It was a double fucking play

[batmagadanleadoff]

Utley was just suspended 2 games for his illegal slide. Which will probably ensure that utley'sconcussion lifespan exceeds 2 more days. Say, if the slide was illegal... How the ever living fuck was he safe!? CORRECTION: How wasn't it a double play, then? Again, what should be a balm, feeling like a backhanded slap in the figurative balls. Centerfield wrote: Now suspend the umpire and the replay crew for not having the balls to make the right call. Fuck them. No, just award the DP, and retroactively give the Mets the win. That's the way it would have played out, had you made the right call, no, blue?

I know whatcha mean. For that win, the Dodgers'll gladly pay the price of Utley's two game suspenspion every single time. You'll never get the Dodgers to say this publicly but inside their private world, they're probably treating Utley as if he'd hit five grand slam homers in this NLDS.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Utley was just suspended 2 games for his illegal slide. Which will probably ensure that utley'sconcussion lifespan exceeds 2 more days. Say, if the slide was illegal... How the ever living fuck was he safe!? CORRECTION: How wasn't it a double play, then? Again, what should be a balm, feeling like a backhanded slap in the figurative balls. Centerfield wrote: Now suspend the umpire and the replay crew for not having the balls to make the right call. Fuck them. No, just award the DP, and retroactively give the Mets the win. That's the way it would have played out, had you made the right call, no, blue? I know whatcha mean. For that win, the Dodgers'll gladly pay the price of Utley's two game suspenspion every single time. You'll never get the Dodgers to say this publicly but inside their private world, they're probably treating Utley as if he'd hit five grand slam homers in this NLDS.

They're not even doing it privately.

[Edgy MD]

metsmarathon wrote: Utley was just suspended 2 games for his illegal slide. Which will probably ensure that utley'sconcussion lifespan exceeds 2 more days. Say, if the slide was illegal... How the ever living fuck was he safe!?

Which, of course, makes it, once again, eerily similar to the Clemens violation. If his transgression was worthy of discipline after the game, how was it considered kosher during the game?

I tend to feel like, going back at least 20 years, 80% of the appealed suspensions in MLB are resolved by the player getting his suspension cut in half in exchange for dropping the appeal. I imagine that will happen this time.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Which, of course, makes it, once again, eerily similar to the Clemens violation. If his transgression was worthy of discipline after the game, how was it considered kosher during the game?

Was Clemens ever disciplined?
Anyway, the 'How can it be' part is because it's the umps' judgement ruling in the first case and then the league deciding on something else after the fact. What they're saying, despite not specifically saying it, is that the umps royally screwed up their call.

I tend to feel like, going back at least 20 years, 80% of the appealed suspensions in MLB are resolved by the player getting his suspension cut in half in exchange for dropping the appeal. I imagine that will happen this time.

Not sure that that large a percentage get reduced. Besides, I think at least half the purpose of the suspension -- and specifically its length -- is to keep Utley off of CitiField. We shirley don't KNOW what would have happened had the home games been reversed and the next two were due to be played in LA, but I know a lot of people are thinking that way.

This is also not, I'm sure some of you will recall, the first time a Dodger has been suspended during a post-season game vs the Mets. Reliever Jay Howell was ejected and later suspended mid-AB when the umps caught him with a (slightly) smaller version of the La Brea tar pit on his glove. His suspension, IIRC, was reduced upon appeal but that was more based on his argument that a missed post-season game carries more weight than missing one in the regular season. The league (Uberroth?) bought that logic and reduced his sentence from 3 games down to 2 (or maybe it was 2 to 1) but it was definitely not a case where the suspension was pre-reduced in a plea arrangement kind of thing.

As far as I can remember, no Dodger was blatantly cheating during the 2006 NLDS - or maybe some were but the Mets were too busy rolling over them to bother complaining about it.

[Fman99]

I think, honestly, that the suspension is a cover up to keep him off of the field and out of the stadium in NY. Which means I also believe the 2 games will hold up on appeal.

[seawolf17]

Fman99 wrote: I think, honestly, that the suspension is a cover up to keep him off of the field and out of the stadium in NY. Which means I also believe the 2 games will hold up on appeal.

This. I honestly think they tell him to fly back to LA and wait for a potential Game 5.

