Jose Bautista and the New Slide Rule
That didn’t take long. Just a few days into the season, we have a controversial play relating to the slide rule instituted this offseason. Last night, trailing 3-2 in the top of the ninth with the bases loaded and one out, Toronto Blue Jays batter Edwin Encarnacion hit a ground ball to Rays third baseman Evan Longoria. Longoria threw to second base to force out Jose Bautista, who had been running from first base. As second baseman Logan Forsythe attempted to throw the ball to first base for an inning-ending double play, Bautista’s arm caught Forsythe’s foot, Forsythe’s throw went awry, Encarnacion was safe, and two runs scored. Officials overturned the call, ruling that Bautista violated Rule 6.01 for interference and Encarnacion was declared out at first, ending the game in favor of Tampa Bay.
Those are the basic facts of what happened last night, and while the interpretation of the rule might be subject to criticism, there can be little dispute about what happened. There is also likely little dispute about the impetus of the new rule — player safety — and that last night’s play had little to do with player safety. That leads to a couple questions. Like, was the rule interpreted correctly? And like, should the slide rule cover plays like Bautista’s when little harm is likely to come on the play?
Before we take a look at the play, let’s consider the precise language of the new rule itself. Rule 6.01(j) is the relevant one here, titled “Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts”. So what does the runner have to do?
If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, he should be called for interference under this Rule 6.01.
The runner needs to make a bona fide slide, which requires four things:
Requirement number one is that a runner needs to begin “his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base.”
Before moving on to the second, it might be a good time to take a quick look at the play in question.
While the new rules do not require an actual effect on the play, the throw to first would have been a close play if accurate.
As to the slide rule, for the first part, Bautista appears to meet the requirement as he is on the ground coming into the base.
Requirement number two is that the runner “is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot.”
Again, Bautista meets this requirement, as he pretty clearly comes over the base as part of his slide.
Requirement number three is that the runner “is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide.”
Here, Bautista is in trouble. He clearly slides right through the bag and makes little attempt to remain in contact with second base. Now, before we say for sure Bautista committed interference, we should revisit the beginning of the rule, which requires a non-bona fide slide and that the runner “initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play.” While one could argue that contact Bautista made with Forsythe was of more an incidental nature and that Bautista didn’t intend to make contact, we can use requirement number three to inform that intent. If Bautista was not trying to initiate or attempt to make contact with Forsythe, why in the world would he have engaged in a slide that ended with him off the bag? Bautista meets both parts of the rule and committed interference. The correct call was made.
For good measure, Bautista might have violated the fourth part of the bona fide slide rule as well.
The fourth requirement dictates that the runner must slide “within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.”
This one is a bit more murky, as determining pathway is less clear, but it’s possible to say Bautista changed his pathway at the end, which is why he ended up wide of the base. If this were the only basis for a ruling, it might be more controversial. As far as controversy is concerned, however, Blue Jays manger John Gibbons’ suggestion that his team will “come out wearing dresses tomorrow” should create more controversy than the ruling itself.
If this sequence of events from last night’s games does causes controversy, it will most likely be a product of the play’s relationship (or lack thereof) to player safety — i.e. the impetus for the rule change to begin with. In no way is Bautista attempting to hurt Forsythe, nor is this play likely to cause an injury like those suffered by Jung-ho Kang and Ruben Tejada. However, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t run afoul of the new rules, and while the new rules focus on takeout slides, they can clearly be read to emphasize a focus on interference in general.
The old rule, which is still on the books and gave wide latitude to the umpire’s discretion, reads as follows (5.09(a) 13):
(13) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play; Rule 5.09(a)(13) Comment (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. (See Rule 6.01(j).)
That very last part of the rule above mentions Rule 6.01(j), which is the new slide rule put into effect this season. It is not the only rule that now references 6.01(j) as 5.09(b)(3) (“intentionally interferes with a thrown ball”), 6.01(a)(5) (a runner just out who “hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner”), 6.01(a)(6) (“base runner willfully and deliberately interferes”) and 6.01(a)(7) ( batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes”) all do, as well. There is clearly an emphasis on clarifying interference rules — not solely takeout slides — and Bautista was in clear violation of the new version of the rule.
For those who wonder if that type of call might lead to controversy in the playoffs, recall that in 2013 a World Series game ended on an obstruction call when Allen Craig tried to move past Will Middlebrooks to get home, or that in Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series, Alex Rodriguez was called for interference for slapping the glove of Bronson Arroyo, ultimately preventing Derek Jeter from scoring. Baseball has a lot of rules and sometimes games hinge on interpretations of those rules. There will be more plays like Bautista’s throughout the season, and fans and players will become acclimated to the rule due to plays like this one. The new rules were set out for player safety, and while they do slightly more than that, better player safety and better clarification of the interference rule are both better for the game of baseball.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Is Bautista even out? Forsythe never touches the bag in that GIF.
Nevermind just watched the full video.
The whole idea of a controversy is ridiculous and we have the umpires to thank. Interference has always been interference the umps just stopped calling it, much like the high strike. Under the old rules you never were allowed to intentionally wipe-out (interfere) with a fielder while making a play. Then magically it became ok to do so at second base (don’t dare do the same thing when sliding into first, the baseball etiquette gods will shame you to no end). These non calls of interference then led to the mythical “neighborhood’ play, where the fielder didn’t actually have to contact 2b while holding the ball to record a force out (once again don’t dare try that at first base). the whole situation was preposterous and flew in the face of the rules of baseball thank goodness mlb has taken steps to correct this atrocity that had gone on way too long.
So that everyone is clear, whether or not Bautista interfered in a vaccuum is NOT reviewable, per the Video Replay regulations:
Reviewable Calls
The only calls eligible for Replay Review are set forth in this Section V. Calls not identified below may not be reviewed at any time:
Interference for the Purpose of Breaking Up a Double Play.:
An Umpire’s determination under Official Baseball Rule 6.01(j). NOTE: Other than for purposes of determining whether the runner interfered with a fielder within the meaning of Rule 6.01(j), whether a base runner willfully or deliberately interfered with a fielder with the intent to break up a double play, within the meaning of Rule 6.01(a)(6) or (7), shall not be reviewable.
The ruling was exclusively based on Rule 6.01(j), which requires that:
a) Bautista initiated contact with the fielder for the purposes of breaking up the double play (check); AND
b) The slide was NOT a bona fide slide (check, since Bautista did not attempt to stay on the base)
The language of MLB’s ruling (use of the word ‘additionally’) was confusing to many. In fact, both elements needed to be present in order to overturn the call on video replay.
Hope this clears everything up!
The new rule isn’t even needed in this case. Bautista clearly reaches out with his left hand and swipes at the right foot of Forsythe. It’s not incidental to the slide at all. It is a clear intentional grab to try to interfere with the fielder.
I was just going to say the same thing. I thought this was obvious obstruction without the new rule. It doesn’t seem like anyone else notices that his hand is reaching out to hit the guys leg. Or at a minimum he doesn’t bring his hand back to avoid the guys leg. At the last second he lifts it up to hit his leg.
I don’t see any issues here with the call. He obstructed and this shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
Perhaps you’re speaking in lay terms not baseball terms, but it’s clearly not obstruction. In baseball, a fielder can obstruct a runner, but a runner can only interfere with a fielder. The penalties for the two are quite different.
