MLB Ejection 054 - David Rackley (1; Chris Prieto)

HP Umpire David Rackley ejected Mariners 1B Coach Chris Prieto (balk no-call; QOCY) in the top of the 9th inning of the Mariners-Rays game. With two out and one on (R1), Rays pitcher Vidal Nuno attempted to pick off Mariners baserunner R1 Jean Segura, throwing to first baseman Jake Bauers, to second baseman Christian Arroyo. Replays indicate Nuno appeared to step toward first base prior to throwing to that base (Nuno's intent of a throw to first base is indicated by the pitcher's consistent orientation toward first base and pointed toe toward first base; as stated in Rule 6.02(a)(3), "It is a balk when—The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base"), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Mariners were leading, 4-3. The Mariners ultimately won the contest, 4-3.

This is David Rackley (86)'s first ejection of 2018.
David Rackley now has 6 points in the UEFL Standings (2 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 6).
Crew Chief Marvin Hudson now has 1 point in Crew Division (0 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 1).
*Rule 6.02(a)(3) Comment states, "Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk. because he steps. A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base and is required to throw (except to second base) because he steps."
Furthermore, "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the 'intent' of the pitcher should govern."
Related Post: Case Play 2018-2 - Balk-A-Day...Joe West? [Solved] (4/27/18).

This is the 54th ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is Seattle's 3rd ejection of 2018, T-1st in the AL West (LAA, SEA 3; HOU 2; TEX 1; OAK 0).
This is Chris Prieto's first career MLB ejection.
This is David Rackley's first ejection since September 9, 2017 (Mike Scioscia; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Seattle Mariners vs. Tampa Bay Rays, 6/8/18 | Video as follows:

Commentary - Cubs Score on HP Collision Violation

In this edition of Commentary Critique, we visit Chicago, where Replay Review overturned HP Umpire Nick Mahrley's call that Phillies catcher Andrew Knapp tagged out Albert Almora Jr., finding Knapp violated MLB's collision rule by blocking home plate without possession of the ball.

Replay overturned an out call at home plate.

The Play: With one out and the bases loaded, Cubs batter Anthony Rizzo hit a fly ball to Phillies left fielder Dylan Cozens, who threw home as Cubs baserunner R3 Almora tagged from third base, resulting in a play at the plate wherein Knapp tagged Almora prior to Almora's touch of home.

The Call & Challenge: Initially ruled out by HP Umpire Mahrley, the ruling was overturned to safe as a result of a violation of Rule 6.01(i), which is the Official Baseball Rule for home plate collision abatement.

Commentary Critique, Statement: During the Replay Review, Cubs television broadcasters Len Kasper and Jim Deshaies stated, "The catcher has the right to block the plate once he has the ball...and the baserunner in that instance has the right to hit the catcher," "There's no question the block impeded his ability to get there, which is only his job if the case where he already has the ball," and, "the block absolutely is the reason that he didn't score."

Commentary Critique, QOC: This statement is mostly accurate (QOCY). Knapp illegally blocked the plate.

The Rule: The relevant rule is 6.01(i)(2), which states the following relevant information:

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.

Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment provides additional clarity: "A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate."

HP collision is still legal in certain situations.

Analysis: The catcher may legally block a runner's access to home plate under just four circumstances: 1) The catcher is in possession of the ball, 2) the catcher is not in possession of the ball, but blocks the runner's path in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, 3) a collision occurs, and the runner could have avoided the collision by sliding, or 4) the catcher without possession of the ball has not hindered or impeded the runner.

Accordingly, a legal home plate collision may occur when a catcher blocks access to home plate and a runner opts to run into the catcher rather than attempting to avoid the collision by sliding, provided the runner has not deviated from his direct pathway to home plate for the purpose of initiating contact with the defensive player at home plate.
Related Post: Little Home Plate Collision Begets Wrigley Bench Clearing (5/8/18).