I have little issue with the broken leg -- injuries happen. But the fact that they came back and didn't call it interference is bullshit.

[bmfc1]

It comes across as keeping Utley away from Mets fans as it is only for two games. Why 2 and not the rest of the series or even the playoffs (not that LA is going past this series)? Frankly, this is a good deal for LA: they lose a bench player for 2 games but (likely) won a game because of an illegal maneuver and took away the Mets starting SS.

[Guest themetfairy]

Did Terry appeal the lack of an interference call on Saturday?

If not, why not?

[Edgy MD]

I don't know if "they" is the league or the Dodgers, but I don't think it's about keeping him out of New York.

Frayed Knot wrote: Which, of course, makes it, once again, eerily similar to the Clemens violation. If his transgression was worthy of discipline after the game, how was it considered kosher during the game? Was Clemens ever disciplined?

Yes. He got a fine that was higher than guys tend to get when they are actually ejected, which only underscored the miscarriage.

Frayed Knot wrote: Anyway, the 'How can it be' part is because it's the umps' judgement ruling in the first case and then the league deciding on something else after the fact. What they're saying, despite not specifically saying it, is that the umps royally screwed up their call.

Sure, but unlike 2000, now there's a mechanism for the league over-ruling umps on the field.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Sure, but unlike 2000, now there's a mechanism for the league over-ruling umps on the field.

You mean the replay provision? Well sure, but that's not the league judging the umps, it umps ruling on umps and even then only on the specifics of the challenge; namely: Did Ruben's toe touch the base?
Torre's job is to be after the fact discipline czar, there's no way he's going to re-call plays on the field.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Sure, but unlike 2000, now there's a mechanism for the league over-ruling umps on the field. You mean the replay provision? Well sure, but that's not the league judging the umps, it umps ruling on umps and even then only on the specifics of the challenge; namely: Did Ruben's toe touch the base? Torre's job is to be after the fact discipline czar, there's no way he's going to re-call plays on the field.

technically what was reviewed was whether the throw pulled him off the bag. You have to phrase it correctly or it becomes the 'neighborhood' play and you can't review it.

[Edgy MD]

He doesn't have to. Terry could and should have called for a replay review with regard to the slide.

[batmagadanleadoff]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v34382155/atlnym-gonzalez-ejected-in-the-9th-inning

Remember this one?

[Centerfield]

Ok. I've had some time to calm down now (it took all day Sunday. Like the entire day. I have never been that mad for so long about anything Mets-related). And since I've calmed down, I've thought about whether my reaction was warranted. As all of this was going down, my immediate reactions were:

1) Mets got blatantly screwed multiple times by the umps. They should walk off the field right now in protest.
2) Utley is a dirty fuckhead and we should hunt him down and kick the shit out of him.
3) Terry Collins should be fired.

But at the time I was very emotional, a little buzzed, and not in the right state of mind to be making any real decisions. But now, calm and sober, I think my reactions may have been a bit severe, but they were dead on point. I'll break this up into three separate posts because it's long.

Mets Got Screwed By the Umps. And the Screwup was One for the Ages.

It wasn't just that the Mets got screwed by a bad call. They got screwed by a bad call, and then a series of bad judgment calls, all resulting in the worst possible result for the Mets.

First and foremost, the play should have been ruled interference.

Section (a)(13) states:

(A batter is out when) 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.

The explanation follow rule 5.09(a)(13) from official MLB rulebook.

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.

There is not a person in the world that can watch this replay and reach any other conclusion. You could travel to Nepal, pull indigenous people off a mountain, show them the replay and ask whether the runner is trying to go for the base, or the player, and every single one of them will say he was going for the player. You cannot reach any other conclusion when a man runs past a base, and delivers the force of his entire running start into the lower half of an opposing player.

Double play awarded. Inning over. Kudos to MLB for watching the replay and acknowledging that this is what should have happened.

But wait, there's more.

Tejada was ruled not to touch the bag on replay review. But that replay should never have taken place. MLB and the umpires state that because Murphy's throw was off-line, it was not subject to the neighborhood play. Absolutely not true. Here is the rule:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following calls will not be subject to review:
The Umpire's judgment that a runner is clearly out on a force play at second base under circumstances in which the defensive player may or may not have touched second base in his attempt to complete a double play and avoid a collision with the runner. All other elements of the call shall be subject to review, including whether the fielder caught the ball, had control of the ball, was drawn off the bag, or tagged the runner. In this regard, a determination as to whether the fielder made a catch before dropping the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch shall be reviewable.