I agree the call was correct.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It was nice and courteous of him to clearly avoid making a dangerous slide to take out Forsythe, but then he clearly can’t help himself after and grabs his leg.
Without the new rule Bautista takes Forsythe out completely and there is no throw. The long term issue is that the double play is pretty well automatic now. Middle infielder can take their time and if there is any contact it is interference. I get the safety aspect but it creates even less scoring. I don’t like that instead of teaching middle infielders to protect themselves and not try to turn a double play if it’s close that the rules has completely changed a game that has been around for 100+ years. The fielder has a choice whether to be involved in contact as well. Make the out and step back. The catcher rule is the same thing. Don’t block the plate if you don’t want to get hit. The run may score but that is the trade off. Catchers still block the plate now just no one can hit them. You have to slide around them.
“Without the new rule Bautista takes Forsythe out completely and there is no throw.” Beat me to it. Players are going to have to learn to fight their natural instinct to get any piece of the 2nd baseman to break up the play.
It is not natural instinct. It is learned behavior. Thus, it can be un-learned.
I never had the instinct to take out a middle infielder when making a slide at second. Maybe it was because I was a second baseman myself and knew it was stupid and dangerous to do so.
Forsythe already got out of harms way (or he shouldn’t be in hards way any more) as he is a full 2 steps to the inside of the bag.
You’re not interpreting the rule correctly. There can still be contact as long as the runner slides before getting to the base, aims for the base, and stays on the base (and doesn’t do something stupid like grab the fielder’s foot). It’s explicitly stated that there can be contact as long as it is a legal slide, so it is still up to the fielder to avoid the runner. What Forsythe did was fine, as he tagged the base and then maneuvered to the side of the bag to make the throw.
yep, this is the old rule. he’s out. as is the hitter.
you could argue that the new rule change his slide, but you still can never reach out like that.
Bautista did interfere with the fielder and there is a rule in place for that already and should be called out. However I feel applying the new slide rule in this case was the wrong call.
Yeah, he pretty clearly turns his head, sees Forsythe’s foot there, and intentionally reaches out and grabs his foot
The slide itself is clearly late and towards forsythe. You can see bautista clearly violates every part of the rule. Great article..
Right, let’s call it what it is:
Tripping on Bautista
I, for one, am excited to see the Blue Jays play a game in dresses. Good on them breaking down gender norms!
#$@%!%!!!!!
Nouns have gender; people have sex.
Well, most people do, but I’m guessing you don’t.
At this point in my life, I’d settle for having either.
And you’d be dead wrong. And “gender” is for nouns, not for people. But then you wouldn’t know that, either.
It’s pathetic that some of you are so immature that your response to something you disagree with is an immediate ad hominem attack. Grow up.
People have both and they are not always the same. Which makes sense because gender is a continuum while sex is tertiary.
People can’t have gender. Check your grammar and syntax reference books. You’ve bought into some modernist nonsense.
Regarding the play’s relation to player safety, you could argue that preventing fielders from having to avoid getting hit by baserunners generates better safety. For example, if Forsythe had stayed on the bag when making his throw, he definitely could have been injured by Bautista’s late slide. I’m not sure that the fact that he was able to get himself out of the path of danger makes the slide any less dangerous or means the intent of the rule wasn’t fulfilled.
Combined with the neighborhood play no longer in effect there had to be something added for safety as the middle infielder would have to stay around the bag longer.
Forsythe was able to get out of the area that he shouldn’t have to avoid the runner from affecting his throw.
You even quoted it yourself…
6.01(a)(5):
Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.
That’s exactly what Bautista did. He reached out to grab Forsythe’s right foot. Whether or not he succeeded in impeding his throw by doing so…we don’t know. Maybe Forsythe just has some really bad aim. But Bautista tried to force him into a wild throw, and even the attempt at that is punishable by this rule. Which has been around for ages.
If the umpires actually cited the new “Utley rule” (6.01j) to explain why they called the DP, well, then I don’t know. But there is a rule in the rulebook that covers that exact play, and by that the call was absolutely correct.
As for the postseason analogies…I get the Craig/Middlebrooks comparison, because that was a horrifyingly difficult call. But A-Rod bitch-slapping Arroyo’s glove? Come on…that was just bush league as its worst. A bad attempt at cheating, if you will. I wasn’t “around” at that time, so I don’t really know how much discussion there really was about, but if there was…why was there?
About the Arod slap, there was never any controversy outside of the umps originally missing it and calling him safe and allowing Jeter to score. It took about 5 minutes for them to realize what happened, call Arod out, and put Jeter back on second. It was in the Bronx, so of course Yankees fans decided to throw trash on the field afterwards, but that was probably because they realized they were about to blow a 3 games to none lead to the Sox.
I would love a new slide rule. Once I have a shirt to put it in.
going to need a pocket protector with that
First: Was this new rule needed? Dave Cameron argued that it was here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-time-for-mlb-to-protect-its-players/
Sorry, Dave, but you were wrong.
Why? Let’s do this two ways. First, let’s refer to the peer-reviewed evidence on the subject. See this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24408764
Double plays were over 3 times LESS likely to result in injury than a tag play on a throw from the outfield. Let that sink in. If something is safer than tagging out a runner, does it need to be made safer still?
Second, I want you to try a thought experiment. Imagine the biggest, fastest player in the MLB is running towards you with the intention of hurting you. He’s running as fast as he can with blood in his eyes. The catch is, he has to slide into you, and has to be able to reach second base while doing so. The question: Could the player have any legitimate chance of hurting you if you don’t want to be hurt?
As long as you’re athletic enough to jump 1 inch in the air, the answer is no. Look at any video of a middle infielder suffering an injury on this play (like the one in Dave’s post shared above), and you’ll see the infielder chose to leave his feet on the ground instead of protecting himself.
I don’t like to blame victims. Breaking your leg is a tragedy no matter who you are. But when it comes to turning double plays, injuries are RARE. They’re rare because middle infielders don’t want to get hurt, and it’s their choice. So while I feel awful for anyone who has suffered a broken leg trying to turn a double play, I think their injuries are poor reason to change a rule that is integral to the way the game is played.
This is very different from the collision at home plate, where the catcher was hopeless and where injuries were far to frequent.
Enjoy watching a middle infielder jump over an incoming runner to turn a spectacular double play? Yeah, I used to enjoy watching that too. And doing it.
It had to be made. It is a clear causation of the neighborhood play not being in effect. In the past Forsythe wouldn’t have had to keep his foot on the bag and would have been another full step off the bag.
This play wasn’t likely to cause injury because Forsythe got far enough off the bag, but you can’t wait to only cause it on plays that have significant chance of injury.
Slide into the bag and you’re good. There’s no need to try to take out another player. Baseball isn’t a contact sport.
Baseball has always been a contact sport. Please refer to the evidence that this form of contact was hardly dangerous in the past.
Did the neighbourhood play keep players significantly safer than they would be now? Maybe, but I’d like to see some evidence. I have serious doubts that it did. You stay safe by getting airborne. If you had time to get way out of the way you were going to be safe anyway.
Avoiding the runner is a skill that many 13-year-olds across the world have mastered. It’s not difficult. Sometimes it’s difficult to avoid the runner AND turn two, and that’s the point.
