A Gentle Plea for Less Selective Rule Enforcement
The other day, Marty Foster got himself in the headlines when he made a controversial call to end a close game between the Rays and the Rangers. “Controversial” is a more charitable way of saying “bad”. On that night, Foster’s judgment helped the Rangers win. On Wednesday afternoon, Foster’s judgment helped the Rays win instead, but this hasn’t generated nearly the headlines, because it’s hardly controversial. Allow me to briefly set the scene, with Foster umpiring at second base.
The Rays were leading the Rangers 2-0 in the bottom of the sixth, but the Rangers had the bases loaded with only one out. Mitch Moreland subsequently grounded to Kelly Johnson, and Johnson threw to Yunel Escobar at second in an effort to start a double play. Escobar double-pumped while throwing to first, though, and Moreland beat the throw, allowing a run to score. Yet the run was immediately erased and a double play was awarded. The Rangers wound up losing by that same 2-0 score. Foster awarded the double play, and Foster was not wrong to do so.
Jeff Baker is a baseball player I always forget about, and he was the guy running from first to second when Moreland knocked his grounder. Here’s what Foster watched Baker do, albeit in much slower motion:
The screenshot treatment might be even more telling. Here’s Escobar on the bag:
And then:
Foster signaled interference, determining that Baker went out of his normal path, which he very clearly did. As a consequence of the ruling, Baker was out, the batter was out, and the inning was over, with no run having scored. Had Foster decided otherwise, the final score at least would have been different. And the whole outcome might have been different.
What struck me first was that Foster made the call. What struck me second is how infrequently we see this call get made, despite the abundance of attempted take-out slides. I got to thinking about rules that are seldom enforced, if they’re ever enforced, and three of them immediately came to mind. Actually, four of them immediately came to mind, but I kind of understand the neighborhood play, specifically because of the take-out slides. I’m fine with a neighborhood play being allowed if an infielder is in physical danger, because rules ought to protect the players. Just so long as infielders don’t make a mockery of it. It’s a judgment call, and it should remain as such.
But as for the others, we’re dealing with take-out slides, hit-by-pitches, and pitcher pace. Let’s tackle these one at a time, taking care to blockquote the official rules. We’ll begin with the sliding.
Here is what’s officially written:
7.08
Any runner is out when —
[…]
(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire?s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. 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. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
You’ll recognize this as a rule that is selectively enforced. The Foster/Baker call is one of the exceptions, which is why both Baker and Ron Washington elected to argue. By the letter of the law, there can be take-out slides, but they can’t really be unusual slides; there can’t be a deliberate attempt to interfere with the defender in any way. Generally the way this is ruled now is that the runner can do pretty much whatever he wants so long as he can touch the base. Sometimes he doesn’t even have to be able to touch the base. Baker changed course, all but avoided the bag, and stuck his arm out. Baker was very clearly in the wrong, but many times this is permitted.
Again, rules should protect players, and protective rules should be enforced. The neighborhood play came to be because runners were going after infielders, and so infielders were allowed more space. Now runners have started intruding into that space. We don’t need infielders sustaining nasty leg injuries because a runner desperately wants to prevent a would-be double play. This isn’t the greatest example, but here’s Jean Segura getting hurt a few days back:
Gerardo Parra didn’t get called for interference, even though it looks like he deliberately took Segura out with his legs. Segura was hurt and soon thereafter he was removed from the game. This is a trickier call than the Baker call above, since Parra mostly went to the base, but if anything we should be enforcing things such that runners try to avoid infielders. As with home-plate collisions, the argument comes down to: baseball isn’t a contact sport. Take-out slides should be penalized. A rule is already in place; it just needs to be enforced more regularly.
Now we move on to hit-by-pitches. You probably all know where this is going. One of the official rules:
6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when —
[…]
(b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball;
If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.
It’s the no-attempt-to-avoid rule, and it’s a real rule, and it’s almost never called. What ought to happen is that the pitch is ruled a ball. This is infrequent, and because of its infrequency, there’s always an argument when it’s actually enforced. Here’s an example of this rule not being enforced:
Obviously, it’s a judgment call. Obviously, it’s hard to spot a real attempt to avoid, especially when you’re standing behind the batter. But batters sometimes get hit on purpose, and batters sometimes go out of their way to get hit on purpose. Above, this would’ve been an easy pitch for Fielder to avoid. He’d just have to raise his arms up. Instead he dropped his elbow and got a free base out of it. There’s no reason for this to be allowed, not with the rules as written. I think I might rather see this rule enforced too often than not enough. What would be the downside? More actual plate appearances between hitters and pitchers? Pitchers coming inside more often? Any subjective rule will always have the occasional lousy interpretation, but getting this call right some of the time would be a step up from getting this call right practically none of the time.
And finally, pitcher pace. Here’s a rule that’s frequently misunderstood:
8.04
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call ?Ball.? The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.
People have honed in on the “12 seconds” part. What this rule doesn’t say is that pitchers can’t have a pace of longer than 12 seconds. It says that, with the bases empty, the pitcher can’t hold the ball for more than 12 seconds so long as the batter is in the box. The idea is to keep the game moving, and here’s an example of the game not being kept moving. Here are 12 seconds of Jonathan Papelbon holding the baseball, and not getting called for a ball by any of the umpires:
Gattis never left the box, and by the 12-second point Papelbon was still looking in for some reason. He hadn’t even yet been given a sign, from the looks of things. What should have happened, according to the rules, is that Papelbon should’ve been charged with an automatic ball. What actually happened was nothing, except for the subsequent pitch, delivered several seconds later. This is a part of Papelbon’s game, and he’s not the only one.