The Cubs previously were called for a violation of the catcher's home plate collision rule during the 2017 postseason, resulting in Manager Joe Maddon's ejection for arguing the Replay Official's decision that catcher Willson Contreras illegally blocked baserunner Charlie Culberson's pathway to home plate. As was the case with Knapp on Thursday, last October's call against Contreras also involved a catcher extending his leg in an attempt to block the runner from touching home plate.
Related Post: MLB Ejection P-2 - Mike Winters (2; Joe Maddon) (10/14/17).

Catcher Knapp blocks the runner at home plate.

In this play, Knapp 1) does not have possession of the ball, 2) does not extend his leg in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (in other words, his leg position isn't part of a legitimate attempt to field a throw...the throw didn't take his leg into the runner), 3) the runner slid, and 4) the catcher impeded the runner by placing his leg/foot in the runner's pathway after the runner began to slide and before the catcher received the throw.

With none of the four exemptions applicable to this play, it was properly overturned to a violation and the runner was permitted to score.
Related Topic: Home Plate Collision Rule and Plays (UEFL Archives)

Sidebar: Notice Crew Chief Jerry Layne signal the violation on review by kicking his lower leg.

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 053 - Quinn Wolcott (1; Craig Counsell)

HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott ejected Brewers Manager Craig Counsell (strike three call; QOCY) in the top of the 8th inning of the Brewers-Indians game. With one out and one on (R1), Brewers batter Travis Shaw took a 2-2 sinker from Indians pitcher Oliver Perez for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located over the inner half of home plate and at the hollow of the knee (px .273, pz 1.584 [sz_bot 1.627 / RAD 1.505]) and that all other pitches during the at-bat were properly officiated, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Indians were leading, 3-1. The Indians ultimately won the contest, 3-1.

This is Quinn Wolcott (81)'s first ejection of 2018.
Quinn Wolcott now has 1 point in the UEFL Standings (-3 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 1).
Crew Chief Jeff Kellogg now has -7 points in Crew Division (-8 Previous + 1 Correct Call = -7).

This is the 53rd ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is the 23rd Manager ejection of 2018.
This is Milwaukee's 4th ejection of 2018, 1st in the NL Central (MIL 4; CHC 3; PIT 2; CIN, STL 0).
This is Craig Counsell's 3rd ejection of 2018, 1st since May 22 (Angel Hernandez; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Quinn Wolcott's first ejection since September 13, 2017 (Brad Ausmus; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Milwaukee Brewers vs. Cleveland Indians, 6/6/18 | Video as follows:

Deceptive Angle - Woodring's Parallax Check Swing

When umpire Tom Woodring's check swing call angered Rays batter Mallex Smith on Tuesday, Tampa Bay's broadcast utilized a camera angle to suggest Smith didn't go, while Washington's replay suggested a strike. Why the discrepancy? Answer: Parallax, an effect known to hockey fans for quite some time that applies to any sport with variable camera angles.

The origins of parallax go back to Ancient Greek (parallaxis), but the theory behind this visual oddity is rather simple. When a viewer looks at a distant object in front of a background which itself is at any amount of distance (even just inches) from the object (here, we're looking at a bat on the background of either home plate or Smith's own body), the angle with which the viewer sees the object from will dictate how this object appears in front of the distant background.

Parallax effect in hockey: Same timecodes.

Hockey: Parallax plays a huge role in hockey's use of limited replay—namely when reviewing whether a puck has entirely crossed the red goal line. Because the red line itself is painted about an inch below the ice surface, even a puck that lies flat on the ice is subject to the parallax effect, as demonstrated by the accompanying image. For accuracy's sake, a top-down view is required to conclusively adjudicate most goal line plays.

Baseball (Woodring/Smith Check Swing): Accordingly, Washington's replay angle from the camera well located closest to the first base line extended provides us with a view that is more suggestive of a "swing" than Tampa Bay's angle, which is located farther along foul territory on the third base side of the field.

This explains why two different angles might have made Smith's check swing look like two different events.
Related Post: MLB Ejection 052 - Tom Woodring (1; Mallex Smith)

What big league baseball does right in regard to check swings is consistently have the home plate umpire call the initial pitch, and, if necessary, refer to the first or third base umpire on appeal. This provides a consistent angle up the respective foul lines for the field umpires, who, due to parallax, are more apt not to rule a swing than the plate umpire.

