Confusion at second

Although he challenged the umpire’s call on the play that produced the decisive run in Monday’s 4-2 loss to the Rays, Mattingly said in retrospect that he believes the slide

made in popping up and colliding with Gordon after a force at second was legal.

The challenge, which was rejected, contended that Kiermaier slid in violation of rule 6.01(j), which states: “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 out for interference.”

Before that rule was adopted last year, the slide Kiermaier made would have been viewed without question as a proper means of breaking up a double play. Now there is some room for interpretation.

“I wouldn’t say there’s a lot of confusion because we understand what by the letter of the law now is legal,” Mattingly said. “I think the confusion part comes from when like a slide the other day in Philadelphia when [the runner] goes totally out of the direction on a slide. They admitted it was illegal, but now it is the umpire’s judgement if it had any effect on the play. Once they start doing that it can go any direction.”

As for Monday’s challenge, which would have taken the go-ahead run off the board, he said, “I honestly think it was a legal slide. I was hoping that maybe the umpires would see it differently.”

Kiermaier Kevin