Appealing Chase Utley’s Suspension
As most baseball fans are by now aware, Chase Utley was suspended for two games on Sunday evening by Major League Baseball. The suspension relates to Utley’s controversial takeout slide of Mets shortstop Ruben Tejada in Game 2 of the National League Division Series on Saturday night.
Utley’s agent, Joel Wolfe, quickly announced that Utley would be appealing the suspension, as is his right under MLB’s collective bargaining agreement:
“A two-game suspension for a legal baseball play is outrageous and completely unacceptable. Chase did what all players are taught to do in this situation – break up the double play. We routinely see plays at second base similar to this one that have not resulted in suspensions.
Chase feels terrible about Ruben Tejada’s injury and everyone who knows him knows that he would never intentionally hurt anybody. We will be appealing this suspension immediately.”
By appealing the suspension, Utley has temporarily delayed the imposition of his punishment, meaning that he remains eligible to play for the Dodgers until MLB holds a hearing on the matter and issues a final decision. However, with Utley conveniently already in New York City (the designated site of most appeals of this nature), MLB is reportedly planning hear Utley’s appeal today so that the matter can be resolved ahead of tonight’s Game 3 at Citi Field. Whether the appeal will actually go forward today or not, however, remains uncertain, as the Major League Baseball Players Association is reportedly pressing for more time to prepare Utley’s defense.
Given the unprecedented nature of Utley’s suspension, a number of commentators have already predicted that the punishment will either be reduced or entirely overturned. And while such an outcome is certainly possible, and perhaps even likely, it is not entirely inconceivable that the league will uphold Utley’s suspension.
To begin, MLB suspended Utley for a violation of Rule 5.09(a)(13), a provision stating that a runner can be declared out whenever: “in the umpire’s judgment, [he] intentionally interfere[s] with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play.”
Even though Utley was actually declared safe at the time – since Tejada never touched second base on the play – the fact that the umpire on the field (or in the replay booth) did not determine that Utley had violated the rule does not necessarily mean that the league’s suspension will be overturned. Indeed, while any decision on the field (or via replay) must be made relatively quickly, MLB has the luxury of conducting a more thorough review of the incident before deciding whether to impose punishment.
Instead, Utley’s stronger defense will be to argue that MLB has failed to punish players for similar conduct in the past. Under Article XII (A) of the CBA, any disciplinary action that the league takes against a player must based on “just cause.” Not only does this standard require that the punishment fit the crime, but also that the disciplinary action be consistent with prior penalties doled out by the league for similar conduct.
Utley can thus argue that the fact that MLB has traditionally elected not to punish players for takeout slides of this nature means that the league cannot punish him in this case. Along these lines, Utley (or his representatives from the MLBPA) will likely point to prior cases in which players were not punished for similar actions, perhaps relying on some of the same incidents that Matt Snyder has compiled over at CBSSports.com.
On the other hand, MLB will likely contend that Utley’s slide was a more egregious violation of the rule than were any of the prior cases, therefore justifying a harsher punishment.
Utley’s appeal will be governed by Article XI (C) of the CBA. Under this provision, any suspensions for on-field conduct can be appealed to either MLB’s commissioner or executive vice president, who will then hear the evidence and issue a decision. In this case, Utley’s appeal will reportedly be heard by John McHale Jr., MLB’s Executive Vice President of Administration.
Notably, under Article XI (C), whatever decision McHale reaches in this case will be considered final, with no right of appeal to a neutral arbitrator. This means that even if Utley or the MLBPA feels that the outcome of the appeal was unfair or improper, they would appear to have no immediate right to appeal that decision to a neutral arbitrator.
So even though Utley would seem to have a strong argument that his punishment was too harsh in light of past precedent, there is no guarantee that his suspension will be reversed or overturned. Instead, it’s possible that MLB – through McHale – could unilaterally decide to discard the prior precedent in this case and uphold Utley’s suspension.
If MLB were to uphold Utley’s suspension, it is not immediately clear what the MLBPA’s next step would be. As noted above, the CBA specifies that the decision issued by the league in an appeal of a suspension for on-field conduct is final, meaning that the union would not have an automatic right to appeal the decision to a neutral arbitrator. As a result, even if the MLBPA disagrees with the resolution of Utley’s appeal, the union may just decide to let the matter lie.
