Buster Posey’s awful injury last night has set off the calls for some reform — or some something — regarding how catchers handle the play at the plate. This morning another Buster — Olney — tweeted the following:
In the big-picture question of risk/reward, the play of blocking home plate, to save one run, is just not worth it. Not even close … MLB and the Players Association should step in and ban the play of a catcher blocking home. It’s just not worth it, for anyone involved.
I sympathize, but actually, there already is a rule against it. It’s Rule 7.06, which deals with obstruction of base runners. Specifically: you can’t. The comment to the rule speaks specifically to catchers and the plate. It says the following:
NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.
This is roundly ignored, of course, as catchers routinely block the plate without the ball. The key question here is what constitutes “fielding the ball.” Are you fielding the ball if your body is blocking the plate, the ball is bouncing toward you, 20 feet away and you’re half looking at it, half at the runner? How close should the ball be? It’s an area so gray and so subject to judgment calls that I don’t know how it can be enforced more strictly without all manner of madness.
And let’s be clear here: no change in the rule would have altered the play that injured Posey. Watch it again. While he didn’t catch the ball, the ball is to him and he’s turning to make the tag, thinking he has the ball, before Cousins makes it to the plate. In my view he wasn’t blocking the plate in a way that would offend even the most restrictive interpretation of Rule 7.06.
The better question — asked by Dave Brown of Big League Stew — is whether base runners should be allowed to barrel into catchers regardless. I think that’s a much better question, as I seriously don’t like to see the kinds of collisions we often see at home plate. My only problem is this: how do you ban it? The runner does have an absolute right to the plate, so you can’t easily make a rule saying “if the catcher is there with the ball, stop.” It seems like it would turn into some kind of judgment call in which whether the runner used an unreasonable amount of roughness or force is examined. That’s football stuff. And of course, it would soon turn into a debate about what kinds of slides or “slides” are acceptable and what kind are not.
I would hope that runners wouldn’t try to steamroll catchers because I hate that play. I would also hope that catchers wouldn’t block the plate when they don’t have the ball. In this instance, however, I am having a hard time seeing how it isn’t a matter of, hell, bad things happening, and I’m not sure any workable rule prevents it.
-
- Paul Zummo - May 26, 2011 at 8:55 AM
-
Why is that anytime something bad happens ever there must immediately be a rule change, or in a societal context a law change? Something bad happened – it doesn’t mean we have to overreact.
Also, Olney’s lament about it only saving “one run” is ridiculous on the face of it, even more so because this particular incident took place in extra innings of a tie game. But one run in baseball is very often the difference.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 9:28 AM
-
Because that’s how you make things better. It seems to me that taking a look at what actually happens, seeing what goes wrong, and trying to fix it is a reasonable way to do things.
Creating a system and saying “Whatever the system does is right no matter what happens” is pretty poor way to do things.
-
- Paul Zummo - May 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM
-
“Whatever the system does is right no matter what happens” is pretty poor way to do things.
That would be a poor way of doing things if that’s what I were actually saying. But there is a halfway point between reacting in a knee-jerk fashion and doing nothing. And sometimes doing nothing is the proper response to one unfortunate incident. We’re never going to prevent any bad things happening to anyone ever, so we have to ask ourselves if the change we’re advocating is really worth the trouble. In this case, what Olney suggests seems like a gross over-reaction.
-
- AK47 - May 26, 2011 at 10:18 AM
-
Banning the catcher from blocking the plate does not necessarily make the game of baseball “better” though. That’s the problem with the argument that “rules make things better.” Rules don’t always make things better and when you’re talking about changing something this deeply ingrained in the game, I would argue that you actually make the game worse. Plays at home, while sometimes dangerous, are some of the most exciting in baseball.
This is sports people, sports are sometimes dangerous and sometimes people get hurt. Preventing injuries should not (always) be the catalyst for rule changes.
