Kelly gets 6 games

[Jack Flap]

Joe Kelly "charged" Tyler Austin with a 97.7 mph fastball. Austin charged the mound without a weapon.

 

In my jurisdiction a baseball could be considered a deadly weapon as used.

 

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

 

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

[Bellhorn04]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

 

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

 

Well said JF.

[cp176]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

 

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

 

I think that this is a great post! It is an angle I certainly have not thought of. Harmony has repeatedly tried to paint Kelly as the primary villain here. If people want to think that possibly Austin went into that bag not having the primary purpose being to nail Holt with his spikes up then I guess when Kelly says he did not intentionally hit Austin and that the pitch just got away with him it is just as easily believable as well. No one I hope wants to see these guys injured this way, but as is normally the case there will be more than side to most stories. I like yours the best!

[Slasher9]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

 

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

 

Post of the day.

[Maxbialystock]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

 

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

 

Mr johnny-come-lately concurs with the talksox brain trust. Great post.

[FredLynn]

I think that this is a great post! It is an angle I certainly have not thought of. Harmony has repeatedly tried to paint Kelly as the primary villain here. If people want to think that possibly Austin went into that bag not having the primary purpose being to nail Holt with his spikes up then I guess when Kelly says he did not intentionally hit Austin and that the pitch just got away with him it is just as easily believable as well. No one I hope wants to see these guys injured this way, but as is normally the case there will be more than side to most stories. I like yours the best!

 

I don't think Austin intentionally tried to spike Holt. For me the issue is that he should have been more careful about in which direction his spikes were pointed. Its like in hockey-a player is responsible for where his stick ends up. He gets called for high sticking if his stick strikes another player in the face regardless of whether it was an accident or not. Austin is guilty of being careless, and his carelessness could have resulted in a severe injury. He paid for it in a small way by getting plunked in the back.

[notin]

A six-game suspension for a reliever who has appeared in only five games is less than a five-game suspension for a position player who has appeared in 10 games.

 

C'mon, accountant!!!! You can do better!!!

 

Kelly was suspended for 117% of his games of while Austin lost only 50% of his!!

 

Beung serious, the 5 game suspension for a position player and 6 game suspension for a pitcher are pretty standard...

[harmony]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

 

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

 

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

 

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

 

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

[cp176]

I don't think Austin intentionally tried to spike Holt. For me the issue is that he should have been more careful about in which direction his spikes were pointed. Its like in hockey-a player is responsible for where his stick ends up. He gets called for high sticking if his stick strikes another player in the face regardless of whether it was an accident or not. Austin is guilty of being careless, and his carelessness could have resulted in a severe injury. He paid for it in a small way by getting plunked in the back.

 

I think that an interpretation of that particular slide just depends on how we saw it. The view I got from the left field camera left no doubt in my mind that the spikes were up , they were no where near the bag,and they were directly in line with Holt's leg. Maybe Austin was hoping that Holt would avoid his cleats. I kind of wish that I saw it differently because I'm going to have a hard time looking at this kid as anything other than a punk from now on. Kind of how I look at Machado I guess.

[cp176]

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

 

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

 

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

 

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

 

You certainly are trying to make this sound educated but sadly most of this falls squarely within the confines of something that most of us would consider ********. When a baserunner initiates contact with his spikes up - that is not something that just accidentally happens.

Edited April 14, 2018 by cp176

[moonslav59]

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

 

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

 

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

 

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

 

Why? Kelly intentioanally hit him for doing nothing, except maybe being a little reckless, and he should respond in kind.

 

I'm 100% convinced he raised his spikes on purpose, and he was not aiming twoards the base in any way. How can that not be as clear as day?

[moonslav59]

You certainly are trying to make this sound educated but sadly most of this falls squarely within the confines of something that most of us would consider ********. When a baserunner initiates contact with his spikes up - that is not something that just accidentally happens.

 

Had his raised foot been aimed at 2B, it possibly could be viewed as a mistake, but even then I'd be doubtful.

 

This was intentional as can be.

[harmony]

Had his raised foot been aimed at 2B, it possibly could be viewed as a mistake, but even then I'd be doubtful.

 

This was intentional as can be.

Tyler Austin's foot was pretty much on the ground when Brock Holt's foot made contact and lifted Austin's foot up and even more away from the base. At :31:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uFpLiDNzQ

 

However, Austin's spikes were up.

 

Mookie Betts' spikes were not up on this slide:

 

 

... but the slide possibly violated more than one provision of the current rule (which was not in place when Betts made his slide in 2015):

 

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/slide-rule

[cp176]

Had his raised foot been aimed at 2B, it possibly could be viewed as a mistake, but even then I'd be doubtful.