We’re talking only about a matter of seconds, but seconds add up to be minutes, and baseball has an interest in reducing game length. These sorts of delays are unnecessary, and while you might argue that it wouldn’t be fair to rush guys like Papelbon and Rafael Betancourt, they’re the ones who are violating the rules in the first place. They could probably manage, and given the penalty of an automatic ball, they’d adjust in a damn hurry. No one should need more than 12 seconds to throw a pitch with the bases empty. One should be penalized for slowing things down, but it simply never happens. I’ll grant that umpires have an awful lot they need to be paying attention to, so it’s not as easy as just counting down from 12, but a rule’s a rule and if it’s not going to be enforced, it should just be eliminated so we don’t have to complain like this.
If you’re at all familiar with my writing, you probably know that I’m not real good with strong opinions. I don’t have many of them, not about sports, because I don’t think strong opinions are often warranted or well thought out. Among my strongest baseball opinions would be that the rules should be enforced as they’re written. I’m not going to abandon the game or anything if Papelbon still keeps taking forever and runners still keep taking out middle infielders, because those are small parts of the baseball experience, but defenders ought to be protected, pitches ought to be reasonably avoided, and the game ought to be kept moving forward. These rules should be enforced either all of the time, as much as possible, or none of the time. Nobody likes umpires inconsistency, least of all the players. Kudos to Marty Foster for getting the call right on Jeff Baker. If baseball’s going to have rules, it should follow the rules. What’s the sense of a rule that’s frequently treated as if it isn’t a rule at all? Do better. This is my plea.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
I’d like to see more views of players sliding into second because I don’t pay close enough attention. With Jeff Baker’s example, he runs right at Escobar when he’s about ten feet away. Like he’s running toward the bag and then completely changes course and runs at Escobar. That’s a little too obvious to not call, but maybe runners do that a lot?
The other side is maybe runners know the defender is going to come off the bag a bit and angle their run to that side of 2B so it’s not quite as steep of a course change.
Regarding the two take-out slide examples. Baker deliberately misses the bag, from that slide he couldn’t touch the base if he wanted to. In my opinion, this is a proper interference call. Parra, on the other hand, slides to the base and actually touches the bag, this is not interference in my opinion. Parra could make a “reasonable” argument that he was truly trying to take 2nd base, Baker cannot.
But he touches the man on the bag before the base and should therefore be called out surely? Whether he later touches the bag or not.
Well, he was out and got called as such. The question is, wether one could call interference on him and also call the batter-runner out.
Which is hard in this case because there was obviously not going to be a play at first.
The rule should be pretty simple. There’s virtually no reason for a runner to make contact with a fielder before making contact with the base he’s sliding into, unless the fielder is obstructing the bag or the runner’s path.
I’m fine with players obstructing views, being aggressive, intruding space, and disrupting another’s most natural pathway, but it has to happen within the primary goal of a player.
For Parra, his primary goal should have been getting to the bag as quickly as possible to beat the force play, yet he made contact with Segura before making contact with the bag as Segura wasn’t even close to being an obstruction. That’s flagrant contact outside of the scope of the player’s primary goal. Parra’s only intention was saving the play through the way he made contact with Segura.
These contact plays remind me of head to head tackles in football. I understand that with fast reaction times you sometimes end up with incidental conflict, but 80% of these plays are needlessly dangerous.
He slides at the bag but clearly the bag is not his intention. I’m fine with the takeout if he actually grabs the bag and doesn’t slide through the base. Same with Holliday’s slide in the NLCS. He slide very late and the bag was not his intention cuz if it was he never would have hit Scutaro who was behind the bag. I say go in straight, spikes down (well just not up), somewhere you can reach the bag and then actually grab the bag
Perhaps the rule should be rewriten so that a runner cannot legally slide in a force out situation. That would prevent the move entirely.
And cause a ridiculous number of injuries to the runners. Think about it.
That is just not feasible. Sliding is not just a way to avoid the tag, it’s also a way to decelerate quickly and safely. Taking away sliding is a big disadvantage to the runner.
If they’re not allowed to slide, some runner is going to get drilled in the face with a throw from a shortstop. This just isn’t a good idea.
I think this is a joke
Richard – In my opinion, the problem with the Parra slide is that he’s practically standing on second when he starts his slide. There’s no point to his slide other than to take out the fielder.
And he keeps his knees high just to hit the fielder, who was injured on the play. IMO that makes it not right.
The point of a slide is to get to the bag, and avoid a tag when applicable. How is that slide a proper slide? What possible reason is there to keep the knee high?
Who gives a shit? It’s my bag. Get the fuck off it or get hurt.
The real, inestimable Ty Cobb:
“Baseball is a red-blooded sport for red-blooded men. It’s no pink tea, and mollycoddles had better stay out. It’s a struggle for supremacy, a survival of the fittest.”
“The base paths belonged to me, the runner. The rules gave me the right. I always went into a bag full speed, feet first. I had sharp spikes on my shoes. If the baseman stood where he had no business to be and got hurt, that was his fault.”
“I had to fight all my life to survive. They were all against me, but I beat the bastards and left them in the ditch.”
“When I began playing the game, baseball was about as gentlemanly as a kick in the crotch.”
“I have observed that baseball is not unlike a war, and when you come right down to it, we batters are the heavy artillery.”
