What's a slide rule werth?

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: (3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; -- this is what tripped up Werth but it's also wide open to interpretation. Neither Werth on his previous slide nor Revere earlier in the same game stayed on the base either so then if becomes a matter of whether the ump thinks they were able to if they cared to try. (4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder. -- this even more so. Is sliding to a particular side of the base depending on which way the runner thinks the fielder is leaning not allowed? How much of a shift constitutes 'changing his pathway'? Shit, initiating contact was always half the purpose in sliding. Like I said earlier, a lot of this reminds me of the home plate rule when it was first put in. Umps seemed to be calling that one by some strict letter of the law which often bore no resemblance to the intent of the rule or the reasons why it was adopted in the first place.

Agreed. These two things are really the new pieces, and with all rules where discretion is involved, it will take time for there to be uniformity on how this rule is interpreted. I don't think this can be helped. It takes time for an acceptable standard to evolve.

But to me, if you call it by the letter of the rule, it would be a very simple rule to enforce. Especially with the benefit of slo-mo replay, it's very easy to tell if the target of a slide is the bag, or the fielder standing in the vicinity of the bag.

I think it should be enforced strictly. If the second baseman is 3 feet wide of the bag and you aim at him, it's interference. Slide to the bag, stop at the bag.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: But to me, if you call it by the letter of the rule, it would be a very simple rule to enforce. Especially with the benefit of slo-mo replay,.

Except that I'm going to be sitting in front of my TV with a gun in my mouth before this season ends if we start requiring interpretation of intent via slow motion replay.

[Centerfield]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: I think you are missing the gist of the rule. I agree that in nearly every takeout slide there is a possibility that a runner attempts to contact the bag, but is not able to. The rule is stating you cannot have takeout slides any more. (Directed at batmags) You're just stating the conclusion.

I think I'm losing the nuances of this argument. My point is this. Jayson Werth was not sliding to get to second base. He was sliding at Neil Walker with the intent to disrupt his throw. The path he took clearly demonstrates this. Therefore it's interference.

A player trying to slide to a base, that attempts (and can) stay on the base does not aim his feet at a fielder then reach back with his hand to touch the bag in passing.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: I think you are missing the gist of the rule. I agree that in nearly every takeout slide there is a possibility that a runner attempts to contact the bag, but is not able to. The rule is stating you cannot have takeout slides any more. (Directed at batmags) You're just stating the conclusion. I think I'm losing the nuances of this argument. My point is this. Jayson Werth was not sliding to get to second base. He was sliding at Neil Walker with the intent to disrupt his throw. The path he took clearly demonstrates this. Therefore it's interference. A player trying to slide to a base, that attempts (and can) stay on the base does not aim his feet at a fielder then reach back with his hand to touch the bag in passing.

Well then the rule permitting the runner to maintain base contact with his hand is meaningless.

[Ceetar]

It keeps a runner from just barreling over the base and taking out the fielder behind it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think you are missing the gist of the rule. I agree that in nearly every takeout slide there is a possibility that a runner attempts to contact the bag, but is not able to. The rule is stating you cannot have takeout slides any more. (Directed at batmags) You're just stating the conclusion. I think I'm losing the nuances of this argument. My point is this. Jayson Werth was not sliding to get to second base. He was sliding at Neil Walker with the intent to disrupt his throw. The path he took clearly demonstrates this. Therefore it's interference. A player trying to slide to a base, that attempts (and can) stay on the base does not aim his feet at a fielder then reach back with his hand to touch the bag in passing. Well then the rule permitting the runner to maintain base contact with his hand is meaningless.

Jayson Werth should be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants to do slide-wise so long as his slide is within the rules. He was called for interference, I take it, because he slid so far past the bag that he could no longer maintain base contact no matter how hard he tried. He wasn't called for interference because the umps determined -- after getting into Werth's head -- that Werth was trying to disrupt Walker's throw.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: It keeps a runner from just barreling over the base and taking out the fielder behind it.

What does? What is "it"?

[Zvon]

Why don't they just make it if a runner is on first and there's a ground ball
that an infielder catches cleanly, boom, automatic double play. [ /]

That's really the only way they can assure no one gets hurt at 2nd base during the attempt.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: It keeps a runner from just barreling over the base and taking out the fielder behind it. What does? What is "it"?

the rule that you have to touch/hold the bag.

Zvon wrote: Why don't they just make it if a runner is on first and there's a ground ball that an infielder catches cleanly, boom, automatic double play. [ /] That's really the only way they can assure no one gets hurt at 2nd base during the attempt.

Or you could just continue to penalize people that slide in order to make contact with the fielder. It's a non-contact sport, and you're not allowed to interfere with the fielders in other situations. Why the interpretation changed to allow it at second and home is absurd anyway. Why not barrel into the first baseman then? Good chance he drops it on a close play that you hit him just as he catches it, barreling past the bag (but that's fine, it's first base, you're still safe)

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: My point is this. Jayson Werth was not sliding to get to second base. He was sliding at Neil Walker with the intent to disrupt his throw.

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. You can be both sliding into a base (Werth clearly did hit the base) AND intending to disrupt the throw.
And even the new rules here say nothing about not disrupting a fielder's throw, it just needs to be done legally. What's changed and what is still subject to interpretation is what constitutes legally.

The path he took clearly demonstrates this. Therefore it's interference.

I read the path he took as perfectly legal as he went directly to the base. Just because Walker was already there doesn't mean he has to go out of his way to avoid him either. What caused the DP call was that Werth, in effect, went in too hard which was evident in that he couldn't stop in time.