It’s a sport that had contact in it, but the game can be played (and has been, successfully, many thousands of times) with no contact between opposing players whatsoever).
I do like the implication that Kang was just a crappy 2B, and it was his choice to break his leg and miss months and months of playing time.
So because tag plays are dangerous we shouldn’t have a rule around dangerous slides? That’s a logical fallacy.
Also, in general, “That’s the way it’s always been” is poor justification for pretty much anything and indicates there isn’t a better reason for keeping the status quo.
The evidence shows eating your own fecal matter is three times more dangerous than eating GM Roundup™ producing carrots so do you really need a law saying you can’t buy or eat those carrots if eating your own shit is perfectly legal?
Some things have worked so awesome for so long that you don’t change them on a whim w the defense they’ll make the game a bit better when things could turn out a whole lot worse and, in a sense, entirely ruin that which was.
Maybe chess would be fucking awesome with three queens and deleting a knight and bishop. Maybe you’ve often thought you were meant to be born with a vagina and have considered surgically engineering your perceived misfortune.
Are you sure it’s worth it, though?
I think there’s a point here. I just have no earthly idea what it is.
You are misrepresenting my point… I think there’s a name for that logical fallacy too, ya ol’ scarecrow 😉
Maybe I’ve often thought FanGraphs comment sections really desperately needed moderation to prevent jackasses from sliming them with casual bigotry. I’m pretty sure it’d be worth the “cost” of comments like this one.
Has this already been translated through a loop of languages, or do I need to wait for someone to do that for me so it can be even more insane sounding?
The translation loop selected here is English to Azerbaijani to Igbo and back.
Roundup ™ to produce evidence of their manure , GM food is more dangerous than eating carrots to three times , so it really is perfectly legal if you eat that your own and you get a bill , not to eat carrots ?
Some things turn bad when a lot that can be said that , so far, which could destroy them , they will Word a little better defense w does not change them on a whim , to work for a long time it was so How awful .
Maybe it was the fear of a chess knight and bishop and three Queens will be deleted . Maybe it means that there will Study and a cut to receive -at?le of engineering’ve idea of misfortune .
While you are worth it , are you sure ?
“Enjoy watching a middle infielder jump over an incoming runner to turn a spectacular double play?”
Yep. And those plays can and will still happen under the new rule. But you don’t want to acknowledge this. It would get in the way of your Goose Gossage impersonation.
Nothing Goose Gossage about this. It’s not about bravado or toughness. You don’t put your toughest guy on second.
It wasn’t that Kang was a crappy second baseman or that he chose to get injured. He chose to keep his feet planted and that was a mistake. The data – and this is a data driven site – suggest that double plays were significantly less dangerous than tag plays. That doesn’t mean that anything less dangerous than a tag play should be allowed, but it provides perspective on how dangerous these plays actually were. Some think they were very dangerous, but the data disagree. Why do the data disagree? Because it’s not difficult to avoid an injury from a sliding runner. Will injures happen? Yes. But we won’t make all plays force outs because injuries happen on tag plays, right? We won’t outlaw sliders because they increase the risk of injury, right? These are changes that would benefit player safety but take away from the game. The trade-off isn’t worth it.
I’m not arguing from a “that’s the way it’s always been” perspective at all. I’m arguing that breaking up a double play has an important contribution to overall game play. Running a catcher at home did not, and was rightfully banned.
If you have to slide directly into the base and are not allowed to initiate contact, why would middle infielders choose to make a jump pivot when they can hang out beside the base harm-free? Sure, there will still be some nice pivots turned out of old habit. But why should they, based on the new rule?
How was barreling through the catcher, usually with the attempt to jar the ball loose and score a run, less important to overall game play?
If successful, it scored a run. If breaking up the double play is successful, you get a runner at first base.
Veering off the base, sliding late or sliding with a foot high in the air to try and salvage an out is completely unnecessary. Just as it was unnecessary to try and steam roll the catcher.
That logic doesnt make any sense. You are essentially saying “It wasn’t dangerous right up until it became dangerous”.
Two separate players had their legs broken by take out slide at second last year. Another (Alcides Escobar) missed about a week from another. It is a dangerous play. It just is. Just because the result wasnt always catastrophic doesnt mean it wasnt dangerous.
Not everyone who goes skydiving winds up dying. Skydiving is still dangerous.
When I say more important to game play, I don’t mean the outcome. Any play can likely change a game in the right circumstance.
Running the catcher didn’t change anything about how the rest of the game was played. It was an option that helped the offense a bit, put the catchers at great risk, and otherwise changed nothing.
Double plays are not supposed to be automatic. Everything is supposed to go right. A bobble and you probably don’t get two. That’s a function of the batter/runner’s speed as well as the runner on first. Weak ground balls to third are very difficult turns and it’s not just because of the time it takes for the throw to get to first. The runner coming into second has an effect on the timing.
There was already plenty of leeway for umpires to penalize the terrible slides I assume most people are thinking of here. I don’t support those slides anymore than anyone else. But there’s a difference between a lunging tackle and a legitimate attempt to break up two. The legitimate attempt – which involves initiating contact – is relatively safe and influences decisions about where throws are made, or not.
I just don’t get how veering off the baseline or attempting to grab a fielder’s foot, all for the purpose of making the double play less “automatic” is justifiable.
How is it any different than making contact with a fielder in any other fielding situation which would seem automatic? I apologize if I’m not seeing your point, but I’m seeking clarification.
Why is something being automatic such a bad thing? Why should the fielder have to subject himself to getting crushed because the batter hit a weak one and can’t run fast enough to first?
I get it, we want to see more offense in baseball. But at what expense?
Statbook –
Okay, let me clarify because I think last night’s play, mixed with some other travesties, has confused everyone on this point.
I’m not arguing that Bautista’s slide was legal. I’m saying he should have been allowed to slide into the fielder, spikes down, so long as he could reach the base throughout the slide.
I don’t want guys to get flipped. I’m arguing that they overwhelmingly do not get flipped on these plays.
Now, with regard to the difference between breaking up two and running into a fielder on any other play, the difference here is based on how many outs the play is worth, and whether it is fair to allow the contact.
Consider a pop up to second. That’s a pretty automatic out, right? It’s supposed to be. If the runner bumps the fielder, he’s not giving him a fair chance. So no good.
A double play turn is different. The runner has no effect on the first out, other than if he can beat the ball to the base that’s what he’ll do. The second out – the non-automatic out that cannot be assumed by a scorekeeper (compared to the other outs that can) – can be influenced by the runner. It is fair to ask the infielder to throw the ball to first AND avoid the runner for multiple reasons: a) he knows the runner is coming and can expect a hard slide, b) he will throw the ball before the runner gets there, c) the infielder will almost always be able to get out of the way.
The break up slide into second increases the level of difficulty involved in turning a double play. Dirty slides can be dangerous – like Utley’s – but clean, yet hard slides are very rarely dangerous. Kang was hurt on one. It can happen. But not very often.
I think the game loses something important by outlawing a clean break up slide. The dirty slides probably needed harsher treatment. I don’t think guys getting hurt makes the game better.
” If the runner bumps the fielder, he’s not giving him a fair chance. So no good.”
