Master Index of Archived Threads


Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Centerfield Feb 09 2016 06:02 PM

That's what it's called. Pass it on. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14742 ... econd-base

Edgy MD Feb 25 2016 05:45 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

MLB, MLBPA ADOPT SLIDE RULE ON DOUBLE PLAYS, PACE OF GAME CHANGES Interference Rule Governing Double Play Slides Clarified; Mound Visits, Break Times Adjusted in Pace of Game Program A rule governing slides on possible double plays and two additions to the pace of game program have been approved for the 2016 regular season, Major League Baseball (MLB) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) jointly announced today. The World Umpires Association (WUA) also has given its assent to the new regulations. SLIDES Under new Rule 6.01(j), which has been added to the existing Rule 6.01 on “Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions,” slides on potential double plays will require runners to make a bona fide attempt to reach and remain on the base. Runners may still initiate contact with the fielder as a consequence of an otherwise permissible slide. A runner will be specifically prohibited from changing his pathway to the base or utilizing a “roll block” for the purpose of initiating contact with the fielder. Potential violations of Rule 6.01(j) will be reviewable using instant replay. Also reviewable will be “neighborhood play” calls, which previously were exempted from replay review. Rule 6.01(j) reads as follows: [list]Rule 6.01(j) – Sliding To Bases On Double Play Attempts 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. A “bona fide slide” for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner: [list](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.[/list:u] 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. In addition, interference shall not be called where a runner’s contact with the fielder was caused by the fielder being positioned in (or moving into) the runner’s legal pathway to the base. Notwithstanding the above, a slide shall not be a “bona fide slide” if a runner engages in a “roll block,” or intentionally initiates (or attempts to initiate) contact with the fielder by elevating and kicking his leg above the fielder’s knee or throwing his arm or his upper body. If the umpire determines that the runner violated this Rule 6.01(j), the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out. Note, however, that if the runner has already been put out then the runner on whom the defense was attempting to make a play shall be declared out.[/list:u]

Frayed Knot Feb 25 2016 05:52 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

The part about being able to remain on the base: "slides on potential double plays will require runners to make a bona fide attempt to reach [u:2ihftng8]and remain on the base[/u:2ihftng8]" is the biggest change here. Utley simply being in a position where he could have touched the base was what allowed him to get away with his slide last October but this new wording will prevent that sort of late slide so it ups the burden on the runner; 'take-out' slides will now have to resemble regular slides where the fielder just happens to be in the way.

Edgy MD Feb 25 2016 08:32 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Seems like every time the Mets make the post-season, a new rule is made the next year and/or a player is suspended over whatever screwed them the previous October. In 2001, you had Clemens fined heavily for the bat incident that somehow wasn't enough to get him ejected. In 2007, the changed the rules about post-season roster transactions, because the Mets almost got caught without a starter in the championship series. And now we have the slide rule re-written, even thought the rule as it stood should probably have led to a double play and ejection. The Mets mess things up just by being!

MFS62 Feb 25 2016 09:08 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

I'm disappointed that the only penalty for violating for doing this is being called out. The intent is to injure the fielder. I'd add: (5) When a Met fielder is injured, the violator should be removed from the game, hung from the center field flagpole and disemboweled. Later

G-Fafif Feb 25 2016 09:16 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Calling something the Chase Utley Rule implies a player must be a total dick.

Centerfield Feb 25 2016 09:38 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Yes, but if you are going to rule that total dick (and the runner) to be out, I'm all for it.

seawolf17 Feb 25 2016 09:41 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

G-Fafif wrote: Calling something the Chase Utley Rule implies a player must be a total dick. Yeah, that makes it sound like an honor. It should be the Chase Utley Is A Jerk Rule.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 25 2016 10:25 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

It should be the Ruben Tejada Rule.

Ceetar Feb 25 2016 11:06 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Edgy MD wrote: Seems like every time the Mets make the post-season, a new rule is made the next year and/or a player is suspended over whatever screwed them the previous October. In 2001, you had Clemens fined heavily for the bat incident that somehow wasn't enough to get him ejected. In 2007, the changed the rules about post-season roster transactions, because the Mets almost got caught without a starter in the championship series. And now we have the slide rule re-written, even thought the rule as it stood should probably have led to a double play and ejection. The Mets mess things up just by being! They changed the rules to make it harder to win the World Series (extra rounds!) the first year the Mets made it didn't they?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 26 2016 02:30 AM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

I have no problem with calling it the Utley Rule. You violate the rule, you're the asshole who pulled an Utley. Nobody wants to be an Utley except for Philadelphians and certain, Giant-fan-threatening Angelenos.

Frayed Knot Feb 26 2016 01:32 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

We also shouldn't ignore this little tweak that goes along with the new sliding rules: [u:bua39y87]Also reviewable will be “neighborhood play” calls, which previously were exempted from replay review[/u:bua39y87]. Already there are grumblings that this is going to cause as many collisions and problems as it solves. Remember that the Tejada play was reviewed and reversed because the umps not only determined that Ruben's foot was a solid 1/2 inch from the base but also ruled that the play as it unfolded didn't qualify for the now-discarded neighborhood exemption (gee, the replay rule turning at least as much on supposition as on actual evidence ... who could have seen THAT coming?). Well now none of that matters as any and all so-called neighborhood plays are subject to review. So I now have no idea how that exact same play gets ruled on if it happens this coming season. Utley (auto-correct keeps changing this to 'Outlay') should be ruled out due to interference plus I assume this also gives the umps the option to rule the batter/runner out also just as in an illegal out-of-baselines slide (pre-existing rule 6.01). How that conflicts with the evidence that Tejada never actually touches the base is anyone's guess since theoretically both managers could challenge different aspects of the same play at the same base and the replay prove each of them right. Does one rule supersede the other? Maybe since nobody can be safe at 2nd via this new rule and the batter/runner is ruled out at 1st via the old one, they'll work out a compromise by giving the Dodgers two outs but put Utley at 3rd instead. Or maybe they get four outs the next inning, who knows.