There is no question that this is what took place here. Tejada missed second because, and only because, he was attempting to complete a double play. If there were two outs in the inning, Tejada catches the ball, looks down and sits on second base. He does not attempt to whirl around and direct his eyes toward first. Was it a tough play? Yes, but it was only a tough play because Tejada was trying to turn two.

Whether or not the rule applies is not the difficulty of the play. It's the intent of fielder. And here, the fielder is trying to protect himself while trying to turn two.

It is not correct that Murphy's throw pulled him off the bag. Again, if there were two outs, staying on second is a routine play. Murphy did not pull Tejada off the bag. His throw failed to properly lead Tejada to make the double play easier. These are completely different things.

It makes all the sense in the world that the intent of the fielder should dictate here. If a player is thinking "OMG, this throw is pulling me off the bag", he should stretch and stay on the bag. If he is thinking "How do I get this throw off to first", then the neighborhood play should apply. You can't ask middle infielders to determine whether this is a routine double play or not while making these plays. There is either a neighborhood play or there isn't. Enforce the rule.

Allowing this play to go to reviewed was a blatant misreading of the rule. I think they should file a protest for this. MLB's reasoning is off base.

And these two, are just warmups for the biggest fuck up of them all.

There is no fucking way in hell that Chase Utley should have been awarded second base. MLB's explanation is that Utley is awarded second base because the call on the field was wrong, and he is therefore given the base. This is not true. This is what the rule states:

Correcting an Incorrect Call
Consistent with Official Baseball Rule 8.02© (formerly Rule 9.02©), if Replay Review results in a change to a call that had been made on the field, the Replay Official, to the extent feasible, shall exercise his discretion to place both Clubs in the same position they would have been in had the call on the field been correct. This shall include placing runners where he thinks those runners would have been at the conclusion of the reviewed play if the reviewed call had been correctly made in the first instance, disregarding interference or obstruction that may have occurred on the play, failures of runners to tag up based upon the initial call on the field, runners passing other runners, missing bases, etc.

The explanation had been that Utley didn't touch the base because he was called out. That is why he left the field. What they failed to consider is that Ruben Tejada never thought tag Utley because the call had been out. If immediately following the collision, the call had been safe, Utley would have presumably, tried to scramble back to the bag, and Tejada would have tried to tag him. It was within the replay official's discretion to determine what may have happened in this scenario. Let me repeat this. Awarding Utley second base was within the replay official's discretion.

And that is the part that bogges my mind. The replay official, having the benefit of time, super-slo mo replays, and a rule book at his fingertips, saw the following things:

1. The tackle that would later warrant a suspension
2. Utley run right past the bag and aim at Tejada's leg
3. Tejada dancing around second WHILE TRYING TO TURN A DOUBLE PLAY
4. Tejada carted off on a stretcher
5. A millimeter between Tejada's foot and the base
6. A baserunner who, after completely ignoring the base on the way in, ignored it on the way off the field
7. A fielder lying there with a broken leg as a result of the tackle referenced in #1

And then, having the discretion to award the base or not, made the conscious decision to give Utley the base. It took an out off the board, and the Dodgers scored all of their runs with two outs.

It is inexcusable that this replay official should not have to answer for his decision here.

They were screwed THREE TIMES in one play. Oh, and they lost their shortstop to a broken leg. HOW THE FUCK IS THIS DEFENSIBLE.

Every umpire involved in these three decisions should be suspended. They should never work the post-season again.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Guest

[Centerfield]

Thought #2:

Chase Utley is a Dirty Player. Should be Suspended

Well the suspension happened. Kudos to Joe Torre and MLB to have the balls to take a stand, even if it means admitting that the umpires fucked up Saturday night.

Utley has had a history of this kind of bullshit. The earlier takeout slide on Tejada in 2010. This slide that someone posted in the IGT:



Nothing will ever make me feel better about what happened. But if a new rule is invoked and it goes down in history as "The Utley Rule" and he is forever known to future generations as the dickless coward that he is, then I will take some consolation in this.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I got a question: What's a "dirty play"? Is every illegal play necessarily dirty?