What this means is that if a base umpire rules "swing" so as to affirm the appeal, that base umpire will have adjudged the swing from an angle less suggestive than the plate umpire's angle of a swing. This ensures the base umpire's election to overturn the "no swing" call at home plate is based on a higher threshold of evidence to suggest that the batter did, in fact, swing.

In other words, all else equal, given the differing angles (and assuming that pitch location is so far in the dirt so as not to be a distraction for the plate umpire), a plate umpire is more apt to rule a swing on a 50-50 play than a base umpire is for that same exact check swing, due solely to the parallax angles.

Image of red line for parallax coin experiment.

A simple experiment you can conduct at home to illustrate the parallax effect requires just your smart phone and a small coin.

In order for the demonstration to work, your phone will need to have a screen that is underneath the glass. Generally speaking, the distance between the LCD, digitizer, and front glass lens is nary a millimeter, but even this is enough to demonstrate the parallax effect.

Parallex Effect Demonstration: Smart Phone and Coin
Step 1) On your smart phone, open an image of a red line (such as the one attached to this article).
Step 2) While looking directly overhead ("straight down") the phone, place the coin flat on the phone's screen so only a tiny portion of its edge is over the red line.
Step 3) Keeping the phone and coin stationary, adjust your head height and overall depth, as if simulating a camera in motion. Notice how from certain angles ("in front"), the coin appears entirely not in contact with the red line while from other angles ("behind"), the coin appears greatly in contact with the line.

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 052 - Tom Woodring (1; Mallex Smith)

3B Umpire Tom Woodring ejected Rays CF Mallex Smith (check swing strike three call) in the top of the 8th inning of the Rays-Nationals game. With none out and two on (R1, R2), Smith attempted to check his swing on a 0-2 changeup from Nationals pitcher Max Scherzer ruled a ball and adjudicated as a swinging strike on appeal by 3B Umpire Woodring. Play was reviewed and adjudicated by the UEFL Appeals Board (9-0-0), the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Nationals were leading, 4-2. The Nationals ultimately won the contest, 4-2.

This is Tom Woodring (75)'s first ejection of 2018.
Tom Woodring now has 6 points in the UEFL Standings (2 Prev + 2 AAA + 2 Correct Call = 6).
Crew Chief Ted Barrett now has 11 points in Crew Division (10 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 1).
*This is the first ejection since May 28: E-051 - Mark Carlson (1; Clint Hurdle).

This is the 52nd ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is the 25th player ejection of 2018. Prior to ejection, Smith was 0-3 (2 SO) in the contest.
This is Tampa Bay's 1st ejection of 2018, T-3rd in the AL East (NYY 5; TOR 3; BAL, BOS, TB 1).
This is Mallex Smith's first career MLB ejection.
This is Tom Woodring's first ejection since March 16, 2017 (Yasiel Puig; QOC = U [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Tampa Bay Rays vs. Washington Nationals, 6/5/18 | Video as follows:

UEFL Invokes Injury Replacement Rule for Everitt

Since sustaining an Opening Day concussion on a March 30 pitch to the head that eluded catcher Francisco Cervelli's mitt, umpire Mike Everitt attempted a return after 25 days off the field, officiating several games from April 25 through May 2 before he once again disappeared from on-field service.
Related Post: Injury Scout - Everitt Concussed on Pitch to Head (3/31/18).

Mike Everitt is yet to return to regular service.

Unfortunately, this complication has led to a second absence that has now surpassed the 30-day threshold indicated in new-for-2018 UEFL Rule 1-5-b, which authorizes umpire replacement under certain circumstances during the regular season pertaining to extended absence.

Because Everitt is a Crew Chief, there are two potential replacements that UEFL members who own Everitt may effect: that of Everitt as a Primary/Secondary umpire, and that of Everitt as a Crew Chief.

If you drafted Everitt in either capacity and wish to make a replacement, read on for Rule 1-5-b's instructions.