Alternatively, if the MLBPA were to decide to challenge the outcome of the appeal, then it could potentially try to file a grievance against MLB, contending that the league’s resolution of Utley’s appeal violated the CBA. Along these lines, the union could argue that the unprecedented nature of the suspension violated the “just cause” requirement in Article XII (A), and therefore that the decision in the appeal should be vacated.
While such a step would not enable Utley to play in the NLDS, if successful it would potentially prevent MLB from relying on the Utley case as a precedent in future cases. As a result, MLB would have to go back to the bargaining table with the union in order to impose more severe penalties in future cases of this sort.
Theoretically, it is also possible that the MLBPA could follow the recent example of Tom Brady and the National Football League Players Association by challenging the outcome of the appeal in a court of law. As most readers are undoubtedly well aware, last month a federal court threw out the four-game suspension that the NFL had imposed on Brady for his alleged involvement in the so-called “Deflategate” scandal, on the grounds that the league had improperly suspended Brady under the league’s CBA.
That having been said, such a course of action is probably unlikely here. In the Deflategate case, the judge primarily overturned the suspension because the CBA did not clearly allow the league to suspend players for the type of conduct that Brady had been accused of engaging in. In Utley’s case, the league’s authority to punish players in these cases is arguably much more clearly defined.
All in all, then, while Utley’s suspension may very well be reduced or overturned, it is also entirely possible that MLB will instead choose to use this case to set a new precedent in hopes of deterring players from engaging in similar conduct in the future. If so, and if the appeal does move forward today, then the Dodgers will be forced to play the next two games of the NLDS without Utley.
Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics and the Yormark Family Director of the Sports Industry Workshop at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.
My bet is they reach a compromise where Utley is suspended for the next 2 games but with pay, in the interest of his personal safety.
Yep. I have a feeling that the old battery throwing Shea fans might make an appearance to greet Mr. Utley, if he plays. And I’d be rooting for a direct hit between the eyes…
Uhhhh… wasn’t it Mr. Utley’s proud Phillies fans that made battery-tossing famous?
Oh, I’m sure Phillies fans have thrown them too, but this is what I was talking about (from an article about the 1999 playoffs): This led to incidents of items such as full cups of beverages, and even batteries being thrown at Braves players, namely Rocker, when visiting the Mets.
no, it was me….I’m the original “Battery Chucker”
Umps forced to declare unsafe playing conditions. Game forfeited. Dodgers up 2-1.
If that happens, the Mets will forfeit the game.
Oh, I don’t *really* hope they throw batteries (or anything else). It was anger-fueled hyperbole on my part.
With Pay? Players don’t get salary for the postseason. They get postseason shares for pay. It doesn’t matter if he plays or doesn’t he gets paid based on how far the Dodgers get and what percentage a share the Dodgers team votes for him.
I think based on this play he might get a full share even though he wasn’t with the team the whole year.
Does the rulebook ever say what constitutes a legal “slide”? I would assume it entails one leg and one butt cheek on the dirt. By what I was always taught is a slide, Utley never slid. He dropped down and went for a take-out, and it’s telling to me that MLB defined it as a “rolling block”. Utley can argue that in other instances a slide went unpunished, but I imagine MLB will argue that Utley never slid, and that’s why he was suspended.
That was the point Torre made in the interview last night: that Utley hit Tejada before hitting the ground and he never even tried to touch the base.
Torre also said MLB and the Union were already talking about possible rule changes/clarifications to protect fielders the way catchers are protected. So, in that respect it doesn’t matter how the appeal plays out: the Utley rule is coming.
I wonder if it’s possible that the league would be able to argue that past violations not receiving suspensions shouldn’t be a burden for a new commissioner trying to make a mark on the league in the name of player safety. Also, could the league argue that due to the nature of the game (being the postseason and all), that the visibility was increased, thus forcing the commissioner’s hand in his actions.
Using the “past precedent” argument would mean that MLB could NEVER change their enforcement of an existing rule, if they are never allowed to break precedent. That doesn’t sound right to me.
The problem is that they’re changing enforcement retroactively without any indication that this would be the case. If MLB instead announced during the offseason that they would enforce the rule a certain way going forward, it would be completely different.
US law is based almost entirely on precedent, so it would be an uphill battle to spring this on a player without a previous announcement informing players that this would be enforced.