That’s a good quote by the real Ty Cobb. You know what I notice? He said the basepath belonged to him as the runner and he slid into the bag. He doesn’t say he slides into the fielder, which is exactly what Parra is doing above.
The 12 second rule is another reason to have an additional umpire-like person that gets to overrule non-judgment (i.e. not balls and strikes and not intentional/unintentional) calls. Put him upstairs somewhere, give him a timer and a some access to replay, and let him handle close calls at his own discretion. It shouldn’t be that difficult for baseball to work this in if they expand replay.
Yup, when we get a proper replay official living up in the booth this can be part of his job. He can sit there with a stopwatch and when the pitcher pulls a Traschel, the official will set of a buzzer on the home plate ump’s belt. Automatic ball.
Yes, this will result in managerial arguments that will slow the game down even more. At first. But continued regular enforcement will cause these to go away with time. To double down MLB could even say that timing arguments, like arguing balls and strikes, results in immediate ejection…
I think it could be something the 1B, 2B, or 3B umpire handles. The rule is only in effect when the bases are empty, so they’re not doing anything before the pitch is thrown are they?
The 2B umpire is probably best. The 1B and 3B umpires still have some small responsibility when it comes to determining whether the batter went around in case of a close call on a check swing. Of course, only one of these will have to do it at any given time, but the 2B never has to, so it would at least be consistent.
I agree, the 2B should be timing it. I wonder if there is a way for him to show his count (a la a basketball referee) without being distracting to the hitter. Maybe using the 3B ump would be better…
I’m pretty sure the second base umpire has a stopwatch, that he times the time between innings, so it would be no trouble to add this to his responsibilities.
Automated timer, and sensors on rubber and batters boxes. When batter steps into box, timer starts. At 12 seconds a loud gong sounds. Any pitch that has not already been delivered is automatically a ball.
System will also have to have sensors for catchers and the ump so we can be sure it’s the batter that is actually stepping into the box. All three have to be enabled for timer to start.
That’s exactly how I monitor the 5 second rule.
That’s exactly how I monitor the 3-second rule when I drop a veggie burger.
The on field home plate umpire also usually has a little clicker for keeping track of balls and strikes.
They could also just modify the clicker (making it digital) to include a vibrating timer. The ump then clicks the timer when the pitcher has the ball. When the umpire clicks a ball or strike, it stops the timer automatically so it’s not vibrating all the time.
If the thing vibrates before the ball is released, the ump calls a ball. Nothing to it.
To make it easy on the pitcher to keep track, the clicker could also sync up with a little clock somewhere readily visible to the pitcher.
How much time could strict enforcement of this rule actually save?
There were 705321 pitches last year with an average Pace of 22.1. 705321*(22.1-12)= 7123742 seconds. Over the 19384 games each year, that would save about 6 minutes a game.
Whoops, make that 4860 games and ~24 minutes.
Whoops again, I forgot that it’s only with no runners.
Parra-Segura should not be interference. The guy was running on the inside track of the basepath all along, and simply slid a little late without correcting his course to slide entirely onto the bag. Common sense tells us that he did this to break up the double play, but common sense is not the historical standard for umpires’ judgment being used. I think “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard I want to apply before umpires interfere with the results of the players on the field.
Parra-Segura should definitely be interference. Players should slide for the bag and the bag only, what reason does a player ever have for sliding wide of the bag besides contacting the defender? Parra was clearly intentionally sliding into the player within reach of the bag. It’s an injury risk and a couple double plays aren’t worth hurting defenseless players.
Per below, maybe the rule should address the injury risk in this context, but it does not. Parra did not break any rule that Jeff quoted.
Jeff did quote a rule Parra violated: his interference was clearly intentional. The ump blew that one. A replay ump watching that should call the double-play. I’d go further: both these players shuold’ve been ejected and suspended for reckless endangerment. That, along with calling the double play, would end such outrages.
Lex: You’re just not reading the rule carefully. He may have intentionally interfered with Segura’s play or life or something, but the rule does not penalize such intentional interference. It only penalizes intentional interference with a thrown ball, and in this case, there wasn’t one.
Anon21: There sure was a thrown ball – how do you think it got to Segura? Parra was clearly intentionally (off to the side, legs up) interfering with Segura’s attempt to catch that thrown ball. And according to the rule, it doesn’t matter if he’s on the base or not, if it’s intentional. By my reading of the rule, both he and the batter should’ve been out.
Dave: No, he’s attempting to interfere with Segura’s catch of the thrown ball. We can tell he wasn’t successful, because Segura caught the ball. The rule doesn’t penalize such attempts, and again, the fact that the concept of attempt is employed elsewhere in the rule tells us that rulemakers understood it and deliberately chose not to make it a prohibited action on the part of the runner.
Plainly wrong. As stated below, you slide to avoid taking the relay throw in your face, but it’s also faster and safer for an experienced baserunner to go into the base sliding than to attempt to go in standing up, decelerating without a slide.
I’d just like to point out that Parra didn’t begin his slide until he was already AT second base, turned sideways, and ended up about 3 or 4 feet past it!
Maybe the MLB should start instituting fines for runners who make such blatant attempts to take out an infielder like that. Every other sport does it, why not baseball?
I’ve often had to slide wide of the bag and hook it with my arm, to avoid a tag. Not applicable, here, but there *are* reasons that it has to be allowed.
Sure, of course… but in those situations, you’re trying to get AWAY from the defender (or at least his glove). That’s why it’s gotta be a judgement call.
