So let me get this right…baseball admits it was an illegal slide…however awarded the illegal slider the base (and thus withdrew the out). How does that make any sense? Or as phrased better…
So Utley’s “slide” was illegal enough to merit suspension but NOT enough to have been interference and an automatic double play #Insanity
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) October 12, 2015
But what is entertaining, and good to know, is Mr. Torre is up to date on the rule book.
“However, after thoroughly reviewing the play from all conceivable angles, I have concluded that Mr. Utley’s action warrants discipline. While I sincerely believe that Mr. Utley had no intention of injuring Ruben Tejada, and was attempting to help his club in a critical situation, I believe his slide was in violation of Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(13), which is designed to protect fielders from precisely this type of rolling block that occurs away from the base.”
I see. Well let’s read the rule which Mr. Torre points us to a section called The Batter Is Out if…..
(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;
Rule 5.09(a)(13) Comment (Rule 6.05(m) Comment): The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for delib- erate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.
So can we have that out now Mr. Torre? I’ll also point Mr. Torre to this rule which he seems uninterested in,
Rule 5.09(b)(1) and (2) Comment (Rule 7.08(a) Comment): Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner.
But here is the problem with citing the rules. MLB doesn’t enforce its own rulebook. It doesn’t appear to enforce the abandoning rule above, nor the rules I cite below.
4.06 (3.09) No Fraternization Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game.
I do not want to see any players chit-chatting over at first base. I don’t want to see any baseball players signing autographs for kids. This MLB’s rule, approved by rules committee chairperson Sandy Alderson, not mine. I also don’t want to see most Mets wearing a blue undershirt and other Mets wearing orange.
3.03(b):
- Any part of an undershirt exposed to view shall be of a uniform solid color for all players on a team.
So, MLB, why do we even have a rulebook? Which rules count and which don’t?
Whoops, MLB really screwed up on this one. And everyone associated with the game knows that. The umpiring team made a colossal misjudgment. The fallout: A new set of rules* to protect the infielder at 2B or 3B designed to protect them as it does the catcher (from a player trying to break up a play or dislodge a baseball).
* (Why the asterisk?) Because this rule will be clearly enforced as the catcher’s rule presently is. When you have a dispute on a critical call in a nationally televised game which was clearly blown by the umpiring team, a change is in the works. You can bet that Mr. Torre and Mr.Manfred will see to that!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, that does not help the Mets going into game #3.
metspolice Funny how they didn’t know any of “these rules” Saturday night.