[Centerfield]

Nobody is saying Werth has to go out of his way to avoid Walker. He just can't go out of his way to hit him. And that's exactly what he did.



I feel like this image shows it clearly. When you slide feet first, you point your feet at your target. The reason is simple. Your feet arrive first. It maximizes the chance that you will be safe.

No one who is trying to beat out a force play will intentionally slide several feet to the left of the bag, then touch the base with their hand as they pass by. This is a foolish way to reach a base.

The only reason to slide in this asinine manner contact with the fielder. (That's why you don't see this slide anywhere else.) And that is what Werth was trying to do. His feet are pointed at Walker, and not second base. It's interference.

If he legitimately was intending to slide into second base, his feet would have touched the front of second base and he would have stopped somewhere around the bag. Certainly within arm's length of it. Walker, who was behind the bag and to the left, would not be a factor in his slide.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Why the interpretation changed to allow it at second and home is absurd anyway. Why not barrel into the first baseman then? Good chance he drops it on a close play that you hit him just as he catches it, barreling past the bag (but that's fine, it's first base, you're still safe)

It really is silly isn't it? If someone slid feet first three feet inside the first base bag, taking out the first baseman, there would be no question that it was interference.

No one would care whether that runner reached out with his hand to touch first base as he was barreling past it into the fielder.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nobody is saying Werth has to go out of his way to avoid Walker. He just can't go out of his way to hit him. And that's exactly what he did. I feel like this image shows it clearly. When you slide feet first, you point your feet at your target. The reason is simple. Your feet arrive first. It maximizes the chance that you will be safe. No one who is trying to beat out a force play will intentionally slide several feet to the left of the bag, then touch the base with their hand as they pass by. This is a foolish way to reach a base. The only reason to slide in this asinine manner contact with the fielder. (That's why you don't see this slide anywhere else.) And that is what Werth was trying to do. His feet are pointed at Walker, and not second base. It's interference. If he legitimately was intending to slide into second base, his feet would have touched the front of second base and he would have stopped somewhere around the bag. Certainly within arm's length of it. Walker, who was behind the bag and to the left, would not be a factor in his slide.

All of these points that you make here are toatally irrelevant. The rule says nothing about what you claim, including sliding to the side of the bag. Also, the rule doesn't ban contact with the fielder. In fact, the rules, which you posted, state the following:

A runner who engages in a "bona fide slide" shall not be called for interference under this Rule 6.01, even in cases where the runner makes contact with the fielder as a consequence of a permissible slide.


The runner also has rights. He has a right to the base. He has a right to get out of the way of the oncoming throw and has the right to choose how to get out of the way of that throw in order to avoid getting hit in the head with that throw. You're making up things and concerns that aren't expressed anywhere in the rules. Also, Werth is allowed to point his feet at the fielder. In fact, Werth is allowed to overslide the base and come into foot contact with Walker, so long as Werth doesn't raise or elevate his feet to make that contact, and so long as Werth is theoretically able to maintain hand contact with the base. It's in the rules.

[Centerfield]

Let's do this. The rule states:

A "bona fide slide" for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner:

(1) begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base;

(2) is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot;

(3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; and

(4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.

In order to be a legal slide, all four of these things must happen.

As to number (4), I read this as "The runner must be within reach of the base and he cannot change his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder."

Agree or disagree?

[Zvon]

Since when is baseball considered a "non-contact" sport? Not saying this is a bad vein but that's a bunch of bullshit.

I understand trying to keep these expensive players safe and what they are doing (I don't agree) but on the other hand they are getting paid VERY well to play baseball, not softball and, yea, it sucks, sometimes people get hurt. Sometimes careers are derailed by injuries. It happens. Such is life. You can't play baseball in a bubble.

Blatant barrel rolls or cleats up slides, sure, elbows, head butts, bad, but no more feet first breaking up a double play in a legal manner? A hook slide is illegal? They may as well say on DPs the runner has to veer off, out of the baseline, away from the base, like lazy runners do. There was a day that baseball players were good enough athletes to do what they had to do to avoid contact, and 99% of the time they did. I think this Utley rule is a bunch of overblown bullshit.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, I don't think the rule was meant to say (and of course half the problem here is that no one seems to know exactly what the rule meant to say including those who made it and those in charge of enforcing it) that toes-first slides directly into the the base are the only legal way of going into a base, nor is that what triggered the DP call.

What I interpret the "can't alter your path" clause to mean is that a runner running towards the inside of the base say suddenly makes an abrupt zag towards the other side of the bag in an obvious reaction to a fielder who has shifted that way after taking the throw. Absent that kind of move where a fielder gets out of the approaching runner's way only to have that runner come at him anyway, I think that any slide where the runner hits the base should still be legit. What seemingly got Werth nailed was not where he slid but his inability to hold the base afterward which is now enough evidence to deem that the slide was too hard.



And, yes, baseball was never defined as a 'non-contact' sport.

[Edgy MD]

Except by Rich Becker.

[Zvon]

Frayed Knot wrote: And, yes, baseball was never defined as a 'non-contact' sport.

I had a conversation with one of my brothers about this last night. He coached baseball for years, has a son about to start college ball. He believes that baseball is not a contact sport and never was, even before the rule changes. He said about 80% of people out there would agree with him. I find this hard to believe but I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

I'm gonna start the BASEBALL LIKE IT OUGHTA BE BASEBALL LEAGUE.