Intent and Utley

So. The Mets just lost the second game of the National League Championship Series to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The critical moment of the game came in the 7th inning. The Mets led 2-1, but the Dodgers had a runner at second when Chase Utley came in to pinch-hit against Noah Syndergaard. Syndergaard was clearly tiring, and Utley managed to get just enough bat on a low change-up to line it over Daniel Murphy's head into right field. Fortunately the runner from second had to hold up to make sure it wasn't caught, and so didn't score. Then Terry Collins brought in Bartolo Colon to relieve Syndergaard, and he induced a hard ground ball up the middle from Corey Seager. Murphy gloved it and flipped to Ruben Tejada, a little off-line. Tejada had to reach back for the ball as he was shuffling over to the second base bag, and then as he was spinning around to throw the ball to first Utley slammed into him, knocking him to the ground and, it transpired, breaking his fibula. Meanwhile, since the double play hadn't been completed, the runner from third scored, and the game was tied at 2.

Ensued a truly bizarre sequence of events. While Tejada was lying on the ground in agony, Dodgers manager Don Mattingly came out and challenged the out call at second, on the grounds that Tejada hadn't touched the bag. Which, I think, he hadn't. But first of all it should've been ruled a neighborhood play, and hence not subject to review; MLB's claim that the throw pulled Tejada off the bag, and hence was reviewable, is nonsense 'cause Tejada caught the ball while he was still headed toward the bag. "Pulled off the bag" clearly implies that you are on the bag, and then an errant throw forces you to come off said bag. Second, I feel like you shouldn't be allowed to challenge on a play where your player seriously injured an opposing player. Of course, totally predictably, Adrian Gonzalez then hit a two-run double, and then Justin Turner drove him in for good measure, making it 5-2 Dodgers. That was all the scoring in the game.

My point in this post is not about what the correct disposition of the ruling on the play should have been. (Because that's obvious: it was interference, and should have been ruled an automatic double play, inning over, Mets still leading. That's not homerism; the announcers on MLB Network were saying the same thing.) Rather, I want to talk about intent. Because Chase Utley, after the game, said that he had no intent to injure Tejada, and his manager said the same thing. But you see, I'm a law student, so I know a little something about intent. The criminal law deals with different varieties of intent all the time. And if you use the criminal law framework to judge Utley, he doesn't come out looking good.



There are two elements to every crime, actus reus, or "guilty act," and mens rea, or "guilty mind." Different crimes define the required mens rea differently, and the Model Penal Code has what I think is a very useful mens rea classification scheme. The two lowest levels of mens rea are strict liability, a.k.a. the total lack of a mens rea requirement, and negligence, a concept with no clear definition but with an ancient pedigree in the legal tradition. Of more interest are the higher levels. Recklessness connotes a willful disregard of a known substantial risk that some harm would result from your conduct. Knowledge means that you knew the harm would result from your conduct. And purposefulness means you committed the act for the purpose of causing the harm. In general, anything above recklessness is considered sufficient for criminal liability.

So let's analyze Utley's claim that he didn't intend to hurt Tejada. And let's keep in mind that this is a guy who does things like this, routinely. He's had a reputation for doing this kind of thing for as long as he's been in the majors. When pitchers drill him in retaliation, he's just like, yup, that's fair. So what's he saying, understood in Model Penal Code terms? What's telling is the way that he and his manager talk about how the intent was just to break up the double play, which is understood to be a valid motive. But this is telling: it shows that Utley is only really claiming that he did not purposefully injure Tejada.

Which, I should hope so. (Of course people do purposefully hurt other baseball players during games; Matt Harvey will purposefully hurt Chase Utley if given a chance on Monday.) But I think it's also pretty clear that Utley isn't offering the slightest defense to a charge of recklessness. His purpose was to break up the double play, and in pursuit of that purpose he was more than willing to disregard the substantial risk of injuring Tejada. That injuring Tejada wasn't the point is itself beside the point. His team's winning this game was more important to him than Ruben Tejada's fibula; if 'twere not so he would not have slid like that. And to me that means that I don't give a shit about any of the rest of it. He slid in a way that was only explicable by a desire to break up the double play through means that could well hurt his opponent; if that's not the kind of interference that, under Rule 7.09(e), should result in an automatic double play, I don't know what is.

This is a travesty and if the Mets lose this series because MLB aided and abetted Chase Utley's reckless disregard of the safety of his fellow-competitors I will be outraged beyond belief.