But if the runner slides into a fielder to try and avoid him making the second out, it’s all good? Be consistent.
“the infielder will almost always be able to get out of the way.”
Forsythe was a full two steps off the bag. He was clearly out of the way and still had contact made against him. I’m not sure what you want the fielder to do… does he not have a right to make a play unobstructed?
“I think the game loses something important by outlawing a clean break up slide”
The rules don’t ban all contact, just some. If the runner slides before the bag, remains on base, doesn’t veer off, and matches all other criteria, and still makes contact, so be it. That happens. Heck, if you try to break up a double play while sliding legally, I don’t care. There will always be unintended contact, or even intentional contact that is legal.
I was being consistent. I made the clear distinction between a time when it would be okay to make contact to disrupt a fielder from making the play (double play slide) and when it is not okay (pop up). It was literally the clarification you were asking for. Pop ups are assumed outs. The second half of a double play is not assumed.
I said Bautista’s play was illegal. That said, Forsythe could have been clipped with what would have been a legal slide last year.
He wouldn’t have been. He would have avoided it like a pro.
If you think standing beside the base is the only strategy a middle infielder should have to use to turn a double play, we simply disagree on what constitutes a “fair ask.”
The second out of a double play is not an assumed out, you are correct, but you still have to give them the opportunity to attempt to make a play.
For what it’s worth, a routine ground ball to the shortstop isn’t an assumed out, there’s a myriad of things that could go wrong (bad throw, bad catch, etc.), but we wouldn’t suggest it’s acceptable to take him or the first baseman out.
Careful Brad, the groupthink that now permeates the comment sections will try to bash you on this. Don’t go using evidence or statistics either as that is only defensible in just about every other subject in baseball. When it comes to rules of 2016 here is what you have to remember:
1. Was a star or popular player injured? If yes, change the rules for the entire game, history be damned. If this change in rules eliminates watching athletes perform athletic, graceful actions, that’s too bad because the belief is that one day, we will somehow be able to eliminate injuries entirely. (We won’t)
2. Was any type of physical contact made whatsoever? Oh NO! Change the rules!
3. If you try to point out that the history of this game involved contact for well over 100 years, you will be called a barbarian for not changing your thinking for 2016. After all, the world is more civil now than ever right?
4. How dare you ask a fielder to avoid a runner charging at them at almost full speed! That is ludicrous!
“Double plays were over 3 times LESS likely to result in injury than a tag play on a throw from the outfield.”
I think the specifics of that study are important here: groundball force outs to 2nd base with less than 2 outs” were less likely to result in an injury than a tag play.
Most groundball force outs at 2nd do not involve the runner sliding into the fielder: It’s often either too late to turn a double play, or early enough that the throw can be made before the runner arrives (or the fielder was in the neighborhood of the bag but not close enough to risk being hit by a slide). So it’s not clear from that source how dangerous the specific situation addressed by the new rule is compared to other plays.
That’s a fair critique. Similar argument can be made about the other evidence as well – tag plays or plays at home are not usually of the dangerous variety. The evidence is useful because it describes very few injuries per double play attempt – all of which happened when a runner could have slid to either side of the bag in an attempt to break up two. Any time the infielder has to actually avoid the runner, the risk definitely goes up. I don’t know of any data that can provide insight to those specific situations.
And yet you do blame the victim. This is pure, unadulterated BS. There is nothing integral to the game for the runner to attempt to maim the fielder and then put the onus on the fielder to avoid being maimed.
It’s like me telling that I am going to shoot a gun at you and it’s your fault if you don’t dodge the bullet.
Really, it’s like that? Maybe a little bit different, do you think? And let me ask, why do the data suggest a fielder is more likely to be “maimed” on a tag play?
Infielders know the runner is coming. He has to slide. It’s rarely dangerous. It’s not completely safe. I mean, it’s a lot safer than being shot at or going sky diving, but it’s not as safe as sitting on your couch.
The funny thing is, I’m all for improving player safety. Loved the ban on collisions at home. Love the prevalence of elbow pads for hitters, hand guards for base runners, even increasing the netting for fans.
I just think this is a typical case of availability bias. Everyone can picture the broken legs from last year. They are vivid but misleading examples of how double plays generally unfold.
And only one of those slides was legal to begin with.
Or like saying that its rare for batters to get hit in the head with a pitch and blaming them for not getting out of the way when they do so therefore they shouldn’t get to wear batting helmets.
It’s literally nothing like saying that.
Its exactly like that. Your entire argument is that its historically rare for players to get hurt on a take out slide because middle infielders go out of their way to avoid injury.
If you apply the same logic to batters we wouldn’t have batting helmets. People getting hit in the head is very rare and batters usually go out of their way to avoid getting hit by pitches.
What a ridiculous comparison.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the data for how often a batter is hit in the head vs. the times major injuries have occurred to infielders during double-play breakups. Keep in mind, baseball has been around before last year so it would have to go back longer than that. I would guess that the ratio is somewhere around 50 or 100 to 1.
I don’t agree with you, but thanks for at least stating your unpopular opinion civilly and clearly. Sorry you have so many thumbs down!
Baseball isnt a contact sport dummy, its really not supposed to be or else contact would be built into every play. I mean who in there right mind thinks Pete Rose was right to fuck up Ray Fosse’s career “taking him out” in a game that didn’t matter…. or Ty Cobb one of the largest unrelenting douchbags in baseball, and a incredible racist (I mean really with who dude was as a person how on earth are they still venerating him in the HOF while making a big stink over PED use, hypocrisy much) sharpens his spikes for take out slides. Is this really the game that douchbags like you want to see. If you want to see a fight at a sporting event watch hockey or MMA. If you don’t understand how a game changes over time, then maybe we should get rid of the mound and put a box back on the infield for the pitchers, shoot why not re allow spitballs cause thats “True Baseball”
if you could eliminate 10% of heart diseases deaths per year of 80% of esophageal cancer deaths per year, which should you chose?
The answer, assuming you care ulitmately about deaths prevented is 10% of heart disease deaths. The reason is that heart disease is the leading cause of death, world wide, and esophageal cancer is quite rare, resulting in fewer than 1/100 as many deaths as heart disease.
Similarly, OF tag out plays are quite unusual, and DP situations are comparatively common. That’s why there were 357 injuries in DP situations, during the period of study, but just 7 in OF assist injury situations. The reason we have rules about DP slides is that they cause more injuries, not that they are riskier, and this makes perfect sense–the hearth disease example above.
Brad McKay is wrong on so many levels, that I don’t have time to dissect them all. But I’ll talk about two. If heart disease is the #1 killer in the USA (600K deaths each year), do we need to make cars safer? After all, there’s only about 30,000 deaths by that method each year (1/20th of the number of heart disease deaths). No, you make things safer where you can easily do so.
As for how the game used to be played, how many players in the old days could run as fast and be as large as the average player today? The risk of injury is much greater today, and then throw in the elimination of the neighborhood play, and you have a recipe for disaster if you do nothing.
Also, the fielder sometimes doesn’t get a chance to protect himself. The Utley play is a case in point.
Joey bats, Joey flips.
Joey slides, Joey trips.
This thing writes itself.
Joey eats, Joey tips.
Joey showers, Joey slips.