But you would agree that the Brewers have total justification to drill Parra on his next PA, right?
No. Traditionally, retaliation is only for going off the bag to take out the second baseman or going in spikes-first to attempt to injure. If you start beaning batters for every takeout slide or equivalent play, HBPs are going to get out of hand very quickly.
But he was injured on this play. An HBP is fair, I think.
I don’t think you can judge it off the results like that. 99 times out of a hundred that this slide happens, the 2B gets taken out, probably doesn’t complete the DP, and both players dust themselves off and immediately get past it. I don’t think you can drill the runner because this is the 1 time out of 100 that the throw from 1B was poor and the 2B received the throw in an awkward position. Even an incidental amount of contact from Parra sliding directly into the bag might well have caused an injury there.
The bag belongs to both players so as long as the runner is going at the bag it is legal. That call last night was just so obvious he had to make it. The runner clearly avoided the bag to try to get the player. The 2B was in the perfect position to avoid a play like this and if you let runners do this it just isn’t fair to the defensive player.
Now I have nothing wrong with making the rules on deliberately taking a guy out stricter, but these two videos you showed were completely different situations.
Not sure which 2B you mean “was in the perfect position to avoid a play like this,” but the statement probably describes both of them, but in highly different ways. Escobar had correctly cleared the basepath and should have been (and was) protected against getting splattered by an illegal runner. Segura, however, was in direct line to get clobbered by a runner who’s going perfectly legally for second base, and if he extends a little further and nails the fielder, so what? Segura could still have avoided injury, being in “perfect position to avoid it” — by breaking contact with second base. He chose voluntarily (if instinctively) not to do that. Splat.
Note that I have no rooting interest for or against any of the four players involved in these two plays, but I think the umps got it right in both cases, with the interference call and the no-call. The Fielder HBP and the Papelbon delay of game, now… those should be getting called, IMO, and they’re not.
Ender was making the exact same point that you are.
I think maybe you have to look at history here. If this situation occurs (even semi-?) regularly with a runner going to 2b, then maybe it’s something that umps should be on the lookout for, and can rule based on that.
Or, you can have the league review slides with injuries and suspend after the fact. Pattern of behaviour applies here too. I expect this would have a lot more arguments against it, though.
On another note, didn’t Jeter or A-Rod knock the ball out of a fielder’s hand? what happened with that? My memory is unclear, and all I can think is “Damn Yankees!”
A-Rod, and he was instantly called out.
I believe the no-attempt-to-avoid rule was called during the latter end of Drysdale’s scoreless innings streak. I don’t recall any of the particulars, though.
It was against the Giants and catcher Dick Dietz.
I once saw it called (incorrectly) against Doug Mientkiewicz in a Yankees game against the Mets. Mientkiewicz kind of twitched when the ball came at him but slightly turned the wrong way (in instead of out), so the umpire thought he wasn’t trying to avoid. However, it’s just that he didn’t have enough time to properly react.
I actually disagree with my colleagues on the Parra one. You see, if it’s a force play, then there’s no point in sliding except to interfere with the double play. That’s not to say it’s illegal to do so, of course. But sliding on a force play in such a manner that it materially interferes with the fielder’s attempt at a throw for another out is, technically, interference.
Well, there’s also the whole avoiding-a-relay-throw-into-your-face reason to slide.
If this were the concern, why wait so long to slide?
And why not slide directly to the bag instead of to the inside where a potential throw would come from?
And why not have your feet pointed in the direction you are running instead of ending up almost perpendicular to the basepath?
This explanation doesn’t pass the smell test.
There’s no point in sliding for a force play? So should players just run through the bag?
The funny thing about that is that NOT sliding in that situation can also be called interference (if you interfere with his throw to first base) – my college coach always told our infielders that if a guy didn’t get down into a slide, hit him with the throw and the runner heading to first base will be called out. Bearing this in mind, I think the Parra play is a good no-call.
Players slide at every close force play at 2nd or 3rd, even when there is no subsequent throw to disrupt – so they don’t overrun the base and then get tagged out.
The point in sliding is to not overrun the bag (or decelerate standing up which is a lot slower and can lead to muscle injuries if you try to do it quickly). That’s true on force plays. The only bases where you don’t always slide on a close play are first (where you only slide if the fielder is drawn off the bag and you can dodge his tag) and home (where it depends on the positioning) because they’re the only bases you can run through.
Also, going in standing is very likely to hit the fielder on some plays, and to interfere with his throwing lane on others.
“…if anything we should be enforcing things such that runners try to avoid infielders”
This is difficult to do when the runner is entitled to the “right of way” while in the basepath for defenders without possession of the ball, especially on plays at the plate.
Parra had no business sliding a foot or two wide of the bag. Maybe most situations like this are much more ambiguous but I can’t think of any reason for a player to ever slide wide of the bag anyway.
I don’t think the Parra/Segura collision should be called interference. I think the main culprit on that play is the bad throw from the 1B (Yuniesky Betancourt, of all people!!). His throw was high, especially considering that Jean Segura is only 5’10”. His throw was also too far on the third base side of second base, causing Segura to have to stretch for the ball while keeping his left foot on the bag. It’s unfortunate since Parra clearly was trying to make contact with Segura to ensure that there would be no play at first. Segura is fortunate that there wasn’t a serious injury on that play, as it looks the business end of Parra’s knee connects with the inside of Segura’s knee. That had the potential for serious damage. It could have been avoided with a better throw from an ACTUAL first baseman!