[Edgy MD]

First and foremost, the play should have been ruled interference. Section (a)(13) states: (A batter is out when) 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. The explanation follow rule 5.09(a)(13) from official MLB rulebook. 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. There is not a person in the world that can watch this replay and reach any other conclusion. You could travel to Nepal, pull indigenous people off a mountain, show them the replay and ask whether the runner is trying to go for the base, or the player, and every single one of them will say he was going for the player. You cannot reach any other conclusion when a man runs past a base, and delivers the force of his entire running start into the lower half of an opposing player.

In response to Don Mattingly, David Wright has been called for sliding out of the baseline in pursuit of a player. He was ruled out and the runner at first was ruled out. Mets fans, as I recall, were fine with that.

[Centerfield]

Thought #3.

Terry Collins Should Be Fired

Let me start with this. I like Terry Collins a lot. I have never said he should be fired before. Not with any moves he has made. In fact, I think he is a pretty good manager and a very likeable guy. I don't think Terry should be fired. In fact, he should get an extension.

But wow, did he ever fuck up Saturday. And he should be blasted for it so that this shit never happens again.

1. Interference Call
As soon as this happened, Terry should be on the field losing his mind that interference was not called. There are very few calls that can't be reviewed, and Terry needs to understand which ones those are. And when that happens, and his SS has been tackled, and he is lying on the ground with a broken leg, Terry needs to be unloading on that umpire. He needs to be gesturing to where Utley started his slide, that he made no attempt to get to the bag.

Get tossed from the game. Fire up your team. Don't be a fucking wuss.

Had he done this, there would have been less chance that...

2. The Umps allow the Replay to Take Place
This is another judgment call on the part of the umpire. You didn't get the interference call, and now you're going to say the neighborhood rule doesn't apply? NO FUCKING WAY. You rip them a new one. You're already tossed from the game. Now you go around ripping out bases. Get suspended. Do everything it takes. Make the umpires understand that you will not stand for it.

Because even if it then does to go replay, it makes the replay officials think twice before..

3. Awarding Utley the Base
The replay officials have just watched Collins go ballistic wanting interference. Now the legality of the slide is in question. He just lost his mind when the play went to review. The replay officials have to be thinking, wait should it have been a double play? Should we be reviewing this? Can I possibly take away an out? Am I going to start a riot if I make this call?

There is very little a manager can do affirmatively to affect the outcome of a game. This is one of those places where a difference can be made.

I like Terry Collins, but he fucked this up just as badly as the umpires did.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Guest

[dinosaur jesus]

Thought #2: Chase Utley is a Dirty Player. Should be Suspended Well the suspension happened. Kudos to Joe Torre and MLB to have the balls to take a stand, even if it means admitting that the umpires fucked up Saturday night. Utley has had a history of this kind of bullshit. The earlier takeout slide on Tejada in 2010. This slide that someone posted in the IGT: Nothing will ever make me feel better about what happened. But if a new rule is invoked and it goes down in history as "The Utley Rule" and he is forever known to future generations as the dickless coward that he is, then I will take some consolation in this.

I'm afraid this one could actually work in Utley's favor in his appeal. He's going to show examples of the rule not being applied in the past, and this is an excellent one.

[Centerfield]

themetfairy wrote: Did Terry appeal the lack of an interference call on Saturday? If not, why not?

Because he's a fucking wuss.

Chase Utley was not the only one drawing my ire yesterday.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Michael Baumann, writing for Grantland, thinks the slide was dirty (plus a great football quote):