UEFL Acceptable Replacement Procedure
If your Crew Chief is Mike Everitt, you may select any Crew Chief listed below.
If your PRM/SDR is Mike Everitt, you may select any primary/secondary umpire listed below.

Everitt has zero points in Primary and Secondary classifications, and zero points in Crew Division.

List of Legal Replacements (as of June 5, 2018; Subject to change after this date)
Crew Division - Eligible Replacement Crew Chiefs (ranked by UEFL points, in parentheses):
Welke, Bill (-1) [Rule 1-2-b replacement]
Wegner, Mark (-1) [Rule 1-5-b replacement]
Holbrook, Sam (-1) [1-5-b]
Davis, Gerry (-3) [1-5-b]
West, Joe (-4) [1-5-b]
Hallion, Tom (-7) [1-5-b]
Miller, Bill (-7) [1-5-b]
Kellogg, Jeff (-8) [1-5-b]

Primaries and Secondaries - Refer to UEFL Standings (umpires must have less than 0 UEFL points)

To effect a midseason replacement, post a comment to this announcement indicating your username, classification to be changed (Crew Chief, Primary, or Secondary), and proposed replacement name.

Commentary Critique - Glove Laces Not Part of Tag

Welcome to the inaugural episode of Commentary Critique, where we take a broadcaster's statement and analyze the announcer's rules- or umpire-centric accuracy. Today, we see if Toronto's "the laces are part of the glove...that is the rule" is a correct statement or not. Just as we determine Quality of Correctness for an umpire who ejects a player, we will attribute a Broadcaster QOC for this corner of criticism.

Question: Are laces part of the glove?

The Play: With two out and a runner on third, Blue Jays pitcher Sam Gaviglio's 2-2 slider to Red Sox batter Xander Bogaerts bounced in the dirt and eluded Jays catcher Luke Maile, who threw to Gaviglio covering home as Red Sox baserunner R3 Jackie Bradley attempted to score.

The Call & Challenge: Initially ruled safe by HP Umpire Jerry Layne, the ruling was overturned to an out after John Gibbons challenged the call.

Commentary Critique, Statement: During the Replay Review, Blue Jays broadcasters Buck Martinez and Dan Shulman stated that because the laces of Gaviglio's glove made contact with Bradley's hand, the runner was out. According to Shulman, "the laces are part of the glove...that is the rule."

Commentary Critique, QOC: This statement is inaccurate (QOCN). While the laces are physically attached to the glove, loose/hanging laces alone tagging a runner is not sufficient for an out call.

The Rule: The relevant rule may be found in the Definition of Terms, and states:

A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball (not including hanging laces alone), while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove. 

OBR Appendix 4: Laces are not part of a glove.

Analysis: Accordingly, laces alone are not sufficient for a tag and the broadcasters' statement otherwise ("that is the rule") is incorrect. This phrase—"not including hanging laces alone"—was added to the Official Baseball Rules ahead of the 2016 season, as the Rules Committee was concerned with expanded replay and potential confusion of whether a hanging lace incidentally contacting a runner should be enough to oblige the Replay Official to overturn a safe call or confirm an out call.

This is also supported by OBR Diagram 4, in Appendix 4, which pictures a regulation glove featuring many items of interest, none of which happen to be hanging laces.

Instead, the call in Boston was overturned to "out" because the fielder tagged the runner, not with hanging laces, but with the glove's web, as indicated by Diagram 4's letter "E" (and C, and D).

Video as follows:

Simba's "Revenge" - Andrelton's Illegal Slide on Odor

And just like that, it was over. Angels shortstop Andrelton Simmons retaliated against Rangers middle infielder Rougned Odor with a non-bona fide slide of his own Saturday, barreling past second base and drawing an interference call from 2B Umpire Brian O'Nora to wipe away a would-be safe call by Chris Conroy at first base on batter-runner Shohei Ohtani.
Related Post: Light Up the Halo & Clear the Benches - Slide INT Part II (6/2/18).

Simmons' retaliatory slide cost his team an out.

The Play: With one out and one on (R1) in the bottom of the 4th inning of Saturday's Rangers-Angels game, batter Ohtani hit a ground ball on the ground to Rangers shortstop Jurickson Profar, who flipped to second baseman Odor, who threw onto first base as Angels baserunner R1 Simmons slid into second base.