 

This was intentional as can be.

 

This is so accurate. There is absolutely no question about the foot being in the air and aimed at Holt.

[moonslav59]

Tyler Austin's foot was pretty much on the ground when Brock Holt's foot made contact and lifted Austin's foot up and even more away from the base. At :31:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uFpLiDNzQ

 

 

I disagree. It was off the ground slightly. His foot was also at least a foot and a half to the infield side of 2B (off the base and aimed directly at Holt's leg).

 

It was not a fluke mistake. He was aiming for Holt's leg. It was "intentional" not "reckless".

 

He deserved to be plunked. A suspension will not keep a punk from doing it again. Getting plunked might make him think twice next time.

[Kimmi]

I don't think Austin intentionally tried to spike Holt. For me the issue is that he should have been more careful about in which direction his spikes were pointed. Its like in hockey-a player is responsible for where his stick ends up. He gets called for high sticking if his stick strikes another player in the face regardless of whether it was an accident or not. Austin is guilty of being careless, and his carelessness could have resulted in a severe injury. He paid for it in a small way by getting plunked in the back.

 

Whether the intent was there or not, it was a bad slide, and Austin should know this. As Jack posted, Austin behaved like a punk in his reaction to Holt questioning the slide. He also behaved like a punk in his reaction to being plunked. Once again, Austin should have known it was coming and he should have just taken his base.

[moonslav59]

Whether the intent was there or not, it was a bad slide, and Austin should know this. As Jack posted, Austin behaved like a punk in his reaction to Holt questioning the slide. He also behaved like a punk in his reaction to being plunked. Once again, Austin should have known it was coming and he should have just taken his base.

 

How could there not be intent?

 

It was 100% intnetional. No doubt.

[Kimmi]

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

 

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

 

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

 

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

 

It's one of the unwritten rules of baseball. You come in with your spikes high, you're taking a pitch in the ribs. It must be done. Especially when you act like a punk about the infielder questioning it.

[Kimmi]

How could there not be intent?

 

It was 100% intnetional. No doubt.

 

I agree that it was probably intentional, judging by his reaction. I'm just saying that either way, it was a bad slide and he should have know the plunking was coming.

[moonslav59]

I agree that it was probably intentional, judging by his reaction. I'm just saying that either way, it was a bad slide and he should have know the plunking was coming.

 

His foot went nearly 2 feet to the side of the base. It wasn't unintentional. There's no "probably" about it.

[moonslav59]

It's one of the unwritten rules of baseball. You come in with your spikes high, you're taking a pitch in the ribs. It must be done. Especially when you act like a punk about the infielder questioning it.

 

Exactly, so when he acted like a punk after Holt had words with him, he actually deserved 2 plunks.

[cp176]

His foot went nearly 2 feet to the side of the base. It wasn't unintentional. There's no "probably" about it.

 

Imagine you and I being on the same exact page. How about a little more help dealing with Harmony next time.lol There is a huge difference in knowing a lot of things about the game and actually knowing its intricacies. harmony will have to google "how to slide" and some of us here actually know the game.

[a700hitter]

His foot went nearly 2 feet to the side of the base. It wasn't unintentional. There's no "probably" about it.

He went for Holt's leg that was no where near the base. He stuck out his leg to the left, No one slides to the base and sticks his front leg out to the left to miss the bag. He went for Holt's leg pure and simple. It was a dick move, because there was no DP that was being turned. You are right that there is no "probably" in this case. It was far too obvious for Austin or anyone else to deny accountability. Austin had a drill job coming. I just wish that Vasquez lowered his shoulder into Austin's back and took him to the ground before he reached Kelly.

[cp176]

He went for Holt's leg that was no where near the base. He stuck out his leg to the left, No one slides to the base and sticks his front leg out to the left to miss the bag. He went for Holt's leg pure and simple. It was a dick move, because there was no DP that was being turned. You are right that there is no "probably" in this case. It was far too obvious for Austin or anyone else to deny accountability. Austin had a drill job coming. I just wish that Vasquez lowered his shoulder into Austin's back and took him to the ground before he reached Kelly.

 

And this is it in a nutshell. This is an instance that I would tell anyone who doesn't see it this way - they probably never played the game.

[harmony]

As I've written: "A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent." The second issue is whether Tyler Austin's intent was to break up a double play, to harm Brock Holt, or both.