Well, in a just world, we�d be talking about Jacob deGrom�s comprehensive dominance or Noah Syndergaard redrawing the boundaries of what we can expect in terms of velocity from a starting pitcher. We�d be talking about Zack Greinke being the best no. 2 starter in baseball, or how watching Bartolo Colon jog in from the bullpen in all his moonlike glory is a sight to warm the hearts of nations. But because baseball is a sport for people who like to suffer, we�re instead going to talk about Chase Utley�s takeout slide in Game 2. It was one of the most brutal and unnecessary acts of violence I�ve ever seen during the run of play in a baseball game. He came in late, off the base, and straight into Ruben Tejada�s extended plant leg, breaking his fibula. The slide was so vicious that it divided the ranks of former pro ballplayers, a group of people who apparently unanimously support choking out one�s coworker on television. If a play is borderline for them, it�s beyond the pale for normal people. This isn�t football, which is a shame, because in football, they give you a 15-yard penalty for clipping or roughing the whoever instead of giving you second base. Utley has been suspended for two games, and public opinion is divided between people who support the suspension or want harsher discipline and people who think either (1) that MLB moved the goalposts by deciding all at once to punish hard takeout slides after not having done so for 150 years, or (2) that suspending Utley is an attempt to quiet public criticism rather than to make the game safer. While I�m in favor of suspending Utley, who is appealing the ruling, I�m also sympathetic to the counterarguments. Certainly we don�t want arbitrary post hoc justice, such as it is in matters of on-field rule-breaking. And, further, we�d prefer the league to protect players out of a sense of right and wrong rather than the desire to avoid criticism. To the second point, I�d say that if someone does the right thing, I don�t really care what his motives are. Neither is it a bad thing that MLB is responding immediately to criticism that its game is not as safe as it could be � certainly being responsive to such things is good. And it looks like after this and a rash of other recent incidents, dating back to Jung-Ho Kang�s season-ending injury last month, that MLB will not only suspend Utley but change the rules governing slides. To the first point, that suspending Utley goes against rules and/or precedent, I guess my response is that I don�t really give a shit? If rules and precedent are the last fallback of people who defend such an obviously violent and un-baseball-like action, then maybe we ought to rethink the rules and precedent now, instead of waiting for the next broken leg. Established institutions are not intrinsically good � they are only as good or bad as the ends they service.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-dodgers-mets-cubs-cardinals-blue-jays-rangers-astros-royals-chase-utley/

[Centerfield]

First and foremost, the play should have been ruled interference. Section (a)(13) states: (A batter is out when) 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. The explanation follow rule 5.09(a)(13) from official MLB rulebook. 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. There is not a person in the world that can watch this replay and reach any other conclusion. You could travel to Nepal, pull indigenous people off a mountain, show them the replay and ask whether the runner is trying to go for the base, or the player, and every single one of them will say he was going for the player. You cannot reach any other conclusion when a man runs past a base, and delivers the force of his entire running start into the lower half of an opposing player. In response to Don Mattingly, David Wright has been called for sliding out of the baseline in pursuit of a player. He was ruled out and the runner at first was ruled out. Mets fans, as I recall, were fine with that.

David Wright has never caused such a vicious hit on another player. In fact, other than Hal McRae, I can't think of another that comes even close.

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

Thought #2: Chase Utley is a Dirty Player. Should be Suspended

SAFE!

[Edgy MD]

Well, that's an important point. My point was to dispute Mattingly's position that Met fans to the last are blinded by partisanship.

I'm not defending or indicting Wright there, so much as defending the integrity of my fellow fan (which, Mr. Mattingly, I'm not always inclined to do).

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, that's an important point. My point was to dispute Mattingly's position that Met fans to the last are blinded by partisanship. I'm not defending or indicting Wright there, so much as defending the integrity of my fellow fan (which, Mr. Mattingly, I'm not always inclined to do).

It's irrelevant to me anyway. Even if it was reversed, we'd be wrong.

I remember being pissed in 2007, not because I didn't think Marlon Anderson didn't interfere (less so than Ultey though) but because the umpires so selectively call it.

I get you can never completely take umpire subjectivity out of it, but with Statcast I bet you can legitimately track Utley's past from first to second and see that he purposely veered.

[Edgy MD]

If it's irrelevant, please don't respond.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Hahh!! Rubberman!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Dude's delusional...
http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/los_angeles_dodgers_don_mattingly_gives_ludicrous.html

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

d'Kong76 wrote: Dude's delusional... http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/los_angeles_dodgers_don_mattingly_gives_ludicrous.html

Not nearly as bad as Doug Glanville who blamed Tejada for the whole thing (video clip in second post of this thread).

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Dude's delusional... http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/los_angeles_dodgers_don_mattingly_gives_ludicrous.html

I mean, I don't expect the Dodgers to skewer their own guy, though a "surprised they put him at second" would be plenty tepid.

It's the idiots like Larry Bowa and Blylevin that really anger me.