Home Plate Collisions Eliminated from baseball

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Thanks. I mean, that is the basic premise here in my opinion. There would be no plate collisions if the catcher were not trying to block the runner from scoring. Which, I know, is a time-honored tradition but really is not baseball if you think about it. More like football.

And I am a baseball traditionalist.

Absolutely right. That's exactly my opinion too.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I agree with this in spirit if not in detail. From what I have seen, collisions at the plate are caused by catchers trying to block the runner from scoring. That should not be allowed. Whether this would save the catcher or the runner from injury is immaterial; that's important, of course, but the principle is no base should be blocked, period.

So, the catcher (with the ball) should not be allowed to drop the knee to prevent the sliding runner from reaching home plate? I'm just askin'.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

So, the catcher (with the ball) should not be allowed to drop the knee to prevent the sliding runner from reaching home plate? I'm just askin'.

I really don't think so. Not if dropping his knee means blocking home plate. If he does that it's obstruction, at least according to the rule book, though not according to what umpires have been calling for the last 50 or more years.

I dunno, it's not like I'm absolutely against allowing the catcher to do some blocking. If you want that to happen, then for the love of god, at least change the rules to make it legal. I've never understood why the umpires and MLB just decided to pretend the rules on obstruction simply don't exist when it comes to home plate. Surely it'd have made more sense to just change the rule, or else just to to call catcher obstruction like it is?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

So, the catcher (with the ball) should not be allowed to drop the knee to prevent the sliding runner from reaching home plate? I'm just askin'.

Not in front of the plate, no. He's BLOCKING THE RUNNER.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by John Madden

Baseball Umpire Helper

So who was at fault here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i9aIjLcf-8

[Postman]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Not in front of the plate, no. He's BLOCKING THE RUNNER.

Even if he has the ball? I'm not sure that can be avoided without significantly changing the game. I'm not willing to go that far.

[abefrohman]

I disagree with the rule. If this was an epidemic and something that frequently happened every season, I could understand them wanting to come up with a new rule. However, the fact is that it is not an epidemic and the only reason why they're doing this is because of what happened to Buster Posey. This is all about money IMHO. If Hector Sanchez had gotten hurt 2 years ago instead of Posey, this rule wouldn't have even happened. Because the Giants lost a star player in Posey, MLB was concerned that they might lose money because Hector Sanchez doesn't sell tickets, but Buster Posey does. However, I seem to recall Posey recovering from that injury and winning a World Series the following year.


I could see it if it was a cheap shot collision at home plate, but this is part of the game and has been a part of it for over 100 years. If MLB really wanted to focus on an epidemic that was hurting baseball, they should have put their focus on getting rid of PEDs and guys who test positive for them instead of this.

[The Game]

Next thing we are gonna have is a Tee to hit the ball off of and ghost runners because people will be afraid of the 25 million dollar player getting injured. All sports have gotten weak.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Postman

Even if he has the ball? I'm not sure that can be avoided without significantly changing the game. I'm not willing to go that far.

I understand. As I said, I am a baseball traditionalist but my thinking on this issue has changed. When the catcher stands IN FRONT of the plate, which is the source of the collision that injures him and/or the runner, he is BLOCKING the base (plate). That is not allowed at any other base. Why should it be allowed at home?

Originally Posted by abefrohman

I disagree with the rule. If this was an epidemic and something that frequently happened every season, I could understand them wanting to come up with a new rule. However, the fact is that it is not an epidemic and the only reason why they're doing this is because of what happened to Buster Posey. This is all about money IMHO. If Hector Sanchez had gotten hurt 2 years ago instead of Posey, this rule wouldn't have even happened. Because the Giants lost a star player in Posey, MLB was concerned that they might lose money because Hector Sanchez doesn't sell tickets, but Buster Posey does. However, I seem to recall Posey recovering from that injury and winning a World Series the following year.


I could see it if it was a cheap shot collision at home plate, but this is part of the game and has been a part of it for over 100 years. If MLB really wanted to focus on an epidemic that was hurting baseball, they should have put their focus on getting rid of PEDs and guys who test positive for them instead of this.

All true except you are missing one important development in recent times, which is greater understanding of the potential severity and the cumulative effects over time of concussions.

[Postman]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

That is not allowed at any other base. Why should it be allowed at home?

But it is allowed at the other bases:

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. (Baseball Rules: 2.00 Definitions of Terms)

[Postman]

By the way, for those of you wondering about the obstruction call that ended game 3 of the World Series this year, the rule goes on to state:

After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

[BoSoxFan]

How would this work out? Will catchers be able to stand in front of home plate? If so, how are runners supposed to get there?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Postman

But it is allowed at the other bases:

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. (Baseball Rules: 2.00 Definitions of Terms)

Thanks for this. It changes my thinking a bit. True, if the fielder has the ball, he has the right to stand in the basepath to apply the tag. Blocking is incidental and not central in this case.

So let's turn this around a bit. We (I) have been focusing on the catcher as the culprit in this situation. Perhaps we should focus on the runner. What gives him the right to bowl into a fielder who has the ball (or is about to receive it) with the intention of negating the expected result of the play (he is about to be tagged out) and perhaps injuring the fielder as well?

Maybe that's the aspect at question here. Maybe that's why the rules need to change, even though this tactic has been a part of baseball since the beginning, perhaps.

Well, the danger of concussions is what is really driving this issue. Baseball players (with the exception of the catcher, who is armored and perhaps that is why if focused on him at first) are unprotected for such physical contact. With millions of dollars of contract money at stake, I can see team owners enacting this change for that reason alone while cloaking it as concern for player health.

[Postman]

The runner has the right to the base path except when a fielder has the ball or is in the act of fielding the ball.

There is one exception to that: during a ground ball (or bunt) down the first base line while the ball is still in the infield. In that case, the rules provide an alternate base path in foul territory which the runner is obliged to take. I have seen runners try to blow through a tag short of the bag at first, but it hardly ever works, and the fielder can easily avoid the contact and still apply the tag. Also, since the force is always on at first, a collision makes no sense when the play is at the bag.

At second and third, I believe the reason that bodily contact of the type seen at the plate is not an issue is that the path path takes a 90 degree turn to the left immediately after the bag, so a runner running through the bag to make contact is clearly out of the base path, not to mention that such runner could be tagged out on the far side the bag. Also, sliding into the fielder trying to turn a double play is indeed an effective way of breaking it up, so everybody slides.

The plate, then, is a little different than the other bases because there is no guarantee of a force (unless the bases were loaded) and the runner can run through the "bag" and still be considered safe. I think that leads to the big collisions.

I posted the NCAA solution earlier in this thread which is to require the runner either to avoid contact or slide when the catcher has the ball, thereby rescinding the runner's right to the base path, which before was inviolate.

I don't like it, but it may be the only way.

If I can live with hybrid icing, I guess I can live with that.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by abefrohman

I disagree with the rule. If this was an epidemic and something that frequently happened every season, I could understand them wanting to come up with a new rule. However, the fact is that it is not an epidemic and the only reason why they're doing this is because of what happened to Buster Posey. This is all about money IMHO. If Hector Sanchez had gotten hurt 2 years ago instead of Posey, this rule wouldn't have even happened.

Exactly.

[Postman]

Originally Posted by abefrohman

This is all about money IMHO.

I can tell you for sure that it's not. This has been an issue since I was a boy, before the free agent era.

I'm not joking. I never thought I'd see the day.