Broken leg turning DP

[ricka56]

This is what can happen when a middle infielder doesn't use the neighborhood play and a runner legally goes after him. 

With runners allowed to take F4/F5 out like this, talk of eliminating the neighborhood play is irresponsible. 

[maven]

This has nothing to do with the neighborhood play. Injuries happen in sports. It's a shame, it's unfortunate. We can minimize, but never eliminate, the risk of injury.

[ricka56]

Of course it has to do with the neighborhood play. Rule geeks want middle infielders to hold the bag on the DP (like Kang did here).  If the neighborhood play is eliminated (no more outs given) without providing a protected area (like HS), then this kind of injury will increase (IMO). If you want F4/F6 to hold the bag, close hunting season for R1. 

[scrounge]

It may or may not have anything to do with the neighborhood play, but, just like eliminating the unnecessary plate collisions, it's time to at the least adopt the NCAA FPSR IMO. Go straight into the bag, no more takeouts.

[stkjock]

so a MIF should be able to take a throw 3 feet off the bag and get an out?  Because in this vid, he's already a good 3-4' off the bag at contact, he'd have to be at least 6' IMHO, to have avoided contact, 

 

I wonder if anyone has stats on the number of plays at 2nd over the course of the season and how many injuries occur?  I would guess it's a very small percentage.

[Thunderheads]

Of course it has to do with the neighborhood play. Rule geeks want middle infielders to hold the bag on the DP (like Kang did here).  If the neighborhood play is eliminated (no more outs given) without providing a protected area (like HS), then this kind of injury will increase (IMO). If you want F4/F6 to hold the bag, close hunting season for R1. 

can't see where Kang "held the bag" .... he's way off at the collision point

[MRG9999]

Replay looks like the runner slid a good 4-5 feet on the outfield side of the bag.  That was a Bull@%!t slide. I can see if it was a slide within the area of the bag, but that slide was uncalled for.       

[MRG9999]

can't see where Kang "held the bag" .... he's way off at the collision point

Correct, he got the out at 2B.  The runner had no right going after the fielder like that.  Hope he is fined/suspended for that incident.  A career maybe ended because of that stupid play.

[ElkOil]

That was clearly malicious.  Not to ignore your OP, @ricka56, but neighborhood play notwithstanding, R1 should be dealt with somehow by MLB.  To your point, I have no issue with the NP, personally.  There's just a lot of subjectivity required when calling it, which as we all know, has it own hazards.  

[ricka56]

can't see where Kang "held the bag" .... he's way off at the collision point

WTF ? Really ? we're talking about holding the bag when the ball arrives...not in perpetuity...SMH

^^^ Holding the bag ^^^
vvv Not holding the bag VVV

[Thunderheads]

WTF ? Really ? we're talking about holding the bag when the ball arrives...not in perpetuity...SMH
^^^ Holding the bag ^^^
vvv Not holding the bag VVV

WTF nothing... .... Kang and Coghlan are VERY SEPARATED at the point of your photo .... apples and oranges ....  Kang has time and moves away long before R1 arrives ....

You honestly think this collision doesn't happen if Kang receives the ball like in the second photo?  I don't think so....

Edited September 18, 2015 by Thunderheads

[maven]

That was clearly malicious. 

That was malicious neither by rule (the term has no application in pro ball) nor in intent. He was trying to "break up 2," and the injury was an unfortunate consequence of Kang having his weight in the wrong place at the wrong time. I shudder to think how you'd respond to the way Pete Rose — much less Ty Cobb — played the game.

For those who wax nostalgic for the neighborhood play: that's a feature of a bygone era, and it's never coming back. You can bitch and moan all you want, but in the age of HD cameras and super slo mo, the neighborhood play is not a tag and can't yield an out.

If pro ball wants to reduce this type of injury, it will institute the FPSR. Until then, this play is completely legal.

[ricka56]

That slide was completely legal. There is no specific MC rule in OBR. 
Currently, the only requirement is that R1 can reach 2B. 

[dookiexman]

So if he "breaks up 2", do we call Interference and get the BR anyway?