Joey cries, Joey flips
Joey Bush-league…
And we found the Royal fan, everyone.
Trying to take on their cross-state rivals for “best fans in the universe”!
The rule states “For the purpose of”. This implies that we need to assume intent, otherwise it’s for the purpose of a slide. What’s the probability threshold for intent to *OVERTURN* a call? 75%? Are we 75% certain that he intended to obstruct? I’m not.
His arm makes it 100% that he was trying to obstruct.
I don’t agree at all. He shouldn’t have to alter his slide just because the fielder decided to stand there. All he did was not bring his left arm back in, which I really don’t see why he should be forced to.
I don’t follow what you’re saying? Bautista altered his slide not to comply with the rule but to break it.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown of this new rule. One thing I wanted to mention is related to this quote from the article:
“In no way is Bautista attempting to hurt Forsythe, nor is this play likely to cause an injury like those suffered by Jung-ho Kang and Ruben Tejada.”
I agree with the first part of this quote, but I think we need to be careful regarding the second part. I think the second part of the quote actually hits on a reason why this rule is so important: it’s really hard to figure out exactly what is going to lead to an injury around the bag. There are lots of moving parts, and ankles, knees, feet, and legs can twist in funny and unexpected ways. (And in fact I think this sentiment was stated last year, when many people noted that there were many slides like Utley’s before [some even from Utley] that did not generate injury, and it was only because his led to an injury that we’ve gotten to this rule.)
Therefore, I don’t think it makes sense to ask whether behavior X would have likely led to a certain type of injury. Instead, I think it makes sense to ask whether the slide violates the language of the rule (which, as you’ve highlighted, might not always be easy). But in general, I think the point of the rule is to say something like: “When you slide, you should slide right into the bag and stay there. If you do anything other than that (even if it’s sticking your hand out just a wee bit), you’re out. We’re not going to try to figure out all the weird things that might lead to injury. We’re just going to say what you can do, and everything else is out.”
Slide right at the bag, don’t make any contact with the fielder there. Simple.
Don’t make intentional conduct (which this was). There’s still going to be lots of unpenalized and unobjectionable conduct at second base.
Bautista clearly reaches out his arm and hooks Forsythe’s leg for the purpose of breaking up a double play in this case though. It should have been called under the old rule… but probably wouldn’t have been.
“In no way is Bautista attempting to hurt Forsythe”
While I don’t think he was going in all Snidely Whiplash hoping to cause an injury, he was engaging in deliberate contact which could reasonably result in an injury.
In my opinion, he was clearly attempting to trip Forsythe while he was already off-balance. There are a myriad of ways to land awkwardly and sustain an injury (some major, some minor).
There is no question that Bautista violated the rules, and I am on the side that preventing violence and injury is more important than demonstrations of masculinity. Yet the article ignores the really important thing that we can learn from this play, and only one commentator, jlukebeld, mentions it: “The long term issue is that the double play is pretty well automatic now.” Let this sink in guys.
1. We all know that last year this game would have been 4-3 with the Blue Jays still up; instead it ended 3-2 on replay review.
2. We have created yet another barrier to run scoring. We have created another barrier to the tension (will he pull it off or won’t he?) that defines our interest in the sport.
Is this what we were looking for?
I completely agree. Although I will say, allowing a take-out slide isn’t about toughness and masculinity. It’s about skill, grace, and timing. Middle infielders don’t just wear these slides with their feet planted. They get their feet off the ground in the nick of time. It’s not about bravado, it’s about intricacy of one of the most aesthetically pleasing plays in the game.
(To be clear, my sarcasm about masculinity refers to Gibbons’ comment, which unfortunately will distract us from substantive issue. If we think the opposition is about tough guy masculinity we will line up against Gibbons. If we think this is about reducing the difficulty of fielding, lowering run scoring and making the game more boring, we will be on Gibbons’ side.)
I have no idea why this comment has down votes. A turned double play is exactly what is described here, and its a thing of beauty in the game. So is a good, hard slide that goes straight into the bag. And I mean straight into the bag, not whats shown here.
IMO, the reason all of Brad’s posts on the topic are getting down-votes is that he is refusing to recognize that good-faith ‘take outs’ at 2b are not illegal and nothing from last night suggested that the rule will stop them.
Arbitrary stances such as ‘take outs at 2B are a more important part of the game than running over a catcher,’ don’t help the loose-with-the-facts argument, but the real issue is that good-faith slides that result in contact because the infielder was not artful or skillful enough to avoid a runner are still allowed.
Joey Bats’ slide was ruled to be a bad-faith slide because he grabbed the fielder’s leg. It’s extremely straight forward.
Writing haikus about how a well executed double play is the world’s most exhilarating and meaningful art-in-motion aspect of true sport is just odd and disingenuous. A clever good-faith slide that requires the infielder to vacate the bag (but otherwise doesn’t interfere), which causes the infielder to hop over or to the side is a neat play, and one that will still happen frequently. Keeping starter quality players healthy is good for the aesthetics of the game.
It doesn’t help the game, however, to encourage situations where a slow, bumbling, roided-up 280 pound DH-type could get away with intentionally tripping 180 middle infielder, simply because the lumbering runner is too slow to get to the bag quick enough for the in-game circumstances to naturally cause drama and tension due to the runner and fielder racing towards the bag in good faith.
I’ll take a “barrier to run scoring” over talented infielders missing months of playing time due to an entirely preventable injury.
The other argument, that middle infielders should just jump, is terrible. I guess batters should just dodge balls that are thrown at their heads? Who needs a beaning rule?
Terrible? Have you ever played the middle infield? Huge difference between avoiding a slide and avoiding a 95MPH fastball. Again, I’ve reference data demonstrating that double plays were not particularly dangerous in the past. How do those data fit within your current perspective?
I think your past data was rendered pointless when two guys got their legs broken in the same year on take out slides.
Ya, data is always rendered useless based on a couple flukes last year…
One of those slides was ridiculous and should have been (and was) penalized with the old rules. The other was a damn shame. But neither render the data useless.
The fluke was that more guys didnt get injured. That’s the problem with your logic.
Most people didnt get hit in the head while batting. We still brought in batting helmets.
“Huge difference between avoiding a slide and avoiding a 95MPH fastball.”
Generally speaking, but in situation where the ball and the runner arrive at almost the same time, and the play has taken you out of ideal position, I’m not so sure that is the case.
You’re right, the injuries are entirely preventable. The fielder can take another step to the side or jump the runner. The beanball analogy is retarded for 2 reasons. 1) Batters have virtually no time to react, especially compared to a sliding runner. 2) Batters always do make an effort to avoid getting beaned, they don’t just stand there and choose to get hit, unless it’s a curveball and they’ve weighed that the free pass is worth the hit. If the fielder thinks making the out at first is worth getting taken out, then he’ll make that play, but don’t cry interference afterwards.
Grown ups still us the word retarded in this manner? Or is my assumption that you’re a grown up wrong?
I can pretty much promise you that 100% of middle infielders try to avoid the sliding runner.
One way to make the double play less automatic? Run to first base faster.
I’m not sure why an “automatic” (which it never is) thing in baseball is such a terrible thing. Like Mortimer said, I’ll take a run barrier over injuries every day of the week.
