MLB Already Backing Off New Slide Rule

Major League Baseball’s new slide rule has not been without controversy, both in its creation and in its implementation. Some might feel hard slides are just a part of baseball and need no legislation at all. Those parties have already lost this particular battle. There are those who might like some sort of rule, but feel the new rules are a bit too onerous. Still others might feel the new rule is a good one and should be implemented uniformly (I am in this camp). Those who want the rules tweaked appear to be winning now, though, as MLB seems to be backing off full implementation of the slide rule, perhaps to avoid more controversial plays like those which occurred in April.

In the sixth inning of a tied game on Tuesday between the Detroit Tigers and Washington Nationals, James McCann came to bat with the bases loaded and one out. McCann hit a ground ball that appeared as though it could start a double play, thus ending the Tigers’ threat. Anthony Gose, running from first to second, did this:

This play clearly violates the new slide rule. Gose is not close to the bag at all, never even attempts to touch it or be near to it, and is clearly attempting to break up a possible double play. McCann got down the line quickly enough that he likely would have beat the throw even without the slide, but that fact is immaterial to the new slide rule as it was introduced this offseason.

In the end, the play was reviewed, the replay official deciding it was not a violation. Here’s MLB’s explanation as relayed to MLive (H/T Hardball Talk):

Even though the judgment was that runner failed to engage in a bona fide slide, the Replay Official must still find that the runner’s actions hindered and impeded the fielder’s ability to complete a double play. In the absence of the hindering/impeding element — which is a judgment call — the runner cannot be found to have violated 6.01 (j). The judgment on this one was that there was no hindering or impeding of the fielder.

What we find here is a distortion of the rule and a direct contradiction of the clearly written language in which it was authored. Nowhere in the rule does one find the words hindering or impeding or anything similar. When the Jose Bautista slide ended a game earlier this season season, we went over the rule in great detail. Reading the explanation above, however, it would seem that there are actually two requirements for interference in this situation: first, a failure to execute a bonafide slide and, second, that the runner’s actions actually hindered or impeded the fielder. This is not the rule as written.

There are in fact two requirements stated by the rule as it appears in the books. The first one, regarding the bonafide slide, is the same. The second requirement concerns a runner who “initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play.” That’s the second requirement for interference under the rule, and the framers of the rule are specific regarding its enforcement, stating “If the umpire determines that the runner violated this Rule 6.01(j), the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out.”

Hindering/impeding language does appear in the rule book, but elsewhere, in rule 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 (see Rule 6.01(j))

We could read the “see Rule 6.01(j)” as somehow inserting this rule into that one, but given how specific and how clear the new rule is, it’s hardly credible. The much more reasonable explanation is that you should see Rule 6.01(j) for a specific interpretation of how the interference rule should be applied in a specific instance.

The evidence contained in official reviews also fails to support MLB’s new contention. Consider this Colby Rasmus play:

Here, we find that the fielder doesn’t even attempt to make a play at first with Jose Altuve running, but that Altuve is called out, anyway. Here was the explanation of the call after the game by umpire Tom Hallion:

“My second base umpire [Dan Bellino] determined that it was not a bona fide slide because Rasmus did not attempt to stay on the base,” he said. “He could not stay on the base. With that, that is the rule of interference.”

A more recent case confuses the idea of “interference,” however. Consider this slide by Josh Harrison while shortstop Jordy Mercer runs to first.

Interference? Nope. Even if you don’t believe Gose hindered or impeded above, it’s hard to argue that Harrison didn’t do so here. A run scored as a result of this play — a run that interference would have nullified in a game that ultimately went to extra innings.

And now look at this slide by Manny Machado.

Did it count as interference when Machado reached out and touched the fielder, potentially preventing a triple-play in the process? The answer is no. Again, hard to argue there’s no impeding or hindering at play here. Perhaps if a throw was attempted, the call would be different. It’s difficult to deal in hypotheticals, though. Machado is clearly just doing what he was taught in the past at some point — to interfere in a way that has now (theoretically) been declared illegal by the league. Depending on your level of lip-reading, you might find Machado confessing to his mistake.

If MLB wants to change the rule, they can. If these rulings had gone the other way, we likely would have heard more about this controversial rule, and how the rule as written had gone too far away from its intent. There is the possibility that when creating the rule, MLB and MLBPA didn’t consider all applications and, indeed, never intended for plays like those above to count as interference. If true, those are problems with the rules, and the rules should be changed.

The new slide rule itself does everything it can to strip away judgment to create clear conditions for interference. The explanation from MLB inserts judgment back into the picture and allows for context. The Gose play and the Harrison play likely would not have made an impact on the play at first. And the impact of the runs that scored on the play very well could have been considered by the replay official. The official is now being given discretion to consider other factors when impeding/hindering language is added. Perhaps the Colby Rasmus play might have gone a different way if it happened yesterday instead of the very beginning of the season. Perhaps the Harrison and Machado plays are ruled differently if the fielder makes a wild throw.

That discretion and judgment that is given to the replay official and umpires on the field might very well provide better practical application of the takeout slide rule, but it is certainly not a written part of the new rule, and it isn’t consistent with plays at the very beginning of the year. In just one month, MLB has already backed off the slide rule as written. If they are going to continue to do so, we can expect some judgment calls to go unusual ways as the season progresses and it might be in MLB’s best interest to re-write the rule so it says what they mean it to say.