What if I made a dashcam video showing me exceeding posted speed limit while passing a police car and said car not ticketing me for speeding. Can I use that video in court for subsequent speeding violations?
That’s not a legal precedent, there is a standing ruling that as long as the player can reach the bag with one hand, the slide is legal. To then suspend a player for making such a slide would be setting a precedent that would buck the trend.
There have been 3 other major cases in the last few weeks, so the new commissioner doesn’t make sense as a source of inconsistency. The only reasonable justification for the suspension is if you think Utley’s slide is worse than the similar cases that have come up so recently.
Could that work because of Tejada’s injury and the perceived maliciousness of the act itself?
Torre has said that there was no maliciousness. He was also asked why there was a suspension in this case and not in previous cases, and he said he didn’t care about the pat. So I don’t see any attempt to make the argument that Utley’s slide was worse.
Isn’t a one-game suspension the best case scenario for Utley? He misses the game against Harvey – the one pitcher with the fastball and the stones to injure him – and likely won’t be starting against a lefty tomorrow anyway. If he does enter tomorrow’s game, it will be a pinch hit appearance in a close game, which means the Mets would be risking the game/series by giving him a free base. Can’t hit him there.
On the other hand, if Utley isn’t in there tonight then it puts pressure on Brett Anderson to pitch well. If he gives up a lot of early runs, I wouldn’t want to be Gonzalez or Kendrick stepping up to the plate in a blowout.
remember, Harvey also has to bat…
And…?
If Harvey hits Utley with a pitch, that will most likely be the end of the ordeal. If he hits someone else with a pitch towards the end of a blowout, he’d most likely be removed for a pinch hitter anyway. It’s not like he’ll go head-hunting in the first inning.
It’s like to see Harvey hit Puig…. who’ll promptly end Harvey’s career.
LOL, moondog, it looks like it’s the Mets who put an end to some Dodgers careers last night. Donnie Baseball may be managing his last Dodgers game tonight!
Hitting a batter isn’t the only form of vigilante retaliation available to the Mets: Corey Seager is a shortstop too.
(Brrr.)
This needs nipping now or it can get really nasty.
I would assume that if Harvey hits Utley he would be immediately ejected, which would be foolish on the Mets part.
It would reduce his innings pitched which make Scott Boras very happy. 🙂
The argument for suspending him is simple, a new precedent has to be set now. It is more important that one player be punished without warning to stop this from happening again over the next 20 plus games of the postseason.
Takeout slides happen often and are unpunished, this seems to be in general agreement. Under our notions of justice the unpunished part is what we focus on, and how it is unfair to punish someone for something that has never been wrong before. All this is true, but MLB is trying to make a statement that these types of slides are wrong. It can’t change the rules or even how they are enforced right now, but it can punish. By punishing Utley it sends a message that during the rest of the postseason this will not be tolerated.
The important fact is these slides happen often, it is likely over the next probably 20 postseason games a couple potentially dangerous slides will happen, this punishment is an attempt to make sure they don’t.
I don’t know exactly where I fall on this. I can see the safety angle of this, but it doesn’t sit right with my notions of justice. All I know is it is a stupid place for baseball to be in and it should have been fixed long ago.
Further, this suspension could be argued is in the interests of punishing Utley, so the Mets don’t retaliate, which could lead to ugly scenes and further retaliation. Baseball is so dumb sometimes.
Would it really lead to further retaliation though? For arguments sake, let’s assume that Utley plays tonight and Harvey drills him. I would think that Utley would jog to first base (as he always does), the fans would cheer like crazy, and that would be the end of it. I can’t imagine the Dodgers would throw at someone on the Mets as retaliation.
It depends where the ball is located. If it’s head high, Harvey may be leaving in an ambulance.
It’s in NYC, he won’t be leaving in an ambulance. Typical Dodgers fan response though. Lets just beat the opposing fans into comas.
Unlikely mooondog. Not that I would like to see retaliation or anyone charge the mound, but as we’ve seen before, even when hitters really do try to attack a pitcher, they are quickly outnumbered. All the hitters friends are far away. The pitcher has more friends very close by.
funny Indymets.. it’s the Mets fans who are the biggest hypocrites. They don’t like the old school vicious takeout slide and want retaliation with an old school 98mph to the head. Harvey is a mental midget and I really want him to try. The Mets will lose 2 games on the Utley slide… hahahahahahah
Wow, moondog, how do you feel this morning now that the Mets thoroughly trashed your Dodgers last night?