-
- kmgannon - May 26, 2011 at 9:37 AM
-
A lawyer friend of mine is fond of saying “exceptional cases make for bad law.” In other words, blanket legislation to prevent infrequent, or unusual, occurrences tends to create more difficulty than it solves.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 9:54 AM
-
That’s probably applicable to a lot of things. In a lot of cases, the law may need to take into account more specifically what happens in most cases, but not by ignoring the unusual occurrence, but by making allowances for it.
The arrogant ridiculing of people’s problems as though it were morally noble to tell people to screw off is out of hand in our society.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM
-
I agree with what you’re saying here. In your original note, you only said the one half, which bugged me. If I misinterpreted your position, I’m sorry.
-
- Paul Zummo - May 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM
-
No problem.
-
- gr8fuldaniel - May 27, 2011 at 1:51 PM
-
You make it sound like this was an accident.
“…anytime something bad happens ever there must immediately be a rule change”
This was a blatant act of violence. The base runner had a path to the plate, with a slight reach out. The route he took may have ended a brilliant young career.
Yes, the act of violence was ultimately “legal”, as per MLB Rules.
Should it be?
Should we be teaching kids that violence is an acceptable remedy to getting what we want in life?
Thats exactly what we are doing.
Rules like this, and the environment of extreme competition in work and play sends a mixed message to kids.
I say MLB would be better off leaving violence to the NFL.
MLB will not be hurt if a base runner has to slide and reach for the plate.
-
- halladaysbicepts - May 26, 2011 at 8:58 AM
-
I commented on this in the Posey thread earlier, but I’ll elaborate further on my opinion. The reality of this (not written, rulewise) is that the cather is allowed to block the plate and sacrifice his body in any way possible to prevent a run from scoring if the play is close. The baserunner can either go around the catcher or steamroll him. It has been this way forever and is part of the game. The close play at the plate is one of the most exciting parts of baseball and I don;t want them fooling with this in anyway.
What Olney is suggesting is ridiculous. No change is needed.
On top of it all, Olney is a baseball non-purist to the 100th degree. I have read his opinions for years and this guy wants to change baseball as he sees fit to be different and create controversy.
-
- rebarratige - May 26, 2011 at 9:22 AM
-
“I have read his opinions for years and this guy wants to change baseball as he sees fit to be different and create controversy.”
Disagree with Olney, fine, but you have no justification for questioning his good faith.
-
- halladaysbicepts - May 26, 2011 at 9:29 AM
-
Questioning his good faith? Are you serious?
I’m questioning his opinion on this issue, as well as other opinions he has had in the past with changes he wants to make to baseball. He is known as a major progressive to change in baseball. If you have read him as long as I have, you would know what his positions are. It has nothing to do with questioning his good faith. I doubt Olney has much faith about anything in regards to baseball.
-
- rebarratige - May 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM
-
What I’m getting from this is that you have no idea what the term “good faith” in this context actually means.
-
- redstormstl - May 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM
-
His good faith? This is the same Buster Olney who reported last season as a FACT that the St. Louis Cardinals were in talks to trade Albert Pujols for Ryan Howard? That Buster Olney? He’s a tool. There is more than ample justification for questioning Mr. Olney’s good faith at every turn.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM
-
Yes, and the same Buster Olney who reported it as FACT that the Yankees had traded for Cliff Lee. His FACTS aren’t worth a used wad of Toilet Paper.
-
- rebarratige - May 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM
-
This would all be interesting and relevant if we were debating the quality of Olney’s reporting. Unfortunately, he’s not reporting anything here. So it’s not.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 9:34 AM
-
I don’t think it’s been this way forever. I read somewhere–i think Bill James, can’t recall–that there’s evidence that catchers have only been allowed to block the plate in the last few decades. When you read descriptions of plays at the plate before that, they’re quite different. At least that’s what I read.
And, of course, the rule clearly forbids what’s happening. It’s just not enforced.
-
- cur68 - May 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM
-
I agree. No rule needs to be added. Just enforce the ones already there.