The Call: Although Odor's throw reached first base well after batter-runner Ohtani's arrival, 2B Umpire O'Nora declared two outs on the play: Simmons on the force play, and Ohtani on Simmons' interference at second base.

Analysis: By now, you're familiar with the "four criteria" drill for bona fide slide rule 6.01(j):
(1) Did the runner begin his slide (e.g., contact the ground) before reaching the base? [YES];
(2) Was runner able & attempted to reach the base with a hand or foot? [YES];
(3) Was runner able & attempted to remain on the base (except HP) after completing the slide? [NO];
(4) Did runner slide within reach of the base without changing his pathway for contact? [YES].

O'Nora gets two outs as Odor looks on.

Conclusion: Simmons' slide was illegal because he was unable or made no attempt to remain on the base after completion of his slide: Simmons slid through second base and seemed more concerned about potentially taking out Odor than running the bases legally. This is interference and was correctly officiated as such. Apparently, the call was so routine that Angels Manager Mike Scioscia didn't even challenge the play.

Gil's Call: It appears we have found the offense's equivalent measure of retaliation as the defensive intentional hit-by-pitch: the illegal slide...and just like a beanball that ultimately harms the defense by putting a free runner on base, the payback force play slide hurts the offense by giving the defense a free out on a secondary player (batter-runner) that would have been safe had the slide been legal.

None of these retaliatory measures are legal and, arguably, both are clear intents to injure, or, at the least, send a non-baseball message to the other team. For what it's worth, the Angels lost Saturday's game in extra innings, 3-2.

Video as follows:

Light Up the Halo & Clear the Benches - Slide INT Part II

MLB's crisis du jour is officially the bona fide take-out slide, as benches cleared in Anaheim after Rangers baserunner R1 Rougned Odor slid well wide of second base and into Angels SS Andrelton Simmons as he turned a game-ending double play, umpire Chris Conroy ruling the play a legal slide as first baseman Albert Pujols made it all for naught, successfully stretching to receive Simmons' throw as Simmons and Odor chirped and both benches emptied to the tune of "Paradise City" backed by pyrotechnics and Angels Win graphics.

TEX R1 Odor slides into LAA SS Simmons.

The Play: With one out and the bases loaded in the top of the 9th inning of a 6-0 ballgame, Rangers batter Ronald Guzman hit a ground ball to Angels second baseman Ian Kinsler, who threw to shortstop Simmons, who tagged second base and stepped away to throw onto first baseman Pujols to complete the double play as Rangers baserunner R1 Odor slid toward Simmons.

The Call: 2B Umpire Conroy called Odor out at second base, but did not rule that Odor had committed interference pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(j). Since first baseman Pujols was able to catch Simmons' throw and keep his foot in contact with first base, 1B Umpire CB Bucknor ruled batter-runner Guzman out for the third and final out, thus ending the game and rendering the interference issue at second base a moot-yet-technical point, as Chief Fieldin Culbreth's crew watched the benches clear over Odor's questionable slide.

Analysis: As we did Monday, and again on Wednesday, it's time to review the four criteria of Rule 6.01(j)'s bona fide slide and apply them to Odor's slide into second base. Same rules apply:
(1) begins his slide (namely, makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base [YES];
(2) is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot [YES];
(3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide [YES];
(4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder [YES].

To be frank, this conclusion (that the slide was bona fide) surprised me too. In my mind, in no way should Odor's attempt to kick at Simmons be a legal slide, but, according to the rule, it is.
Related Post: Revenge - Benches Clear After Pirates Slide vs Cubs (5/30/18).
Related Post: Source - MLB Admits Rizzo Slide Was Illegal, Interference (5/29/18).

Disclaimer: We make no judgment as to whether Odor's was a "dirty slide" or not, just its legality by rule.

Odor's pathway remains relatively unchanged.