I noticed you criticizing Mets fans for wanting someone to throw at Utley. That’s just normal fan talk. It’s fans of the team YOU root for who are the most vicious, lunatic bunch. Ask Brian Stowe.
And now it’s been reported that after last Friday’s Mets win, a Dodger’s fan beat up a Mets fan in the Dodgers Stadium parking lot. The Mets fan is in critical condition in an LA hospital.
So don’t go talking sh*t about Mets fans when it’s your team’s fans who are the degenerate despicable animals.
I did’t see a fan of any team say they wanted Harvey to plunk Utley in the head, that would just be stupid. Maybe Moontroll would be a more appropriate name?
I completely agree with Ron. When the league doesn’t punish players who violate written and unwritten rules, the players take it into their own hands.
If the league would suspend/fine players for dirty plays or even showing up the other team, I think we would see a lot fewer intentional HBP’s and which would reduce the number of these silly basebrawls.
Unfortunately, your position is all too common in our Social Justice Warrior cultural climate. As Blackstone argued centuries ago, it is the rule of law that ensures liberty and fair treatment. Rules are easily understood by all parties which allows a person to model their behavior accordingly. The rules and precedent have been established regarding hard slides for decades. Utley slid with the expectation that he was operating within the rules.
To punish someone based on what you feel is your own personal “notions of justice” is arbitrary and invites abuse by those with the power to punish.
If you want to eliminate the potential for injury from hard slides and punish players who push the envelope, have an off-season rule clarification, announce the rule changes and begin rigorous enforcement during spring training.
What if my “personal sense of justice” is based on the actual rules in the actual rule book?
Aren’t you really saying that what’s most important is the opinion of folks (takeout slides are okay), and not the rules themselves?
I’m not sure how you make a pretentious rule-of-law argument in this case without backing yourself into a corner.
If you believe in the rule of law…why is MLB wrong for enforcing the rules that are in the rules book?
If you believe in the rule of law…why are you arguing that the opinion of old umpires and players is more important than the actual rulebook?
Pachito used the phrase “our Social Justice Warrior cultural climate” unironically. Expecting an internally coherent position might be asking a bit much.
Why do players need spring training to understand that the rule as written will be vigorously enforced? Do players actual practice takeout slides in spring training?
The real message here is clear and we all know what MLB is really getting ready to do: this off-season will see new rules or clarifications of existing rules that basically make violent take-out slides illegal.
Good.
Institute the college rule and get rid of the neighborhood play. Done.
This is a tough one. It was an illegal play, a dirty play, but comparable plays have not been punished prior to this. I would have to say that I think MLB should wait until the offseason to reinforce the rules on takeout slides, and shouldn’t suspend Utley here.
This is different and a good place to start penalizing destructive slides because it’s the playoffs. Utley should at the minimum be given a 3-day suspension so that the Dodgers lose a starter like Utley made the Mets lose a starter.
I don’t think it’s different. Certainly one could argue that Kang’s injury on Coughlan’s very similar slide affected the Pirates as much as Tejada’s will the Mets. One shouldn’t play with one set of rules (or one way of enforcing the rules) in the regular season, and then another set in the playoffs of that season.
Have you even looked at the two cases and compared them? They’re completely different. Coughlan slid at a normal time (well before he got to the base, not when he was practically standing on it like Utley was) and in a normal direction (he slid at the base, whereas Utley went flying far to the right of the base and tried to touch it as he went past, which makes no sense if he was trying to be safe because you can’t overrun 2nd base), and there was actually some point in terms of trying to break up the double play (in fact Kang got off the throw and it was a double play) whereas Utley’s slide had no point at all other than making a collision.
The entire postseason setup is a different set of rules than the regular season. More off days. Less pitchers needed.
It’s a different game. I see no reason we can’t extend the different game formuala to things that will make players safer.
Utley isn’t a starter.
The only slide I’ve ever seen that bad was Holliday’s on Marco Scutaro. Holliday was not punished but should have been. It ended Marco Scutaro’s career and maybe if Holliday was suspended Utley would not have thrown his shoulders and face into Tejada’s knees.
Holliday’s slide was worse than Coghlin’s but not as bad as Utley’s. At least Holliday went over 2nd base. Utley went several feet to the right of the base.