 

I'll again provide links to videos of Austin's slide and a Mookie Betts slide from 2015:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uFpLiDNzQ

 

 

The slides can be distinguished by several factors:

 

1. to his credit Betts' spikes were not up while Austin's spikes were

 

2. Betts was out at second base by at least eight feet while Austin's play was much closer*

 

3. the target of the Betts slide was attempting a double play while Holt made no attempt at a double play*

 

4. despite his extended left leg, Austin's butt went directly over second while Betts' butt pretty missed the bag as he took the side where the infielder was making the relay

 

5. Betts was completely past the bag when he made contact with the infielder while Austin was on the bag when contact happened

 

6. at the points of contact Betts' left leg was higher than Austin's left leg

 

7. Betts' contact went for the knees of the infielder, who was knocked over (at :55), while Austin's foot made contact with Holt's moving lower leg ... or vice versa, or both (at :31).

 

Nevertheless, the TV announcer called the Betts slide "a good, clean, hard slide.":rolleyes:

 

* some have questioned whether Austin should have known that Holt would not be making a relay for a double play. After the game Boston manager Alex Cora praised third baseman Rafael Devers for eschewing the easy out at first base and instead opting for the tougher play of getting the lead runner at second base. From Austin's perspective with his back to first base, the Devers throw to second base perhaps suggested an attempted double play that deserved a hard slide.

[moonslav59]

Imagine you and I being on the same exact page. How about a little more help dealing with Harmony next time.lol There is a huge difference in knowing a lot of things about the game and actually knowing its intricacies. harmony will have to google "how to slide" and some of us here actually know the game.

 

I like harmony, but have called him out when I think he's wrong.

[moonslav59]

He went for Holt's leg that was no where near the base. He stuck out his leg to the left, No one slides to the base and sticks his front leg out to the left to miss the bag. He went for Holt's leg pure and simple. It was a dick move, because there was no DP that was being turned. You are right that there is no "probably" in this case. It was far too obvious for Austin or anyone else to deny accountability. Austin had a drill job coming. I just wish that Vasquez lowered his shoulder into Austin's back and took him to the ground before he reached Kelly.

 

I lost some respect for Vaz. After Austin slammed his bat down, Vaz hesitated to get between him and Kelly. Once Austin started running, there was no way Vaz was going to catch him.

[moonslav59]

As I've written: "A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent." The second issue is whether Tyler Austin's intent was to break up a double play, to harm Brock Holt, or both.

 

I'll again provide links to videos of Austin's slide and a Mookie Betts slide from 2015:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uFpLiDNzQ

 

 

The slides can be distinguished by several factors:

 

1. to his credit Betts' spikes were not up while Austin's spikes were

 

2. Betts was out at second base by at least eight feet while Austin's play was much closer*

 

3. the target of the Betts slide was attempting a double play while Holt made no attempt at a double play*

 

4. despite his extended left leg, Austin's butt went directly over second while Betts' butt pretty missed the bag as he took the side where the infielder was making the relay

 

5. Betts was completely past the bag when he made contact with the infielder while Austin was on the bag when contact happened

 

6. at the points of contact Betts' left leg was higher than Austin's left leg

 

7. Betts' contact went for the knees of the infielder, who was knocked over (at :55), while Austin's foot made contact with Holt's moving lower leg ... or vice versa, or both (at :31).

 

Nevertheless, the TV announcer called the Betts slide "a good, clean, hard slide.":rolleyes:

 

* some have questioned whether Austin should have known that Holt would not be making a relay for a double play. After the game Boston manager Alex Cora praised third baseman Rafael Devers for eschewing the easy out at first base and instead opting for the tougher play of getting the lead runner at second base. From Austin's perspective with his back to first base, the Devers throw to second base perhaps suggested an attempted double play that deserved a hard slide.

 

I never defended the Betts slide, although he did at least go towards the base. We're talking about the Austin play. Of course Sox players have done similar things in the past... and got rightfully plunked.

[harmony]

I never defended the Betts slide, although he did at least go towards the base. We're talking about the Austin play. Of course Sox players have done similar things in the past... and got rightfully plunked.

Because Mookie Betts was out by the hyperbolic mile, the Tampa Bay infielder had time to get out of the way by stepping back and away from the base. Nevertheless, Betts went to the side and past the bag to upend the second baseman with a near cross-body block.

[S5Dewey]

I never defended the Betts slide, although he did at least go towards the base. We're talking about the Austin play. Of course Sox players have done similar things in the past... and got rightfully plunked.

 

And this is the crux of this argument - such as it is. Harmony has no case and he knows it so he's trying to deflect the issue to something Mookie did three years ago.

 

Austin clearly went out of his way to come into contact with Holt with his spikes up - the angle from left field proves it. What Mookie may or may not have done in 2015 has no bearing on what Austin did in 2018. End of story.