On Monday, Bryant clearly changed his pathway to contact catcher Diaz by crossing from foul to fair territory, and on Wednesday, Musgrove failed to remain on the base, but on Friday, Odor didn't change his pathway—Odor made a bee-line for the right-field side of second base from the moment the ball was hit.

The way the professional rule is written, the runner mustn't change his pathway, but if the runner's chosen pathway well in advance of the impending play takes him to the right of the base, he is legally allowed to maintain that heading, as long as he is able to fulfill all other criteria of the bona fide slide (e.g., touch and remain on the base), and as long as he doesn't initiate illegal contact.

Rule Review: OBR 6.01(j) begins by declaring when an interference infraction occurs:

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.

Angels and Rangers meet after the final out.

Because Odor engaged in a bona fide slide, as portrayed above, the "and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play" clause becomes meaningless.

Like the fabled nuclear launch, 6.01(j) requires both the "not a bona fide slide" and "initiates/attempts to make contact" keys to be turned: Because the "not a bona fide slide" key doesn't exist, "initiates/attempts to make contact" is worthless on its own: we don't have interference, at least not yet.

Grammatically Speaking: If intentional contact were meant to stand on its own, the proper terminology would be OR, not AND. But...the rules' is an "AND" statement...Let's dig on.

As specified above, Odor clearly does initiate contact with the fielder—he elevates his right foot into Simmons' shin—but under the professional rule 6.01(j), this is actually legal: "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."

Precent: Choo legally kicks a middle infielder.

Because Odor initiated leg contact with Simmons below the fielder's knee, and did not roll (he slid on his side, but never rolled into second base), this play is perfectly legal.

Precedent: Before jumping to Simmons' defense, consider this 2017 play in which MLB—via Replay—established that kicking or tripping a middle fielder is legal, as long as the kick or elevated leg remains below the fielder's knee, and—wouldn't you know—it too involved a Rangers baserunner.

In July 2017, 2B Umpire Gabe Morales ruled that Rangers baserunner Shin-Soo Choo violated Rule 6.01(j) by kicking his left leg into White Sox second baseman Yolmer Sanchez as Sanchez attempted to turn a double play. Following a challenge by Rangers Manager Jeff Banister, the Replay Official overturned Morales' call, ruling that Choo's kicking/tripping slide was legal.
Related Post: Replay Overturns Slide Rule Violation Call for 1st Time (7/2/17).

6/1/18: Example of an illegal/interference slide.

By contrast, Replay Review has overturned slide violation no-calls to interference-aided double plays before (in fact, such an overturned occurred Friday night in St. Louis as a Cardinals baserunner used his upper body to impede a Pirates middle infielder from turning a double play), but as portrayed above, the standard for the runner's legs is different, and more lenient, than that for the runner's arms (leg contact is legal below the knee, while throwing the arm is never legal).

To reiterate: the leg may be elevated to a height lower than the fielder's knee, but the upper body or arms cannot be used to initiate contact with the fielder.
Related Post: Force Play Slide Rule Makes First Appearance of 2017 (4/7/17).

NCAA FPSR's legal slide diagram.

NCAA/NFHS Reminder: In NCAA college and NFHS high school, Odor's slide is illegal even without the kick via the force play slide rule simply because Odor slid outside of the baseline directly between first and second base (aka "the channel") and into the fielder's protected area. These codes' "a slide is illegal if—the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg" rule is a solid guide, as well.

SIDEBAR: A common alternative response when 6.01(j) doesn't directly apply is Rule 6.01(a)(5), which calls for interference when, "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," or Rule 5.09(a)(13) ("A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play").

That's a fine consideration, but remember that 1) a runner is allowed to continue to advance after being put out with no penalty of interference, and, 2) that means a runner between first and second base is allowed to slide after being put out, as long as the slide is legal, without fear of interference. Even if the runner "hinders or impedes a following play," said runner is not guilty of interference, as long as the runner is legitimately running the bases, which includes the recently-retired runner's engagement in a bona fide slide (Wendelstedt interpretation).

Click through to revisit the landmark Boston retired runner's interference no-call in which retired runner Matt Holliday's slide clearly—and legally—impeded the fielder's ability to pursue a baseball.
Related Post: Boston File Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call (7/15/17)
Related Post: MLB Denies Boston's Protest, Interference No-Call Upheld (7/17/17).