Cousins should be fined/suspended; he had ample room to get round Posey, who wasn’t blocking the plate. Head first slide, wide of the plate and Posey needs to be Mr. Fantasic to get him if/when he gets the ball. Stupid to steam roll the kid; both of them could have been hurt bad. Lucky for Cousin’s REAL unlucky for Posey.
-
- jimbo1949 - May 26, 2011 at 11:16 AM
-
What I saw last night is only reinforced by the photo above. Posey is not blocking the plate and Cousins is taking aim at him to knock him out. Why is Cousins play being called a clean legal play? How is this different from Nyjer Morgan’s “dirty plays” from last year?
-
- spudchukar - May 26, 2011 at 1:10 PM
-
Cur, the problem is it is commonplace for the catcher to initially give the inside corner to the runner as he begins his slide only to then move his left leg to kick the runner off the plate. This is taught as the proper way to block the plate. Good catchers do it all the time. And it appears that this is exactly what Posey was attempting to do, but was a little late. It happens. I too regret the injury to a promising player, but in this instance I have to agree that “it’s baseball”, and I like the rule as it is enforced and do not want to see this exciting play erased from the game for safety issues.
-
- natters3206 - Jun 4, 2011 at 11:42 PM
-
I agree with what your saying completely. However, I do think if they really want to mess with the rules implementing some kind of a rule to prevent an injury when the catcher is in fact not blocking the plate could be helpful without sacrificing the close plays at the plate that have always been so integral in baseball.
-
- drmonkeyarmy - May 26, 2011 at 8:58 AM
-
Athletes, on the professional level, are paid princely sums to play a game. The trade off is they put there bodies on the line. While I don’t like to see injuries, they will simply happen. Where does this over protective treatment of athletes stop? Are we to ban take out slides at second? How about stopping outfielders from running face first into the outfield wall? As long as there is nothing malicious about the play at home (see Nyger Morgan) I don’t have a problem with it.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 9:42 AM
-
That’s ridiculous. We put in rules that can prevent injuries when they don’t harm the play of the game. To say that injuries will simply happen ignores that some are preventable. Some things can be helped and some can’t.
And by the way, all sorts of attention has been paid to stopping the kinds of injuries you describe. For outfielders running into walls, the composition of walls has changed, padding has been added, warning tracks have been put in, and all this has done away with a significant number of injuries without ruining the game.
Every rule change has had this kind of ignorant opposition. Batting helmets were ridiculed, because it let guys who weren’t tough play.
Here’s a quote from Harry Schafer, who played with Boston in the NL in the 1870s: “The game of baseball is being spoiled by allowing players to wear these abominations known as mitts. Players do not have to show skill in handling balls with those mitts in their hands. Those who cannot play without them should get out of the game and give way to those who can.”
-
- CJ - May 26, 2011 at 10:07 AM
-
If you have a problem with it fine, but if you’re going to go there, at least note that the catchers have a little protection. If you want to make the game safer, start with the guys sliding out of the baseline into the 2nd basemen to break up the double play.
That’s far more dangerous due to 1) lack of protection and 2) it happens far more often than these plays at the plate. I’m sure there are stat geeks somewhere that track this as well.
Arguing for changes to plays at the plate just because of what happened last night is silly. If there is a trend then fix it, but my guess would be this would rank closer to fifth than first in terms of what plays cause the most injuries in baseball. This is purely opinion, but I’d guess that outfield collissions (with teammates, walls etc,), breaking up double plays, headfirst slides, comebackers, and broken bats are each responsible for at least as many injuries a plays at the plate.
-
- pbannard - May 26, 2011 at 9:00 AM
-
I suspect Buster means that they shouldn’t be able to block the plate even with the ball – they should have to straddle the plate just like a fielder typically straddles a bag (and yes, you do see fielders occasionally blocking a base, but not to anywhere near the same extent as with catchers at home). It would still be a more dangerous play than at a base, because runners generally slide to a base, since it’s raised and will help stop their momentum, but they slide through home, since it’s not raised.