Coghlan didn’t slide into 2nd base any more than Utley did. Utley’s slide was basically Coghlan, part 2.
This is also Manfred’s first season as commissioner. All prior precedents fall under old leadership. This would be the perfect time to start punishments.
The plays involving Coghlan, Odor and Grigorious were certainly not under old leadership.
Utley starts today against Harvey, a righty pitcher he’s had success against. Probably homers. Two sides negotiate a one game suspension, Utley unavailable for game 4 vs the lefty Matz, who he wasn’t going to face. Both sides issue statements declaring victory.
If they are going to compare Utley’s (non)slide to other instances, does MLB or anyone else maintain some kind of slide video library? Is there a list on the interwebs somewhere of examples of slides that were called out as interference?
Isn’t the problem with citing the rule, for mlb’s purposes, that the rule explicitly states “in the umpire’s judgement”? Isn’t that settled already and doesn’t it take mlb officials– non-umpire Joe Torre types– legally out of the picture here? Since so much depends on what the umpires ruled at the time, it seems like this is actually rather straightforward. Utley didn’t, in the umpires judgement– which is the most important designation– break a rule. He can’t reasonably be punished for doing nothing wrong. This actually seems like the best thing that could possibly happen for a rule change. It wasn’t the player’s fault; it was the rule itself.
The umpire’s judgement is relevant when you’re talking about the call on the field. He was awarded second base because of their (mis)judgement. That doesn’t mean he can’t get suspended though. There have been times where a pitcher has been suspended for throwing at a hitter even though he wasn’t thrown out of the game.
Not necessarily. I was responding specifically to the claim in the post that the rule gives mlb some authority to suspend Utley. But the rule– and any potential infractions– depend on umpire judgement. So if mlb wants to use the rule as the basis of a suspension, it seems like they have no “legal” standing. as per the pitcher argument, perhaps, but there is precedent set there, whereas the precendent here does not exist.
What I mean is that if mlb is content to give umpires the authority to make this determination in a game, they have to abide by those results. And this is the real problem: the result is being scrutinized and punished when the real problem is the system that produced the result.
The MLB can’t suspend Utley but yet Odor’s slide go unpunished. It’s totally ridiculous. MLB is gonna lose bigtime on this.
If Utley makes the exact same slide without the resultant injury, MLB wouldn’t even consider getting involved. They’re letting the outcome dictate their response, not the action itself. They’re clearly trying to set a precedent through punishment instead of owning up to the fact that they themselves have failed to eliminate this nonsensical aspect of the game. In the end, Utley is getting punished for MLB’s failure.
Isn’t that exactly what happened with the Posey rule? That was a regular season game with a star player, this is a playoff game with a middling player – roughly equivalent scrutiny and blowback.
I hate to nitpick, but Rule 5.09(a)(13) only provides for declaring the batter out. It says nothing about ruling that the runner is out. Given the context of the associated comment (which actually negates most of the power of 5.09(a)(13)), the rule probably assumes that the runner is already out.
I feel that the slide in itself should certainly be illegal. However, at the time he made that slide, it was entirely legal. Is that not what we should be looking at?
Based on the precedent, at least. It is frustrating that someone needs to get hurt in order for rules to get changed.
Most of the analyses I’ve seen say the umpires should have called double play for interference. The league position is that the umpires goofed by not calling interference, which means the slide was illegal.
A further problem is that apparently the lack of an interference call cannot be appealed so the review umps could only rule as to whether Tejada stepped on the bag. Which made the “crime” pay and incentivizes further dirty slides. Since the entire game outcome spun out of that play, the league felt enough is enough.
No matter how it plays out it is ugly and only going to get uglier.
The ball came in way too late for it to be interference. That was never even an option for the Umpires.
Huh? What are you talking about?
“The ball came in too late…”
WHAT??
Seriously, this might be the worst take of many, many bad takes on this whole situation.
The judge in the Brady Deflategate opinion reversed the arbitrator’s decision primarily on the Brady’s purported lack of notice that he could be suspended for being generally aware of and/or approving the deflation of footballs. It seems that Utley has a similar lack-of-notice argument, given the lack of any comparable suspensions for similar incidents in the past.
More interesting to me though is whether the case would be considered moot by the time Utley filed suit and pursued it in federal court. If he’s already served the suspension by that point, would the case just be dismissed for lack of standing? Or might this be considered a wrong capable of repetition but evading review, thus allowing Utley to pursue it regardless? And if so, what would the remedy be?