I’m not entirely in agreement with the idea that last year this game would have had a different outcome. The issue as I see it is that Bautista interfered with Forsythe, not that he tried to injure him. Interference has long been on the books, although a play at second base is one of those places where the rule was often not enforced.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, however, that given the importance of that play, Kevin Cash wouldn’t have come out last year and argued that it was interference and shouldn’t have been allowed. I don’t know whether this was reviewable or not last year, but if it was, it would not have surprised me to learn that the call would have been overturned.
That said, I think I agree with your overall point that turning every close double play into an automatic one is a likely unintended consequence that is not desirable given the low-run scoring environment of the day. I don’t see an easy fix, though, since MLB obviously wants to keep players from getting hurt, even at the expense of offense.
Why is the double play being “automatic” worse than any other out being “automatic”?
A routine ground ball to the shortstop is almost automatic, but almost no one would justify trying to prevent him from making the play. Nor would we for a routine fly ball.
It’s about the change. By taking a play that was of moderate likelihood and making that play, you are making a (small) difference to the run environment.
But that doesn’t relate to this particular play. The fielder had already done the difficult task of moving away from the bag. All that was left was the easy task of throwing the ball to first.
Bautista sliding toward the fielder by definition demonstrates that the play was so easy at that point that Bautista expected the runner to be out at first unless he interfered with the effort.
Yeah I don’t like where this rule is headed. Now, a fielder can just stand wherever he wants on the turn and cry interference if any contact is made. Instead of the fielder altering his path or where he stands, they’re now forcing the runner to alter the way he slides into the base. I don’t like it. If you try to make the relay flat-footed while being on or near the bag, you should expect to be taken out. Either take another step to the side, or jump the runner.
“Now, a fielder can just stand wherever he wants on the turn and cry interference if any contact is made.”
There has to be a reasonable location where a fielder can make a play without being touched by a base runner, I think 99% of fans would likely agree that two feet off the bag is more than adequate for that determination.
“Instead of the fielder altering his path or where he stands, they’re now forcing the runner to alter the way he slides into the base.”
How did Forsythe’s location force Bautista to alter his slide? He had a completely open path to slide.
“Either take another step to the side, or jump the runner.”
So Forsythe needed to be in the grass to make a safe, unobstructed play? Got it.
Throw then hop man. Look up some videos of how infielders turn two. It’s not just where they stand, it’s how they throw and hop that keeps them safe.
That’s like saying, I’m going to throw 100mph at your head, it’s your fault if you don’t duck.
The runner should not be given lassez-faire on the base path.
Baseball has taken steps to protect its players, umpires, coaches, and even it’s fans.
But to some people, the middle infielders are the Major League’s crash test dummies. I don’t get it.
“Baseball has taken steps to protect its players, umpires, coaches, and even it’s fans.
But to some people, the middle infielders are the Major League’s crash test dummies. I don’t get it.”
I think we are all in agreement that it is a good thing to create rules to protect the players we love to watch on a daily basis. But the point Brad is trying to make and that is being missed is this: Its not the rules alone that are going to protect the players, they still have to play the game with the techniques and fundamentals that will keep them safe as well for the situation at hand.
Yes, TS12, and to contribute to that safety we’re asking the runners to also not do anything to contribute to more injuries. This seems entirely fair to me.
Sorry, TF12.
That’s not true. In the rule book, it specifically states that a runner who engages in a bona fide slide won’t be called for interference under the rule.
This is the slippery slope of all of these knee-jerk reaction rule changes. If tomorrow, Mike Trout collided with his right fielder and tore his ACL, at the rate this is going, we may soon see lines drawn in the outfield that says you can’t cross the LF/CF/RF line, etc. Last year, Wainwright tears his achilles or whatever during an at-bat so now they want the DH added to the National League. Hell, it’s dangerous to step foot in the batter’s box as well, maybe we should switch to tennis balls for baseballs right? It would prevent injuries.
If anyone has been looking for a good example of reductio ad absurdum argument, look no further.
The designated hitter rule is going to be adopted by the NL. It’s just a matter of time 🙂
Wait, what were we talking about?
The machismo of this situation on the Blue Jays side is so ridiculous. Don’t want to be called out for interference on a slide? Then just slide in to the base as you would normally and don’t try to interfere with the fielder in the process. It’s really not hard to do.
Clearly you dont watch Jays games very often. They complain bitterly about nearly everything. This is pretty par for the course.
This wasnt the first incident. In the first game of the season for Atlanta, Markakis made a clean slide into second to break up a double play, the kind of play that was a take out slide, but not a dirty one, and a straight forward slide (sorry, I dont know how to do GIFs). He was called out for interference, double play, because in the process he slid over and past the bag, and made no effort to stay on the bag. That was at least how the announcers interpreted it. Clean play, clean slide, but did go in a fraction late to break it up, causing him to overslide the bag. DP, under the new rules.
I just looked up the video of that slide. Here’s a link: http://m.mlb.com/video/v572697283/wshatl-murphy-knocked-down-nats-awarded-two-outs/?query=Nick%2BMarkakis
I’m sorry to say that you are completely wrong. That is what a dirty slide looks like. Murphy is lucky he didn’t get hurt and he was well off the bag. The umps definitely made the right call on that one.
Yeah that is definitely not the case. The slide you’re talking about is precisely the kind of thing that shouldn’t be allowed.
What’s so cool about this is that I’m reasonably sure the throw wouldn’t have gotten there in time to have gotten the runner out if not for the interference call.
if instead he had rslid on the other side and stuck out his bum and reached out and crabbed the bag, and took out Forsythe, is that legal?
No. You can’t actively try to contact the fielder. The wording of the rule is that a player can’t “initiate (or attempt to make) contact with a the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play”. Anything you do to try to break up a double play by contacting the fielder is illegal. Period.
All he’s doing is sliding. If they want to make this rule, then it should be 2 part, and the fielder should need to be more than the width of a human runner away from the bag, or interference is moot. In this clip, Bautista made contact while still touching the base, without extraneous movement to the fielder, the arm movement was just part of his slide.
Forsythe was well off the bag. Check out the video above. How much further do you suggest he needs to be?
There’s some room to interpret this, but my view was that his arm touching Forsythe’s cleat was not incidental to the slide, but was a deliberate act by Bautista to actually disrupt the throw. If you hold the opposing view, sure, this shouldn’t have been called interference. But deliberately grabbing a guy’s ankle is and always have been against the rules.
If the runner can touch the bag and you at the same time, then I think contact should be fair game.
Sure, I agree that it’s up for interpretation, but I just don’t see enough movement from Bautista to think he was deliberately trying to trip him, and he didn’t even fall anyways. In my eyes Bautista made a good baseball play, but I guess it’s just a play we’ll have to live without from now on.
“If the runner can touch the bag and you at the same time, then I think contact should be fair game.”
Jose Bautista is 6 feet tall with a wing span that is probably around the same. So basically you are saying that the middle infielder is fair game if he is anywhere within 6 feet of the bag.
That’s pretty ridiculous.
The whole working of that rule is ridiculous as well. It allows for runners to try and think up ways to not ‘look like’ they are interrupting the fielder while still doing so.
No. The rule allows it if it is a bonofide slide, which this was.
bonafide
A week late, I think that you are wrong….the rule says if A and B then C, not if A or B then C. You must violate both halves of the rule.