Centerfield Feb 26 2016 02:39 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

It should be called the Utley Rule because I want Chase Utley's lasting legacy to be that he was a dirty, reckless dickhead. I wonder if they will allow replay to review whether the umps can determine whether a player who has left the field and is sitting in his dugout has run out of the basepath.

Centerfield Feb 26 2016 02:50 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

I would suggest another rule: A player who never touches second base should never be ruled safe despite anything else that may or may not take place. And if you miss second base, not because you were trying to avoid a tag, but because you ran right by it as if you did not understand that reaching the base was the point of the game, you should join Jenrry Mejia in Taiwan.

Ceetar Feb 26 2016 02:53 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

i mean, without rule changes Utley and the batter are out and the inning is over. I'm glad the neighborhood play rule review exemption is gone, for precisely the reason with Utley. You couldn't review the neighborhood play but only if it was successful was it actually the neighborhood play. So you couldn't review if he missed the bag on a pivot basically, but if the dp didn't go as planned, you could review if he received the ball, or bobbled, or what not.

Zvon Feb 26 2016 11:19 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Frayed Knot wrote: We also shouldn't ignore this little tweak that goes along with the new sliding rules: Also reviewable will be “neighborhood play” calls, which previously were exempted from replay review. Already there are grumblings that this is going to cause as many collisions and problems as it solves. Remember that the Tejada play was reviewed and reversed because the umps not only determined that Ruben's foot was a solid 1/2 inch from the base but also ruled that the play as it unfolded didn't qualify for the now-discarded neighborhood exemption (gee, the replay rule turning at least as much on supposition as on actual evidence ... who could have seen THAT coming?). Well now none of that matters as any and all so-called neighborhood plays are subject to review. So I now have no idea how that exact same play gets ruled on if it happens this coming season. Utley (auto-correct keeps changing this to 'Outlay') should be ruled out due to interference plus I assume this also gives the umps the option to rule the batter/runner out also just as in an illegal out-of-baselines slide (pre-existing rule 6.01). How that conflicts with the evidence that Tejada never actually touches the base is anyone's guess since theoretically both managers could challenge different aspects of the same play at the same base and the replay prove each of them right. Does one rule supersede the other? Maybe since nobody can be safe at 2nd via this new rule and the batter/runner is ruled out at 1st via the old one, they'll work out a compromise by giving the Dodgers two outs but put Utley at 3rd instead. Or maybe they get four outs the next inning, who knows. IMO making the neighborhood play reviewable is a HUGE mistake. All other changes are fine. I think taking it away defeats the purpose of the rule change, because if safety is the primary goal they just made it more unsafe for the fielder. And also managers will be reviewing every other freakin DP.

Frayed Knot Feb 27 2016 12:45 AM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

I always thought that specifically exempting the neighborhood play from review was always going to be problematic and would cause a clash sooner or later (although didn't know it would be this quickly) as the whole concept of 'limited' replay is a bit like trying to stay only slightly pregnant.

Frayed Knot Feb 27 2016 01:50 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

What's old is new again: The Slide Rule [fimg=400:1uenxifd]http://sliderulemuseum.com/SR_Class/Figure0_SR_Parts_med.jpg[/fimg:1uenxifd]

Frayed Knot Mar 06 2016 07:12 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Utley's suspension overturned

Zvon Mar 06 2016 08:35 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It should be the Ruben Tejada Rule. So they name it after Utley and then drop the charges. I understand why, but still...that's bullshit. I agree with Grimm. Immortalize the good guys name, not the bad guy.

Frayed Knot Mar 06 2016 09:46 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

No, the [u:1xvrvego]Rule change[/u:1xvrvego] still stands, there's just not going to be a suspension for the act itself last October. Not sure what was the logic behind the reversal was but I suspect his argument was that he was being punished for something not illegal at the time.

MFS62 Mar 07 2016 03:03 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

This is not over. I wonder if Tejada can sue him for personal injury/ loss of income. Can the OJ Simpson civil suit be used in any way as a model for this? Just wondering. Later

Benjamin Grimm Mar 07 2016 04:15 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

Has Tejada actually lost any income? I don't see that he has.

Nymr83 Mar 07 2016 04:30 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

IMO making the neighborhood play reviewable is a HUGE mistake. All other changes are fine. I think taking it away defeats the purpose of the rule change, because if safety is the primary goal they just made it more unsafe for the fielder. And also managers will be reviewing every other freakin DP. I disagree. Safety is important, but safety should be improved by changing the rules not by refusing to enforce the existing ones. The "neighborhood play" was always horseshit and should have been the FIRST thing that video review was aimed at - the fielder needs to touch the base while in possession of the ball or the runner is safe. Managers can surely review every DP if they want, at least until they get one wrong and cant challenge again. I'd rather get it right. and maybe the umpires after getting overturned on review a few times will start to actually follow the rules and call runners safe when the fielder doesn't touch the base, obviating the need for excessive replays!

Centerfield Mar 07 2016 05:46 PM Re: Sides Drawing Closer on the Chase Utley Rule

What that does is make the double play harder, and thus making it more unusual. Which is probably what it should be. The idea that you can get 2 outs on one play you would think should be more than exception and not "routine". Back to Utley, let's hire Lawrence Taylor to come out of retirement and be a pinch runner for the Dodgers series. Then let's give him a crack at Utley and take whatever suspensions may arise.