My feeling is that it’s not a bad thought, but it’s the sort of thing that will never get changed.
-
- hughhansen - May 26, 2011 at 10:18 AM
-
Of course that’s what Buster means. As Craig points out, the distinction of having the ball or not is so grey as to be unenforceable (and not that helpful, as Posey’s actions fall within what’s permissible).
Catcher’s shouldn’t be allowed to block the plate anymore than first basemen should be allowed to block first base.
-
- heyblueyoustink - May 26, 2011 at 9:05 AM
-
If the one run isn’t that important, then send the signal to the catcher to get out of the way…..and if the double play isn’t that important, instruct the second baseman or shortstop making the that getting the lead runner is not the priority, let the outfielders know it’s OK to stop at the warning track…..on and on and on…..
I’m all for progress, for instance instant replay, safer helmets, etc……but this is all reactionary….it’s a part of the catcher’s job, it’s part of the reason he gets paid….and a part of the fabric of the game…..unlike the whole chewing tobacco, alcohol in the dugout type of stuff and junk
-
- atworkident - May 26, 2011 at 9:09 AM
-
Pete Rose would say no.
That play was clean. He was in the way and got rolled over. Not everyone can be the brick wall known as Matt Wieters. Posey is listed at 220 but I think he was wearing his catchers gear when he weighed in. He is a smaller catcher which means a play at the plate will always be a risk. It looked like it hurt a lot but he’s tough kid. I just hope nothing is broken.
Since we are all about protecting players and making silly rules lets also get rid of sliding into second base. That way no one gets hurt trying to break up a double play.
-
- Detroit Michael - May 26, 2011 at 9:20 AM
-
This wouldn’t have happened if they had been playing “Mother, May I?” instead of that nasty rough game of baseball.
-
- Paul White - May 26, 2011 at 9:22 AM
-
Certain types of slides have been outlawed before because they were deemed overly dangerous. The Hal McRae rule against barrel rolling into second base to break up a double play springs to mind. So why can’t something similar be enacted for slides into home? Something along the lines of “While still on his feet, a runner approaching home may only make incidental contact with the catcher”, or words to that effect. The meaning being, you can slide any which way you want, head first, feet first, hook slide, whatever. You can vault over the guy. you can try to beat the throw by just running around him. But you cannot, with your feet still planted firmly on the ground, slam into the catcher, whether he has the ball or not. All runners are doing in that instance is trying to dislodge the ball, plain and simple, and there’s already a rule against that, too (See A-Rod, 2004 ALCS). Clarifying what constitutes a dangerous slide and what constitutes an purposeful attempt to dislodge the baseball from a fielder would seem to go a long way toward curtailing this sort of thing.
-
- tomemos - May 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM
-
Thanks for pointing out that there is precedent here—people too often think that safety improvements are a wholly modern development, undertaken by modern candy-asses, when of course players and owners have always had an interest in making the game safer.
-
- heynerdlinger - May 26, 2011 at 9:26 AM
-
What I’ve never understood about the barreling-the-catcher move is why that’s not considered interference. Rule 7.08(b) says,
“[Any runner is out when he] intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.”If the purpose of crashing into the catcher is to separate him from the ball, that sounds to me like a clear example of intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.
-
- calrulz25 - May 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM
-
I totally agree with Heynerdlinger.
Also, I think Olney’s point about the risk/reward of saving that one run is correct. If Posey misses a substantial amount of time (let’s say a month or two) then the tradeoff between Posey trying to make that play so they could save 1 run and win 1 game is not worth Posey missing that significant amount of time (in which he would likely produce at least 1 additional win for his team.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 9:32 AM
-
You’ve got a point. It’s probably allowed because the catcher gets allowed to block the basebath, but I think it might be a better play, and healthier all around, if plays at the plate were more like plays at other bases.