[noumpere]

Replay looks like the runner slid a good 4-5 feet on the outfield side of the bag.  That was a Bull@%!t slide. I can see if it was a slide within the area of the bag, but that slide was uncalled for.       

Correct, he got the out at 2B.  The runner had no right going after the fielder like that.  Hope he is fined/suspended for that incident.  A career maybe ended because of that stupid play.

Oh please.  The play was perfectly legal and within the spirit of play in MLB.

 

If you want the rule to change, fine -- we can have that debate (and, honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to it).  But the comments you make cannot be supported under the current rules / game.

[noumpere]

So if he "breaks up 2", do we call Interference and get the BR anyway?

Not in MLB

[MRG9999]

 

Oh please.  The play was perfectly legal and within the spirit of play in MLB.

 

If you want the rule to change, fine -- we can have that debate (and, honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to it).  But the comments you make cannot be supported under the current rules / game.

I agree, the play under current MLB rules is legal.  What I don't agree with is the way it happened.  Kang was a good 4-5 feet off the bag at time of contact.  This is what needs to change.  Players careers are at stake here with this type of slide.  Kang did his job in tagging the bag for the out and made the throw to 1B, but the collision was well after the bag was tagged and the ball was released.

[dookiexman]

New numbers: 6.01 (a) (5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

Is this not this play (assuming his contact hindered or impeded the play to 1B)? Which I agree his contact did not hinder or impede this play, however both the announcer and @maven said he was trying to "break up 2". So both are saying he is trying to hinder or impede the play on the BR, or is my thesaurus broken up?

[ricka56]

WTF nothing... .... Kang and Coghlan are VERY SEPARATED at the point of your photo .... apples and oranges ....  Kang has time and moves away long before R1 arrives ....

You honestly think this collision doesn't happen if Kang receives the ball like in the second photo?  I don't think so....

Per usual, you don't get the point. No one knows whether Kang would have been injured this severely if he neighborhood played it, but given the results, I'll bet he wishes he tried to. 

The point was and still is that MLB shouldn't kill the neighborhood play if R1 is allowed to go after F4/F6 like this.  

[ricka56]

For those who wax nostalgic for the neighborhood play: that's a feature of a bygone era, and it's never coming back. You can bitch and moan all you want, but in the age of HD cameras and super slo mo, the neighborhood play is not a tag and can't yield an out.

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated....Mark Twain 

[Jimurray]

New numbers: 6.01 (a) (5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

Is this not this play (assuming his contact hindered or impeded the play to 1B)? Which I agree his contact did not hinder or impede this play, however both the announcer and @maven said he was trying to "break up 2". So both are saying he is trying to hinder or impede the play on the BR, or is my thesaurus broken up?

The comment to that rule allowing a retired runner to continue to advance is what Wendelstedt says allows a runner to take out the DP. If he advances normally with a slide within reach of the base he is legal. If he slides not within reach he has not run the bases normally and is guilty of INT.

[stkjock]

[dookiexman]

The comment to that rule allowing a retired runner to continue to advance is what Wendelstedt says allows a runner to take out the DP. If he advances normally with a slide within reach of the base he is legal. If he slides not within reach he has not run the bases normally and is guilty of INT.

OK. Fair enough.

So then why did we not get the INT DP for the play that @ricka56 referenced in his post? Utley certainly did not advance normally with a slide within reach of the base. He was obviously trying to "break up 2" and we did have the neighborhood play called and we certainly had F6 clearing the area near 2B.

[noumpere]

New numbers: 6.01 (a) (5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

Is this not this play (assuming his contact hindered or impeded the play to 1B)? Which I agree his contact did not hinder or impede this play, however both the announcer and @maven said he was trying to "break up 2". So both are saying he is trying to hinder or impede the play on the BR, or is my thesaurus broken up?

You also need this comment - -and the last line means that if R1 could reach the base, then the play is (generally) legal:

 

Rule 5.09(a)(13) Comment (Rule 6.05(m) Comment ): 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.

[Thunderheads]

aren't your last three words minced 

 

 

no ...he's TRYING to type them ...but the filter blocks most words ..........

Try typing Tim M c C a r v e r .....