Incidentally, this is exactly the perspective that multiple hardcore Brewers fans who were watching that game had about the play: Parra’s slide wasn’t really dirty or outside the accepted norm for slides, it was Betancourt’s godawful throw that was the real culprit.
But then again everybody hates Yuniesky Betancourt.
some people will do anything to hang onto a major league job. like open up a roster spot at their old position by causing the starter to get hurt. /sarcasm
Baker doubles up – he completely avoid the bag, and throws the arm up.
I agree – I think hitting Escobar in the thigh with his arm is what probably prompted the call more so than the distance from the bag (which is never called).
The no attempt to avoid HBP thing is definitely a strategy in Milwaukee. Here’s a bunch of people getting angry and ejected over its enforcement: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110620&content_id=20788120&vkey=news_mil&c_id=mil
Actually, that Nyjer Morgan HBP was actually way less obvious than the Prince Fielder one.
What a terrible call. He didn’t dive into the pitch. He didn’t stand pat. He turned away from it, which in my opinion is totally natural. No way that Bob Davidson is making that call the same way each time (which is more the point of the article, anyway).
Same with the Fielder gif above. He didn’t turn into it. He turned away – just because the elbow drops drops down while he’s rotating away isn’t proof that he’s trying to get hit.
You know, other than the fact that Prince didn’t turn. He dipped his shoulder a bit – just enough to take the contact.
Jeff, you’re being pretty sloppy with the interference rule if you think it applies to Parra/Segura. Let’s look at that language again:
In Parra/Segura, where is the thrown ball that Parra intentionally interfered with? The only ball I see is one which has already been caught. Remember, it is not interference under the portion of the rule you quoted to hinder or interfere with a fielder unless that fielder is attempting to make a play on a batted ball, which Segura certainly was not.
Intention doesn’t even come into that play; it’s simply outside the scope of the rule.
This is the section of the rule that comes into play on the Parra/Segura play.
“If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire?s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.”
Interpreted strictly? Segura is out, but I think it was a good no-call.
No. As the first sentence of that comment makes clear, that only applies to a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball. Segura wasn’t.
Yeah, but see 6.05 (m):
“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 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, 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 Jeff might have cited the wrong rule, but it is clearly against the rules to intentionally collide with a defender.
Still wrong. Per below, Segura was neither attempting to catch a thrown ball (he’d already succeeded in catching the ball when Parra arrived) nor attempting to throw a ball. Parra didn’t violate 6.05(m).
So if a runner lays down a chop block before the fielder gets the throw off it isn’t interference? These kinds of plays aren’t allowed in contact sports so why should a non-contact sport like baseball which already has a rule in place to prevent this kind of contact allow it?
Arguably, if the player is in his throwing motion and the runner intentionally interferes with him, he has intentionally interfered with a thrown ball. Strictly speaking, if the ball never leaves the fielder’s hand, there no “thrown ball,” and hence the runner hasn’t violated the rule, whereas if the ball does leave the fielder’s hand but goes wide or into the dirt because the runner took the fielder’s legs out, he arguably has interfered with a thrown ball. That’s why Escobar/Baker is a close case, and why I didn’t mention it.
Segura/Parra is not a close case. Chop block him, kick him in the face, cut his leg off with a machete–there is literally no way Parra could have broken Rule 7.08(b) by the time he arrived at second base, because there was neither a thrown ball nor a batted ball.
I’m confused. Is it that you think that the ball wasn’t batted into play or that you don’t understand tagging second for a force out is a play?
The fact that he is touching the bag doesn’t change that it’s clearly intentional. If the “take out” were not intentional, he would attempt to put his foot on the bag first, not his hand. Now, in a non-force play, it might make sense to get the trailing edge of your body on the bag/plate first but not in force situation.
There is some gray area, but this play is way outside of it. This play is clearly a huge risk to Segura’s knee and if there’s one thing MLB has interest in it’s keeping top players on the field and off the DL. Nobody wants to go to a game filled with AAAA players.
The 12 second rule could easily be called by one of the other umpires on the field. Sure, they have to pay attention when the ball is pitched, but it wouldn’t be hard for them to at least notice when a pitcher is slow, give a warning after his first pitch, and then start counting for the next ones, then motion to the home plate ump to make the call.
I hate take out slides. I know they are a part of some grand tradition, but I think trying to hurt someone (and make no mistake, if the risk of injury was not there, a take out slide would have no or little effect) because the hitter hit a ground ball is a thing that should go away. Hit a doublt play grounder, get a double play.
It would certainly have an effect. It would have the effect of knocking the player who gets “taken out” off balance so that he couldn’t complete his throw.
Holliday is the worst for this, and never gets called.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/07/30/watch-matt-hollidays-bush-league-slide-into-starlin-castro/
I completely agree with the article. If umpires don’t penalize nonsense like this, the rational response is for a defender to throw the ball into Holliday’s face once when he tries this so that he never does it again. As much as I dislike Holliday, that’d be a terrible outcome. Any organization, sports or otherwise, whose poor enforcement of rules encourages vigilante action is asking for trouble and a lot of injury.
Holliday got hit the next time he faced the Cubs. Vigilante enforcement is already the way egregious take-out slides are handled.
Not that time (I was waiting for it and it never happened, not that series anyway). Although he did go 0-4 the next day.
Doesn’t really matter though, even the fact that pitchers have to act as the enforcer with a bean is silly. The umps should protect the players as the rules specify.
First game of next series, he got hit.