As for 5.09(a)(13) Comment (the "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" rule), Odor actually did reach and remain on second base, and, as stated above, never actually left the baseline (because he was notably to the right of the line to begin with). Because 5.09(a)(13) Comment instructs umpires to "See Rule 6.01(j)," we come full circle and start over, finding again that Odor's slide is bona fide, so on, and so forth.

It's tough to prove willful and deliberate interference when Odor's actions check all of the "bona fide" boxes and don't quite meet the criteria about "leaving the baseline" or failing to reach the base.

Can of Worms: The Angels, oddly enough, should be thankful 2B Umpire Chris Conroy didn't rule an automatic double play due to slide rule interference. If Texas challenged the call, there stands a chance it would be overturned—just as Replay Review did with Morales' call on Choo—and, if so, there stands a chance the batter-runner would be declared safe at first base due to the dead ball created at the time of interference. In this case, no call turned out to be the better strategic call from the home team's perspective, thanks in great part to Pujols' athleticism at first base.

Gil's Call: If applicable to the level of play, malicious contact may be a proper consideration for an umpire who judges that the runner intentionally or flagrantly kicked the fielder in a decidedly non-baseball play. For instance, NFHS 2-32-2d clearly makes kicking illegal, and it is up to the umpire's best judgment to determine whether this action is worthy of such MC ruling. For instance, the 2014 NFHS Points of Emphasis suggest "intentional excessive force" or "intent to injure" as possible considerations for malicious contact, but NFHS leaves the matter open to interpretation.

Precisely because NFHS leaves malicious contact open to interpretation, unlike OBR's willful and deliberate rule which has more hoops to jump through, it becomes easier for an umpire to conclude, "that's malicious."

For instance, it might be reasonable to conclude that sliding and kicking spikes up on a fielder's leg is malicious in NFHS (also illegal in NCAA 8-4c), but nothing violative in OBR because 6.01(j) specifically states that kicking above the knee is illegal.

This best be called interference in school ball.

If so ruled as malicious, it would be prudent to eject the offender for this unsportsmanlike act, especially if one were to view the runner's intentional kicking action as an attempt to injure the fielder.

In my view, under this framework, Odor's slide (despite its bona fide status at the professional level) is worse than Bryant's for the simple reason that Odor intentionally kicked Simmons, whereas Bryant recklessly slid into a defenseless catcher: With Bryant, I cannot conclusively gauge intent with regard to injury potential, but with Odor, the optics suggest nefariousness.

Unfortunately—or perhaps by intentional design—the professional baseball Rules Committee has opted to afford its runners the opportunity to intentionally contact a middle infielder (or fielder at another base, as appropriate) outside of the baseline during a double play attempt, as long as the runner's leg remains below the fielder's knee and no part of the upper body is used to intentionally contact the fielder.

This bona fide slide provision thereby comes across as a hybrid rule—somewhere in between old school "anything goes" baseball and the NCAA/NFHS force play slide rules. The big loophole, from my perspective, is allowing a runner to choose a pathway before the batted ball is fielded. That allows a runner like Odor to run well outside of the physical baseline and initiate legal contact with a fielder that, in all other codes of baseball, is decidedly illegal.

Maybe it's time for major league teams to order a bulk supply of shin guards.

Videos as follows:

UEFL's MLB Umpire Sabermetrics - May 2018

UEFL's MLB Umpire Sabermetrics report for May 2018 features 51 ejections and 478 Replay Reviews through 834 regular season games played (34.3% complete). Click here for last month's stats.

Though ejections are projected to decrease year-over-year, based on current rates, replays are projected to enjoy a modest increase.

The attached Most & Least Accurate Umpires, Replay Review contains the top and bottom of the Replay Review table ordinarily found in the "Read More" detailed section of the monthly report.

Related: Visit our Replay Review Statistics and Sabermetrics page for daily-updated umpire stats. This page includes Replay Review Rankings sorted by umpire, by team, and by call type. Daily ejections information is available at our Ejection List page.