If you mean
‘if he had slid and good faith and taken him out, -rather than intentionally grabbing and tripping him- would that be legal?’
The answer is yes.
This play reminds me of the A-rod slap. We should all pile on Bautista for this the same way we did A-rod for his pansy slap.
I mean come on, lifting a guy’s leg as you slide into 2nd. How in the world is THAT macho… I think you already had the dress on Joey Bats…
We are in total agreement. As soon as I saw the replay showing JB reaching out to trip Forsythe, my first thought was of the Arod incident. Total bush league. Totally premeditated. Total cowardice. JB’s interview afterwards was a totally self serving steaming pile of horse@$&! as well. JB may be the least likable and least honestly introspective player since Arod.
Off topic but i would be very grateful if someone could forward the previous Fangraphs newsletters to me (missed the announcement and only just signed up).
tf1989@tutanota.com
I’m always amazed at the lengths baseball fans will go to defend violent, flagrant collisions in the sport. “Aesthetically pleasing” my ass. Is it aesthetic when a runner charges in, launches themselves sideways in a mockery of a slide, and the fielder and runner crash to the ground in a heap?
If you like watching train wrecks…yes?
I get that it looks cool when the 2B/SS does that leaping throw over the sliding runner, but to me, its just not worth the injury risk to see some of the games most athletic players (those middle infielders) taken out for extended time periods due to injuries.
This rule will probably be like the helmet-to-helmet rule in football. People have slid to break up double plays for years, and they have to stop doing it.
It will take players some time to adjust. The younger players will probably adjust quicker than the veterans, because they haven’t been doing it as long. And there will be lots of complaining and arguing for the first couple of incidents.
Then, the rule will become normal, everyone will know it, and we’ll move on to a different topic to argue about.
Except that this was is really is to follow, at least in theory. You just slide into the base and there is no way you can run afoul of the rule. There’s no “did he duck?” “did he lunge?” etc. It’s also not a split second thing. Bautista had 90 feet to remind himself that he’s not allowed to take out the second baseman after he has been rules out and is therefore not supposed to be involved in the play anymore. In 90 feet, he failed to remind himself of this, so he may have cost his team the game. The real story here is that Bautista monumentally fucked up and cost his team a chance at winning the game.
This seems, to me, to be blatant obstruction, just like ARod’s slap on Arroyo’s arm. I mean, the Middlebrooks play in ’13 wasn’t even deliberate, and it was clearly obstruction. It’s just cheating, whether or not he is trying to hurt someone.
I played non-professional baseball, and got deliberately beaned and hurt, and had a few runners try to slide into my base hard to hurt me, but I was bigger and meaner than all of them and they came out second-best. I clobbered more than a few shortstops and second basemen, and even knocked one all the way into centerfield. I hit a few catchers the way I used to hit wide receivers when I was playing defensive back.
Looking back on it, it was all stupid. Really, really stupid. The game is better off without contact plays (and beaning) in it.
A lot of the adult leagues seem full of the types of people you used to be, which has always dimmed my interest in actually playing the game again, at least for baseball leagues. Softball leagues are more the “needs an excuse to have 3 beers after something” kind of game, which is more my speed.
That was college and adult leagues both. I just don’t see that adding anything of value to the game.
Pretty clear he tried to grab him, should be punished under the old rules even. Its easier to avoid a takeout slide then a random arm grabbing you. The reason that it was dumb is because forsythe has a trash arm and the hitter most likely would have been safe anyway. P.s. where is domaso on this blue jays article.
Key word. Tried. Thought crimes don’t count, even attempts. His failure to actually grab, if that was his intent, meant he could not have influenced the throw, at least not physically, although maybe he got in the fielders head (he could have yelled “boo” and accomplished the same thing
Yelling “boo” would not result in an interference call.
Grabbing his leg, or even trying to grab, will.
Maybe you need to suggest that to Bautista.
Give them time 🙂
He certainly made contact, even if it wasn’t much, he rolled over to just to love tap him which is bautistas fault and against the rules so I don’t see ur point.
Whining is very manly.
The weird thing is that I keep seeing all these players talking about “grey areas” and “not knowing what to do and what not to do when sliding”.
How is this at all confusing? You have to slide into second on a double play the same way you would slide in literally any other situation. Slide the same way you do at third. Slide the same way you would on a tag play. Slide the same way you would if you were stealing a base. Its really that easy.
What is confusing about this? Are players really this dumb that they cant grasp this simple concept?
I don’t think it’s that they’re “dumb” (although some of them probably are), but rather that they’ve been trained all their lives to do one thing and are now suddenly expected to do the opposite. Until now, players have been taught that they are SUPPOSED to try to break up the DP in any way they can; now they are suddenly told they are NOT supposed to do so. It will take some time for them to adjust. A year from now this will be a non-issue.
Also, I doubt the new rule was presented to them in the clear and succinct manner in which you did. Managers and coaches won’t tell their players not to try to break up the DP, because they still want them to do so whenever and however they can get away with it. And since the rule is subject to the umpire’s judgement, neither players nor coaches can know exactly what can be “gotten away with” until they have seen the rule enforced (or not) in practice. Hence the “grey areas”. Hopefully, consistent enforcement by the umpires will clear up those “grey areas” pretty quickly.
Great post; good points.
Baseball is a game of skill, speed and coordination. It is not a contact sport.
Two things are clear. The fielder needs to give the runner full access to the base (and home plate), and the runner needs to slide not run over anyone or interfere.
Good on Bautista for sliding INTO the bag, but right at the end he rolls over to the left and clearly intentionally grabs Forsythe’s left ankle and not coincidentally Forsythe yanks his throw to the left. He’s out, E5 is out, end of game.
Baseball was a contact sport until this year. Try to find one season between 1900-2015 without some contact initiated at home plate, on the basepaths or at second base.
I’m enjoying the April Fools jokes in the comments.
2016: the year that obstruction and interference were invented!
Incidental to the game, not part of it. Every contact that resulted in an injury was detrimental to the game.
I believe that the third part has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. There was no infielder on the other side of the bag, so, if the spirit of the rule is one of protecting players against injury, it should not matter if the runner did not stay on the base when there was no infielder around to hurt.
Plus he had already been called out. He certainly was close enough to the bag to maintain contact if needed
i don’t have a problem with that slide rule or the way it was enforced. you can’t write the rule so that umpires have to be trying to see the ‘intent’ of a player like ‘oh he wasn’t trying to hurt anyone’ or whatever. so you define what a slide is. it’s pretty clear, and then you umpire those rules exactly. bautista, had he tried to remain on 2nd base, would almost certainly not have wrapped his hand around his legs. so, bautista didn’t slide right, and so he gets this interference call.
all this pearl clutching over the way the game ended is nonsense. we know ‘why’ the rule was created, but the way it’s implemented isn’t some vague reference to ‘the sliding player shouldn’t be trying to hurt the defender’, its implemented by clearly defining what a legal slide is.
if you’re a MLB player you should know what a legal slide is now, and then, do that.
then you don’t get interference calls.
solved
Yep. Rocket science this is not.
Didn’t stay on the bag, reached out and made an attempt to grab. That’s all that’s required.
