The issue is that he only was trying to break up the double play, not to get to the base himself.
In looking back over the thread, I note that your own initial reaction to the play was different:
Bolding mine. Now everything is just fine with Utley’s behavior?
I note a contradiction here. If the “play was impossible to make,” then Utley wasn’t trying to break up a double play. You can’t have it both ways. If the double play was possible, then Tejada should have tried to make it. If it was impossible, then Utley didn’t need to try to prevent it.
Utley who was obviously not looking towards first probably had little idea whether it was possible or not to complete the DP. Tejada was facing towards first and, at least, had a much better idea if the play was possible or not.
Perhaps I’m just suggesting that there might be an ulterior motive behind his words. Consider the fact that Chris Coghlan wasn’t suspended for his actions against the Pirates, even though the circumstances were quite similar.
Can you explain why there were entirely different results regarding almost identical plays? When I see that, I consider the possibility that there might be underlying reasons for the disciplinary inconsistency that has Pirates fans livid at the moment.
Not exactly. You shouldn’t slide into first because you can overrun the base without possibility of being tagged out. The same is not true at 2nd or 3rd, so you get there faster by sliding.
Breaking up a double play has always been accepted, yes. And it will continue to be accepted. But it has always been interference to slide into the pivot man 3 feet away from the bag while making no attempt to touch the base. If you do that, you have to at least reach your hand out to touch the base.
This is way tangential to the present thread, so I’ll leave it alone.
No, not “always.” Not unchangingly. Utley made more of a gesture at touching the bag than Holliday did, but only Utley was suspended. There is no question but that this represents a different posture by MLB, reacting somewhat to fan sensibilities, and to the fact that Tejada happened to get hurt worse than Scutaro did. (I could point to others than Holliday/Scutaro, that’s just an easy similar example that I already mentioned. From Torre’s first year overseeing field rules and discipline, IIRC.)
A fair point. Like you say, my initial reaction to the play was that is was overly aggressive. After giving it more thought, I still think it was aggressive, but I don’t think it was over the top. I think he did exactly what his employers expected of him in that situation. I don’t think his intention was ever to hurt someone and I think the result might have been different had Tejada done anything to protect himself from what he had to know was going to be an aggressive slide. I also have to consider the fact that the Mets on the field don’t appear to be all that upset with the aggressiveness of the play at the time. I didn’t so much as see one player bark at him. Their anger, of course, increased once they lost the game. I find that interesting.
I don’t see the contradiction. From Tejada’s vantage point (before he turned his back on the runner), he should have realized that he wasn’t going to make that play (everyone else looking on seemed to realize this) and that it was prudent to get the hell out of the way. Utley, on the other hand, doesn’t have that same information available to him. He has his back to first and is running full steam. He has no idea what is going on behind him and has no way to determine what is or isn’t impossible. He can’t stop, look around, and make a decision. He has to go with his instincts and the training ingrained into him. So, he did what any manager would have expected from him (even Joe Torre), and someone unfortunately got hurt as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
On re-viewing the video, Tejada turned to receive the ball from the second baseman when the runner was maybe one quarter the way to first base. I don’t see anything to suggest that a double play was impossible at that point. (And if others thought it was impossible, it was because they had a better view than Tejada.) By the time Tejada pivoted, he had a fraction of a second to assess the situation before Utley plowed into him.
And he was out of the way. He had moved a good two feet off the bag immediately after (he thought) touching it, presumably to avoid Utley running into him. If Utley had gone straight for the bag, instead of tracking straight for Tejada as he moved away from the bag, the collision wouldn’t have happened. But a collision (or at least the threat of a collision) was Utley’s objective.
It would take uncommon restraint all around not to see some ripples. Given that MLB has issued a suspension, affirming “this is a big deal,” that’s a lot to ask.
I can’t help thinking… assuming Utley is in uniform for the game, what’s the best tactical use of him? Bring him on as a PH sometime after the warning? I already disliked him, disliked the Dodgers organization, but Mattingly has been given an evilly interesting kind of psychological weapon here.
If it weren’t a playoff game, he’d be assured of reaching base every time on a HBP. But I assume there’s too much at stake for the Mets to indulge in revenge by giving the Dodgers a better chance at winning.
Right, but are they so resolute that they couldn’t be provoked into losing their cool, making mistakes?
Imagine Utley coming in to hit. Home fans are screaming. Maybe a warning has already been given, maybe the Mets are just being careful. They pitch him outside and he draws a walk. Mets fans are howling with rage, now at their own team as well as Utley. He moves on and off the bag, the Mets throw over repeatedly…
Evan Gattis is moneyball’s nightmare. Strikes out a ton and does not get on base. Rasmus, meanwhile, also strikes out a ton but at least has a respectable OBP.
Ventura only goes 5 for the Royals today and they trail in the 6th.
Answering my own question, the record is 8 in 4 games by who you would expect (his initials are BB). Rasmus has 6 now, so hopefully he won’t have a chance to break it.
Utley didn’t go straight for the bag because that would be a very ineffective way of breaking up a double play, which is precisely what his objective was (and that of his team). Breaking up a double play is a legal, established and accepted part of the game.
Could he have been more gentle about it? Perhaps. Are players generally regarded for their gentle demeanor during a potentially game changing event in an important series? Not so much. They play hard. Every player is aware of it, every player understands it, every good player does it, especially in a critical situation. Sometimes they go overboard in the heat of the moment, but am intent to injure should have to be established before any disciplinary action is handed out, IMO, not just an injury.
We know that his objective was to break up a double play. The issue is that the way he did it was against the rules
To quote the rule, once again:
You’ve said yourself that Utley’s intention was to break up the double play. He didn’t go for the base, but went for the fielder. He left the baseline to target Tejada.
I have no objection if a runner breaks up a double play in the course of trying to reach base. But Utley didn’t do that. He aimed for the fielder in preference to going for the base. That’s against the rules.
It is safe to assume that Utley is aware of the similar events that occurred injuring a Pirates player. There was no disciplinary action at all, not so much as a reprimand or disapproving glance by MLB. Therefore, Utley has every reason to believe that his similar actions, if not explicitly approved, were legal - at least they were a couple of weeks ago.
Also, if the umpires at the time (who had a great view of everything) thought that Utley had done something illegal, they would have either warned, or more likely, tossed him on the spot. They didn’t see anything to warrant that action.
But I assume there’s too much at stake for the Mets to indulge in revenge by giving the Dodgers a better chance at winning.