Summary, Ejections.
>> 51 Total Regular Season Ejections through May 31, 2018 (on pace for 149 ejections this season).
>> Umpires were 63.2% accurate on calls associated with ejection.
>> The New York Yankees led MLB in ejections. The D'Backs/Padres led the National League.
>> Manager John Gibbons led MLB in ejections.
>> Umpire Brian Gorman led all umpires in ejections.
>> Chief Brian Gorman's crew led all umpire crews in ejections.
>> Most ejections occurred in the 3rd inning; Ejections from 7th and on comprised 43% of all tosses.
>> Most ejections occurred on Wednesday. Weekend series (Fri-Sun) featured 41% of all heave-ho's.
>> The most common reason for ejection was Balls/Strikes, followed by Fighting.
>> All else equal, a team tied at the time of ejection ended up winning the game 65.0% of the time.

Summary, Replay Reviews.
>> 478 Total Replay Reviews, of which calls were affirmed 51.7% of the time (48.3% overturned).
>> The Atlanta Braves used replay more than any other team, but were fairly unsuccessful.
>> The Kansas City Royals were the League's most successful team in review (13-for-15).
>> The BAL Orioles experienced fewer reviews than any other team, and were 29th best in MLB.
>> The San Diego Padres were the worst MLB team in terms of Replay success (2-for-14).
>> Umpires Danley, O'Nora & Wendelstedt were most reviewed.
>> Larry Vanover's crew led all of baseball in replay activity, and performed at league average.
>> Umpire Ben May led in accuracy with all calls affirmed by replay (4/4).
>> Umpire Phil Cuzzi experienced the highest rate of calls overturned by replay (0/5).
>> Umpire Angel Hernandez had the most number of calls overturned by replay (7 overturns).
>> The 8th inning had more reviews than any other inning. 44% of all reviews occurred from 7th-on.
>> Most reviews occurred on Saturday; Weekend series (Fri-Sun) featured 47% of all replays.
>> The most common reason for review was Out/Safe (Force - 1st) followed by Out/Safe (Tag - In).

Most & Least Accurate Umpires, Replay Review (sorted by Review Affirmation Percentage [RAP]).
1. Ben May - 100.0% RAP (4/4).
2. Gary Cederstrom - 100.0% RAP (3/3).
3. Tom Woodring - 100.0% RAP (2/2).
4. Chad Fairchild, Stu Scheurwater - 83.3% RAP (5/6).
6. Gerry Davis - 80.0% RAP (4/5).
7. Ted Barrett - 75.0% RAP (6/8).
8. Barber, Visconti, Tumpane, Estabrook, Rackley, Timmons - 75.0% RAP (3/4).
14. Hunter Wendelstedt - 72.7% RAP (8/11).
15. Ed Hickox, Gabe Morales - 71.4% RAP (5/7).
17. Kerwin Danley - 70.0% RAP (7/10).
---
73. Angel Hernandez - 30.0% RAP (3/10).
74. Tony Randazzo, Mike Winters - 28.6% RAP (2/7).
76. Sam Holbrook - 25.0% RAP (2/8).
77. Todd Tichenor - 25.0% RAP (1/4).
78. Tom Hallion, Quinn Wolcott - 20.0% RAP (1/5).
80. Jeff Kellogg, Jerry Meals - 14.3% RAP (1/7)
82. Brian Knight, John Libka, Shane Livensparger - 0.0% RAP (0/1).
85. Adam Hamari - 0.0% RAP (0/3).
86. Phil Cuzzi - 0.0% RAP (0/5).

Umpires with Fewest and Greatest # of Overturned Calls [NEW]
0 Overturned Calls: Gary Cederstrom, Ben May, Tom Woodring, Mike Everitt
1 Overturn: [Many Tied].
---
6 Overturns: Cooper, Holbrook, Kellogg, Meals, O'Nora, Ripperger.
7 Overturns: Angel Hernandez.

For detailed sabermetric analysis of MLB umpire ejections and instant replay review outcomes, including a Replay Review umpire leaderboard, follow the "read more" link below.