For me, other items deserve more attention: After the game, Bautista went on a narcissistic rant, demanding to know the origin of the decision, threatening that he could have done worse, declaring that this was a “cowardly” way to end a baseball game. Because grabbing a guy’s ankle, mid-throw, is heroic. Might want to try on “If I had executed the slide differently, I might have been able to disrupt the throw AND stayed on the bag. I’m embarrassed that I got caught”.
The thing that certainly got MLB’s attention was Gibbon’s comments about coming out in “dresses”. Apparently the skipper missed the memo that came out in the 80’s about this sort of thing. Or he just lacks the motivation to whine in a more creative fashion, but my guess is he’s about to get boost by becoming an example. While the league is trying on an approach to domestic violence, it’s not going to be thrilled about directing resources to homophobia. Toronto certainly sees itself as better than that.
“Homophobic”? He was implying that the rule was turning the game into a sport suitable for females. There was clearly nothing even vaguely “homophobic” in his intent.
Don’t go looking for stuff that isn’t there.
So, sexist, then.
You could call it that.
I think this was just Gibby’s attempt to make himself the center of the controversy, thereby taking the heat off his player. (Pretty successful attempt, I might add.) I doubt he believes a word of what he said. It’s just a ploy to take the media’s attention away from the fact that Bautista got caught cheating, possibly costing his team the game. The “dresses” reference I suspect was quite intentionally meant to be controversial, thus further deflecting the attention away from his star player.
Bautista was in contact with the bag at the time of contact with Forsythe, and while its true he did come off the bag, he had already been called out and the fielder was in the act of throwing the ball so he had no reason to maintain contact (although his slide left him in a position to maintain contact if needed).
Furthermore, I see no evidence that his contact actually interfered with the throw although thats really a judgement call only the umpire on the field can judge. We see runners who initiate contact with their arms or feet all the time in an attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielders glove, and how often do we see the IF’ers try and move a runners hand off the bag by pressure exerted on the runners hand with their glove or even knee
.
Its just a bad call from a common sense viewpoint and was not anything to do with the intent of the new rule (safety) and its impact was to take away a likely W for the Jays which could be highly significant.
Also, with MLB an equity shareholder in on line gambling and review umpires based in New York, calls like these that impact games in favor of NY teams look even worse when you consider MLB insists on keeping review umpires who make these calls anonymous.
I’d rather have no replay if silly crap like this is going to decide games.
I heard Major League Baseball also invested into the tin foil business. You would probably know more about that than any of us.
The New York thing bothers a lot of people who don’t live there; I hear that complaint a lot.
That being said, it was still interference.
If you want to see a blown play by the replay guys, look at the call against the Padres at home during their game against the Dodgers tonight. They punted that one.
Dave in his chat goes on about grabbing the ankle, and here the argument is that sliding past the bag makes him out. I think that the obvious problem is that he interfered using his hand/arm and not his foot/leg. The latter we see every game. My question is basically whether the hand is qualitatively different from the foot for purposes of application of the rule. I think that the argument in the article that he is out because he slid past the bag is nonsense, because he clearly could have stayed in contact with the bag, and the sliding past the bag was not in any way contributing to the initiation of the interference, which was completely finished while he was still beside the bag. I wish that MLB would not just state the rule violated but also, if only for teaching purposes why that decision was reached. (how the rule was interpreted to have been broken). I’m with Dave that it was the grab, but that singles out the hand, which the rule doesn’t talk about, and maybe should.
Bautista said after, “I was out, so why would I make an effort to stay on the base?”
This is way too logical for new baseball rules. You don’t see people hit grounders to short, get thrown out at first, and then go stand on the base for some unknown reason.
“I was only grabbing his leg to help me get up so I could run back to the dugout!”
I did not argue with the result and the proper call was made according to the rules, but that aspect of the rule seems really silly.
If someone is out, why do they need to make an effort to get on base?
I think that part of the rule was adopted in order to eliminate “late” slides. It would be virtually impossible for the umpires to decide whether a slide was “too late” based on where the player was when he started the slide, so they decided that any slide which caused the runner to overshoot the bag would be deemed “too late”.
Think about it like the catcher having to show the ball in his glove to the umpire after tagging a runner out. Once he’s already tagged the runner, why should he have to hold on to the ball? The answer is to show the umpire that he did in fact make a legal tag. In this case, the answer to “why does the runner have to stay on the bag after he’s already out?” is to show the umpire that he made a legal slide.
“If someone is out, why do they need to make an effort to get on base?”
Because runners only have the right to stay in the baselines, out or not?
Maybe if they guy is out, he could just straight up tackle the SS 15ft away from the bag on the way to the dugout? I mean, he’s out right, so whatever.
Why would he make an effort to stay on the base? Because the rules say he has to in order to make it a legal slide.
When a batter hits a single to right, why doesn’t he run directly to third base? Because the rules say you can’t do that, and if you do you’ll be called out. Same with oversliding the bag when trying to break up a DP.
If he hadn’t made contact with the fielder, there would be no issue with him losing contact with the base after already being put out. But since he did, the contact is deemed legal only if the slide was legal, and the fact he didn’t stay on the bag negates the latter proposition.
If his argument is that he could have stayed on the bag if he had wanted to, well, that’s irrelevant. The fact is that he didn’t, and the umpires can’t be expected to make a judgement about what he might have been able to do if he had tried. They have to rule based on what actually happened.
At best, his argument is that the rule doesn’t make sense (to him). Well, too bad; it’s still the rule. If you don’t like it, take it up with the MLBPA and get them to have it changed. But until that happens, you’d better abide by it.
As for “logic”, since when are baseball rules required to be “logical”? What’s the “logic” that dictates three strikes you’re out, four balls gives you a free pass to first base, or that a batted ball caught on the fly puts the batter out, but one caught after a bounce does not? There is none; it’s just the way people decided to play the game. (And incidentally, all of those rules were different at times in the early years of professional baseball.)
In this case, in an effort to reduce injuries, the players and management negotiated a new rule to define a legal slide, and they included in that definition that the runner must maintain contact with the base after the slide. The only “logic” required is that the players and management agreed that this was how they wanted the game to be played henceforth.
As it happens, Bautista’s contact with the fielder should have been called interference anyway, even if he had maintained contact with the base. He clearly slid out of the basepath in order to interfere with the fielder’s ability to make the throw; that is sufficient under the new rule to make it illegal. (Yes, his feet were still in the basepath, but the rest of his body was not.)
Just to be clear are you arguing that he is only out because he slid past the bag and didn’t maintain contact, and that the interference itself as it happened was fine. Put otherwise, had he hung on to the bag, the play was legal?
Grabbing his leg was interference in 2015.
No, I said in the last paragraph that in this particular case it would have still been interference even if he had hung on to the bag. The rest of the post was in response to Bautista’s quote ( “I was out, so why would I make an effort to stay on the base?”) and StroShow’s comment that this was “way too logical for new baseball rules”, which were addressing the specific issue of why a runner should stay on a base after being put out.
Here is my take on the whole deal. This rule change needed to be implemented. It got rid of a barbaric loophole that allowed runners to deviate from their goal of reaching base safely. I don’t care that this is “how it has always been played.” That is what rule changes are for.
http://deepdishsportsshows.com/mlbs-new-slide-rule-perfect/