The umps DO protect the players, they just only do so when the criteria they’ve chosen (The runner being within reach of the bag) is clearly violated. As I said above, I don’t want the umpires’ personal judgment to come into play any more than it has to. Whatever judgment guys like Angel Hernandez and Joe West have is more than offset by their desire to make a visible impact on the game.
No idea what you think you remember, but Cubs pitchers have hit Matt Holliday ZERO times since that play.
Tim McCarver is such an ass.
As a Cardinal fan, I agree that Holliday is particularly bad in this regard. IIRC, he hit Scutaro pretty hard in the playoffs as well.
Matt Holliday is the same size as a young Brian Urlacher. He’s a big dude. He goes out of his way to make contact with middle infielders. I don’t agree with this and think that rule change/enforcement should be strict.
On a force play, the runner should be trying to “get to the bag as quick as possible” (straight to it). Any other attempt is with the intention of disrupting the fielder.
People would not be really tolerant of infielders stomping sliding runners in the chest or dropping down submarine to hit the sliding runners in the face for the same reasons.
Baseball has changed the rule so that runners cannot “Ty Cobb” fielders by sliding in “spikes high” and kicking the glove and things of that nature. They’ve also eliminated the barrel rolls where sliding baserunners would take shortstops into shallow left field.
So, it’s not like baseball is entirely “traditional”. The game is not played the exact same way it was in 1905.
Another rule I commonly see go unenforced, is the rule that a pitcher must come set for a full second before starting their motion from the stretch. Being an avid Braves watcher, Tim Hudson seems to be the most common offender. He comes set very slowly, settles at his belt for what has to be less than a second, then fires the pitch to the plate.
Does that rule apply at all times, or only with runners on?
IIRC, all the time. It’s just that it’s an auto-ball if there’s no runner and a balk if there is a runner.
It doesn’t really change the discussion all that much, but 6.05 (m) is the rule that governs the first example.
6.05 A batter is out when—
(m) 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 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, 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.
Boy, that’s an awkward way to write that. But I agree, that’s a clear basis for the call on Baker, and removes any ambiguity about whether there was a “thrown ball” for him to intentionally interfere with.
I think it still doesn’t bear on Segura/Parra, because at the time Parra contacted Segura, Segura was no longer “attempting to catch a thrown ball”—he had successfully caught it. But it introduces at least a little ambiguity, whereas with regard to 7.08(b) there is none.
6.05 (m) still applies: Parra was clearly interfering with “a fielder who is attempting…to throw a ball to complete any play.”
What gif are you watching? Segura was not in any way attempting to throw the ball.
Surely he’s intending to throw to first, though, right?
The rule doesn’t say “intending.” It says “attempting.” Segura made no attempt.
Surely if you read the comment, Anon21, that the reason for the rule is to penalize the offense for attempting to break up a double play in an unsportsmanlike way, you have to think that this was exactly that sort of interference.
I’m okay with arguing that the Segura-Parra play was borderline, but you’re basically trying to argue that a more egregious instance of the same thing is within the rules, and it isn’t.
The comment doesn’t override the text of the actual rule. It’s a guide to interpretation. When something is outside the plain text of the rule, there is no need for interpretation.
Well, if you can be obtuse I can too:
Attempt: Make an effort to achieve or complete (something, typically a difficult task or action).
He was attempting (= making an effort to) complete a double play, and to complete the double play, he would need to complete a throw. Therefore, he was attempting the throw.
So my interpretation of the “plain” text is different from your interpretation of the “plain” text, in which case we shall consult the guideline to interpretation, in which case it looks as though mine is better since it it allows the rule to accomplish it’s objective.
Anon, if you watch, Segura moves his right hand towards his glove just an instant before he’s wiped out.
He’s in the process of “attempting to throw.” He just hasn’t gotten to the “throw” part yet.
philosofool: You’re assuming what you need to prove. An attempt involves action; in the definition you’ve found, an “effort.” Mere intention is not enough. There was no action or effort towards completing a double play, which we can see even more clearly when we ask if there was an attempt to make a throw, the order of priority that the rule sensibly sets up.
Phrozen: I can’t agree. All he does is bring his glove down from the awkward stretch he had it in; there’s no movement to join throwing hand and glove, they just pass close by without altering course. That can’t be sufficient to constitute an attempt, unless we want to just read “attempt” straight out of the rule and make the umpire’s judgment as to what the fielder probably wanted to do the only authority. Again, that’s not the rule as written.
An attempt has to require, at a minimum, some unambiguous action towards a throw. Probably the earliest at which you can say there’s been an attempt is if the throwing hand contacts the glove, if that’s where the ball is being held; on a barehand play, it’ll be harder to judge, but some rotation of the arm into throwing position would be necessary.
It’s like arguing religion or politics – don’t throw any contrary evidence my way, I’ve made up my mind and won’t even consider any evidence to the contrary! I’ll play all the nitpicky semantic games necessary to double down on my position, now that I’ve staked it out!
People sure do dig in their heels…
A player who makes an out in a double play situation most certainly is making an action to complete a double play! He has litereally completed half of what he needs to do in order to complete his role in it! You are the one who assumes what he sets out to rpove, for you assume that Segura is not trying to make a double play when everything we know about the situation tells us that he most certainly wants to! Because he is attempting to make a double play and must make a throw to make a double play, it follows atnhe is attempting to throw the ball and the runners act clearly impedes the action. Perhaps it was unintended, which is what is necessary for the umpire to call the batter out, but your idea that he is not trying to make a throw has no basis in evidence!