It probably will *be* moot.
By the time the case even gets to a judge the League and the Union will have a solid ban on those rolling blocks so if he sues he’ll be out on the limb by himself. Since he’s not losing money there is no remedy available.
More, he’ll be a free agent trying to hang on; if he makes too much of a fuss it could be the end of his career right there.
There is no difference between Utley’s slide and Chris Coghlan’s slide to take out Jung Ho Kang. The rule should be changed, but the offseason seems like the appropriate time to change it.
Um, the only way you could say this is if you haven’t seen both slides. Both are on youtube, you should take a look at them. They aren’t even close to being the same thing. Coghlan slid at a normal time, well before he got to the bag, he slid at the bag instead of far to the right of it, and there was a realistic chance of there being a double play (in fact, there was a double play). None of these are true of Utley’s slide.
Agreed that Coughlan’s slide was nothing like Utley’s. The best (and only comparison that comes to mind) is Holliday’s slide against Scutaro a few years back. Nothing came of that. How is it fair to penalize the Dodgers, based on that precedent? And for the record, I’m a Giants fan. It pains me to take that stand. But fair is fair.
i just did this (look at both on youtube). why does everyone keep saying that utley was nowhere near the base? he was. he didn’t slide directly into it but he was right next to it. he didn’t touch the bag but he easily could have had he been interested in doing so.
as far as i can see coghlan’s slide took place farther in front of the bag – though it’s worth noting that kang himself was also quite a bit farther in front of the bag than tejada was – but both slides were about the same in terms of not being legs directly at the bag, but within arm’s reach of it.
For an professional athlete…missing the base by a foot is missing it by a lot.
The point – when people say ‘no where close’ – is more clearly stated: his intention was clear. He was not trying to be safe. He was ONLY trying to knock over Tejada.
Sometimes…if you want to have a productive conversation…you need to not be pedantic, and try to understand what people are saying.
i’m not at all disputing that utley’s intention was to knock over tejada. it clearly was.
but why do people seem to think it’s important to say that it happened far away from the bag when it actually didn’t? sometimes you do see a guy peel off ten feet out of the baseline to take out a shortstop who’s done a good job of getting out of dodge so he can turn the DP in peace. those plays are considered much more sketchy than takeout slides that happen within arm’s reach of the bag. whatever else is true about the utley/tejada slide, suggesting that it was one of the ten-feet-wide-of-the-bag type slides is factually incorrect.
i don’t think that’s pedantic. people are making a point, it’s wrong. if that’s not relevant tell them to stop bringing it up
Yep. *Right* at the bag. And there was *nothing* dirty or no intention to interfere in making contact above the knee.
http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/jung-ho-kang-injury.jpg
It is unjust to initiate, and enforce a law by punishing a so-called “offender”. If there is a rule against it, then suspend him. There is no rule he violated. He was well within the base paths, and any ballplayer will agree that he did what every player has been trained to do since day one: If you’re on first and see a grounder, break up the double-play. He wasn’t going for Tejada’s knee, he was attempting to disrupt Tejada’s ability to make a double-play, within the confines of the existing rules. It always sucks when players suffer intense injuries, and playoffs only make it feel more important. What sucks even more, at least to me, is when one instance is used as justification to change the rules that, for the most part, have worked for a very long time.
If the league decides that what Utley did in Game 2 was illegal, then every player that does that, once the rule has been put in place, deserves to be punished. Utley does not deserve to be punished. He plays the game the right way, and is respected for it. Utley is a second basemen, and best believe he’s had his share of cleats to the shin (not to mention his career 179 HBP, which he doesn’t complain about).
” If there is a rule against it, then suspend him. ”
There is a rule. It’s been referenced in much of the coverage of this story. Joe Torre explained what rule was broken.
Quit sea-lioning like this.
You just like seeing the take-out slide. That’s fine. But explain why it’s good for the game, or why you like, or why baseball should have it…instead of engaing in this disingenuous idea that “there is no rule against” this. Yes! There is! It exists, and MLB is trying to enforce it.
Utley should be fined and suspended, that slide occurred past the bag and he made no effort to touch the bag.
Utley is sh*t anyways with only two at-bats in the post-season. The Dodgers will hardly miss him, and if they think they would miss him, they have bigger problems than all this.