolutely Rasmus made an illegal slide there. He went way past the bag and made no attempt to stay on it through the slide. But the Brewers SS made no attempt to turn a DP because the play was way, way too slow-developing to turn two. Shouldn’t this matter? Shouldn’t there be at least a 1% chance of a DP being turned before an errant slide automatically makes it one? I say yes.
I agree with you, bstar. However, in the case of interference by a baserunner, the penalty is that baserunner and another being ruled out.
Lesson would appear to be that baserunners need to judge whether a DP is likely and only risk a takeout slide if it is.
One thing I’m wondering is about the 3rd part of the rule that says that baserunners aren’t allowed to overrun the base unless it’s home. How easy/difficult is that to do when running at full steam? I only played one year of Little League so I honestly have no idea.
David P:
I think the answer lies in how many baserunners overslide when stealing. Very few, is my impression. Sliding into a likely forceout in a DP situation is different. There the aim has always been to disrupt the action.
I played league ball for nine years back in the stone age, and my recollection is that the idea was to attain the base. Sliding rather than going in standing up was mainly to make sure that momentum didn’t carry you beyond the objective if a play was being made and secondarily to make the chance for a possible tag more difficult. Force play situations are different, since the tag is to the bag, not the runner.