You’re assuming a double play would have been attempted. That’s unwarranted; it requires reading the fielder’s mind. A play had been completed at the point that Parra slid: the force at second If Segura had taken some action towards throwing the ball, he would clearly be attempting to complete an additional play, or perhaps an addition to the play. Since he didn’t take such an action—since his only action was to bring his arm down in a way that left complete ambiguity as to what he was attempting—you’d have to go strictly off intent and what you would normally observe in a situation like that. But that would be contrary to the rule, which clearly knows how to specify that “intent” is the critical concept when it wants to, but does not do so here.
It may even be clearer to focus on your use of the phrase “double play situation,” which you then jump from to assert that an attempt was being made to complete such a double play. The thing is that “double play situation” has no foundation whatsoever in this particular rule. You could easily write a rule that would target interference in any double play situation, e.g. “Any runner involved in a force play who intentionally makes contact with a fielder or intentionally obstructs the throwing lane to another base” or something. The people who wrote the rule didn’t do that; they focused on the concrete act of attempting a throw, which has to be judged by the fielder’s actions and not his intentions or our expectations.
It seems pretty clear that this stopped being a double play situation the moment the ball left Betancourt’s hand. There’s no turn being made here, and everybody except Parra knows it. In the gif you can see the pitcher has stopped running to cover first.
Anon, I’m really not sure how you can claim Segura is NOT in the act of catching the ball there. You can be damn sure that if the collision had knocked the ball loose, Parra would be screaming his head off that he was safe. You’re really reaching on this one, dude.
Dave: Two things. First, Segura’s attempt to catch the ball had ended in success by the time Parra made contact. Second, per above, the rule doesn’t penalize attempting to interfere with a catch, only actual interference. So to the extent Parra tried and failed to interfere with the catch, that’s not against the rules.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I’m not too bothered by the pitcher’s pace, but the non-enforcement of the hit-by-pitch rule annoys me to no end. And runner interference definitely needs to be called more. I agree 100%. Or 200%. Whatever percent it’ll take to get these rules to be enforced.
I’m with you, Cass, except I’m less concerned about the HBP rule.
The runner’s interference is the most important. There is no excuse for a baseball player ever to make physical content just to obstruct a fielder. If we had a commissioner, perhaps he would realize that allowing runners to injure fielders with an intentionally obstructive maneuver is not in the interest of baseball.
Such mythical commissioner might also realize that not enforcing the 12-second rule hurts the game. I can fast-forward thru commercials, managers excessively going to the mound, and useless arguments with umps, but not pitchers loitering on the mound. When this is happening to excess, I turn off and delete the game, no matter the score or who is playing. I don’t have to be bored.
If you want to avoid injuries to middle infielders turning a double play, make second base about 5 times larger than it currently is. Then, mark the middle of the bag (at the width of the current base size), and call the baserunner out if the majority of their body is outside of that mark on the fielder’s side when they slide into second base.
Radical idea, but if you really want to protect infielders….
Oooh, an implicit strawman. Clap, clap, clap.
Good article, Jeff. About that “batted ball” — does it cease being a batted ball when a fielder scoops it up? That would be a very strange rule. The rule should refer to a ball in play. Parra’s slide was intentional, egregious, it caused harm, and it should be unquestionably illegal. I don’t blame Parra, given the current state of things, but the rule needs to be written and enforced correctly to prevent this. I also agree with enforcing the hit-by-pitch and 12 second rules. As a fair-minded REds fan, I’d say Shin-Soo Choo clearly moves into, not aaway from pitches and should not be awarded so many HBP’s.
It’s outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
Another example of a rule that’s never enforced: Rule 7.06 – obstruction of baserunners.
A Catcher may not impede a runner going home unless he has the ball. Period. This is never enforced.
Well, or if he’s in the process of fielding the throw. This is where the uncertainty creeps into the call, but it’s basically never called unless the catcher blocks the plate without the ball even being on the infield.
I’d never actually read the rule about baserunners, but I found this interesting:
“A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.”
The reason I thought this was somewhat interesting is because this seems that it could apply in instances where a baserunner waits on a grounder when a fielder is behind them and then jumps to avoid it, leaving the fielder with limited vision of the path of the batted ball. I know that is barely, if ever called, but it would certainly be within the rule if an umpire decided to call a runner out because he hindered a fielder’s attempt.
I think history (and maybe common sense too) suggests the hindrance must be physical, not visual. And that is definitely how it should be.
I agree, but it’s also not what the rule says. The rule can be interpreted to where the umpire could theoretically call a baserunner out for deliberately making it harder to field a ball.
Per the rule, “deliberately” doesn’t matter.
Yeah, it could, but that would be silly. When there are two ways you can read a rule, and one is silly and the other isn’t, you go with the non-silly one.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s all about the interpretation of the umpire, not how you or I read it.
Proposal: 12 second pitch clock just like the 24 second shotclock in basketball, put it above the backstop, have the official scorer run it
I like this. I do think you should get a few extensions – maybe one per inning. You wouldn’t want catchers calling time and running out to the mound to avoid a ball – that would defeat the purpose. Every once in a while, there is surely a legitimate reason a pitcher takes more than 12 seconds.
Neighborhood rule? Is that in the rule book? I always though that was a myth…perpetuated by fans/coaches.
yea, it’s not in the rulebook
But it should be.
rule’s a rule
As a Dodger fan, the thing that struck me while reading this is that both Don Drysdale and Orel Hershiser had their scoreless inning streaks “saved” by a rare implementation of one of these rules (and both against the Giants).
