Murphy’s Law has nothing on the Official Baseball Rules. Only three days into the new season, two games were decided by controversial rulings that called into question both the wisdom of the rule book and the umpires who interpret it.
Rob Manfred was likely hoping for an easier test case for the new “Utley Rule“, but Jose Bautista had other ideas. With the Blue Jays trailing by a run and the bases loaded, Bautista appeared, at first glance, to successfully breakup a double play attempt. However, while the Jays thought they were taking the lead, the umpires were taking a closer look at his slide. The circumstances couldn’t have been more acute, and the verdict more dramatic. Bautista was called out for interference, and a Blue Jays’ lead suddenly turned into a victory for the Tampa Rays.
The new “Utley rule” wasn’t welcomed warmly when it was first announced, so, not surprisingly, the outcry over its first application has been loud. But, overlooked amid the furor is that what Bautista did has never been permissible. Under no iteration of the rules have runners been able to grab the legs of fielders, and that’s exactly what Bautista did at the end of his slide. In fact, this year’s rules, and the ones used prior, include the exact same general definition of interference. According to the glossary of terms, “Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.” And, if grabbing a fielder doesn’t fall under that definition, it’s hard to imagine what would.
Rule 6.01(j) Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts
Source: Official MLB Rules
What baseball did with section 6.01(j) wasn’t create new law, but clarify an existing one. As it turned out, Bautista’s slide also ran afoul of these new guidelines, namely the one requiring that a base-runner remain on the bag after exhausting the momentum of his slide. As the video clearly shows, Bautista slid past second base and made no attempt to reclaim the bag.
Because of the gravity of the situation, many have called for MLB to review the new Utley rule, but, unless baseball wants to encourage runners to use their hands as much as their legs, nothing needs to be changed. Instead, the MLB rules committee should focus its interest on another controversial play that occurred earlier in the day, but was overshadowed by the slide rule furor.
In the eighth inning of the Yankees’ home opener, a swinging bunt by Carlos Correa ended up being thrown down the first baseline by Dellin Betances. The errant toss appeared to be prompted by Correa’s path to the bag, which was clearly outside the designated running lane. Joe Girardi vehemently argued for interference, but, according to the manager, he was told that because the throw sailed over Mark Teixeira’s head, instead of into Correa’s back, an infraction had not occurred.
He’s fine unless he impedes or hinders the first baseman or actually a fielder from making a play at first base, and he didn’t. That ball was so high that, in my judgment, that was just an error, a bad throw.” – Umpire Dana DeMuth, quoted by MLB.com, April 5, 2016
Making reference to the general definition of interference provided above, home plate umpire Dana DeMuth suggested that merely causing Betances to alter his throw wasn’t sufficient. What would have prompted an infraction? “Throw it into the runner’s back,” DeMuth answered.
After the game, Girardi expressed understandable frustration with DeMuth’s logic. And, quite frankly, Rob Manfred shouldn’t be happy either. After all, does MLB, which has spent the last few years refining the rules to avoid injury, really want Betances to fire a baseball into the back of a young star like Correa?
Aside from the bad optics of having an umpire suggesting that violence is the best way to attain justice, MLB should also be concerned about the inconsistency of DeMuth’s interpretation. If anyone knows the play well, it’s Girardi, who, as the Yankees’ bench coach in 2005, witnessed Robinson Cano be called out on a similar play. In this instance, home plate umpire Joe West cited Cano for interference even though he wasn’t struck by a ball thrown past first base by Angels’ catcher Bengie Molina. In direct contradiction with DeMuth, West claimed that being hit by the ball was irrelevant, and the mere act of being out of the baseline was.
The rule states that he has to stay in that running lane during the last half of the distance, which he was not. So whether the ball hit him or not, he interfered with Erstad trying to catch the ball.” – Umpire Joe West, quoted by AP, October 11, 2005
Unless the definition of interference has changed since 2005 (i.e., been intentionally made more vague), the divergence between West’s interpretation then and DeMuth’s now demands attention. The Yankees aren’t likely to get satisfaction from their protest, but if MLB is prompted to clarify the rule that applies in such circumstances, they, and every other team, will be better off.
Leave a Reply