On May 31, 1968, the Dodgers were leading the Giants 3-0 in the top of the ninth inning. Dick Dietz came up with the bases loaded and was hit by a pitch to drive in a run. But home plate umpire Harry Wendelstedt ruled the Dietz hadn’t attempted to move and kept Dietz at the plate. He eventually flied out to left, Ty Cline grounded into a forceout at home, and Jack Hiatt popped up to first to end the threat and the game.
On September 23, 1988, Hershiser was threatening Drysdale’s record. In the bottom of the third inning of a 0-0 game, the Giants had Brett Butler on first and Jose Uribe on third with one out. Ernie Riles hit a grounder to Steve Sax at second, who threw to shortstop Alfredo Griffin for the forceout at second base. But Griffin’s throw to first was wild, Riles was safe, and Uribe scored to end Hershiser’s streak. But second-base umpire Bob Engel ruled interference on Butler, Riles was out, and the inning was over with no runs scored.
8.01 (c) At any time during the pitcher’s preliminary movements and until his natural pitching motion commits him to the pitch, he may throw to any base provided he steps
directly toward such base before making the throw.
Not the 45-degree angle that is generally given. Mark Buehrle is the name that comes to my mind first. There are a couple videos around, but I can’t find any that show where his foot is landing.
Part of the beauty of a game where everyone takes turns batting and fielding is that these things have a way of holding themselves in check. There isn’t a problem with middle infielders getting injured. It happens ocassionally, but the fear of retaliation holds it in check. I don’t see a problem here.
Is the fully documented fact that second basemen have short careers not proof?
Also, encouraging illegal retaliation against illegal actions hardly seems a good theory of rule enforcement.
It may be evidence. It’s not proof.
Mark Ellis nearly lost his leg to an egregious takeout slide last year – seriously, he got something called compartment syndrome. If the Dodgers medical staff had not recognized it as soon as they did, they would have had to amputate his leg. Google image search compartment syndrome, then tell me, “There isn’t a problem with middle infielders getting injured.”
Yeah, just go to mlb.com and listen to noted Cardinals homer Vin Scully going on for 5 minutes about how legitimate that egregious takeout slide on Mark Ellis was.
Maybe it’s just me, but 12 seconds to throw seems slow for some reason, but maybe it’s because I am used to the Pace articles (which obv includes Pace w/ runners on). I wonder, what is the pitcher Pace with nobody on?
I’d rather have a slower game with better pitching than a faster game with worse pitching, assuming it’s a choice on it obv.
Maybe 15 secs?
The Para slide looked less-egregious at game speed.
With the slowed-down GIF (and multiple viewings) you can see how late he started to slide. Umps should give players the benefit of the doubt in a questionable play – but it wasn’t a very friendly thing for Para to do.
Here’s an idea: when you put a guy on the DL, you must also sit out for the same length of time, not to exceed three years. During this time, your team must pay your salary to the opposing player. Who is at fault could be adjudicated by a arbitrator after the fact with all the tape.
Gets suggested every time any player gets injured ever, and people then point out that you can deprive a division rival of a key player for as long as you’re willing to sit your backup catcher out with an “injury.”
Maybe so, but how is that worse than the current system, where any of your players can put a guy on the DL and there’s no recourse?
As a Rockies fan, I’ve seen Rafael Betancourt get called on the 12 second rule before. It depends on the Ump. But every time, he still basically takes the same sluggish pace before pitching, even if it means a possible automatic ball. It’s just part of a whole ritual he does, as ridiculous as it is. I don’t think it’s to intentionally slow down the game. I agree that the rule should be enforced, but if a pitcher has established a routine in an environment where the rule is generally not enforced, it becomes really unfair to ruin his well-established routine by now enforcing the rule. Maybe grandfather in the likes of Betancourt?
I’m legitimately confused; why grandfather in ridiculous time-consuming routines rather than enforce the rule consistently and hurry his slow ass along?
Regarding interference and takeout slides, there is another rule which shouldn’t be overlooked as it may apply:
It is interference by a batter or runner when-
7.09(f) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.
This arguably shouldn’t apply to really close plays, but this section would certainly give umpires more latitude in calling interference more often than they currently do. Especially relevant to runners that are 3-4+ steps from the bag and still go in hard to break up a double play turn.
Geez, Paps. I could understand dragging out the moment for the intimidation factor or something in a tight game. People tend not to notice the extra delays at that point because it just ramps up the tension. But you’re down 7-2 and there’s barely anyone left at the park (from the looks of things)? Feel free to move it along just a LITTLE bit.
Implementing a pitch clock behind the plate and up on the centerfield scoreboard would help.
Violation of a pitch clock for the pitcher is a ball. You can also do a 5 second clock on the batter to get back into the batter’s box. The ump can call time for either player if they ask, or if the ump feels it is needed (such as a batter fouling a ball off of his foot). A pitcher can still step off, but the clock starts at restarts to 8. The ump gives a hand signal that allows the clock to restart.
You can’t really enforce it too much more. There will be times where the catcher and pitcher can’t agree to a sign and then there is a mound visit or what have you, but you don’t want to have too many rules.
Eh, you could just get software in the league office that reviews recordings and fines pitchers who take too long. If every time you took more than 12 seconds it cost you $1200, pitchers would get faster right quick, and you wouldn’t have to annoy anyone with clocks.