-
- heynerdlinger - May 26, 2011 at 9:38 AM
-
I just watched the video again and the runner clearly makes a decision about 10 feet from the plate to tackle Posey instead of trying to slide to the plate. He doesn’t even make a reasonable attempt to touch home. He just lowers his shoulder and tries to flatten the catcher.
At no other base is that kind of play legal, so why make an exception for home plate?
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 9:51 AM
-
Guys slide in differently to home plate too. As it’s not a bag, and it won’t hurt them. They slide into home real hard some times.
Anyway, I’ve been stewing on this for awhile. I do think bowling over a catcher is interference and should be an automatic out as a result. Try your best to slide around the the tag, but don’t just bowl someone over to knock the ball loose. See that last part i said? “bowling the catcher over to knock the ball loose”. If that isn’t interference I don’t know what is. As far as a man not holding a ball, or close to making a play, but is still blocking? Well I guess you have to bowl him over and it’s his problem. No matter which way you cut it it’s got gray areas. When there is no clear cut better way, I always resort to doing nothing. So I say leave it as it is, but I would love to see a rule to see a catcher in possession of the ball as having the right to block the plate without dealing with a 220 lb guy hitting him so hard the ball pops out and he scores a run anyway. He should be an out if he does this, he has to try to slide around the tag. I’ve seen it happen before, it works, and it isn’t interference.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM
-
Jonny, the difference here is that the catcher stands with his entire body in front of home plate blocking it. You aren’t allowed to block first base as a guy is barreling down the line, right? And if you do this between first and second, the runner is awarded the next base. If the catcher does it, it is allowed because it appears to just be an unwritten rule. When, like the A-Rod play in 2004, you knock the ball out of the glove of the guy tagging you, the runner is out. But if you stand in front of the runner and block his path to the base, like in a rundown, the runner gets the next base on interference.
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM
-
If the catcher has possession of the ball blocking “home plate” and the runner is committed, I feel this should be an out unless the runner eludes the tag by sliding around it. I think Home plate can have a different set of rules than the bases simply because it is home plate. I think any time a runner decides to lower his shoulder and cream the catcher this is interference because it is to knock the ball out by force. But like I said, there is an awful lot of gray area and i tend to say do nothing.
-
- redstormstl - May 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM
-
The runner also has the right to the plate and the baseline…not so in your little ‘I’d love to see’ scenario…you’re putting the baserunnner in a position to be injured avoiding your sainted little catcher…stick to resorting to nothing…
-
- cur68 - May 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM
-
I’m with J5 on this. There’s a rule in the books about interference and blasting into a catcher is interference. No argument. Enforce the damn rule. I’m watching baseball, not football, rugby, or Aussie Rules.
Posey wasn’t even blocking the plate; there’s plenty of room to get past him and it would have been safer for both if Cousins had done so.
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM
-
redstormstl, But the runner isn’t forced to run home, this is a chance he takes when he runs. And how is telling him not to bowl over the catcher putting anyone in more danger? That doesn’t even make sense.
-
- anotheryx - May 26, 2011 at 9:49 AM
-
The rule is there to protect the catcher, if they choose to ignore it, I have no sympathy for whatever happens to them. If that’s the end of Posey’s career, it’s his price to pay.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 10:47 AM
-
Ouch, that’s a pretty brutal way to look at it regarding this play in particular. Makes me wonder if you even saw this play…how was Posey blocking the plate here? He had his left leg in front of it, but a good hard slide feet first would have been just as good here and he would have beat the ball home by a millisecond anyway. 90% of Posey’s body was a good foot in front of the plate fielding the ball and as he swung around to make the tag, he was barreled in to. Now, if he were standing in front of the plate fielding the ball, then I am all for him being fair game. In THIS case, however, I think the runner was excessive and could have avoided contact by sliding around Posey’s left leg, which was the only thing close to the plate.
-
- ThatGuy - May 26, 2011 at 9:54 AM
-
I just want to throw this out there, but how is this any different than a play where a runner slides into a player to break up a double play? In both cases contact is being made on purpose, to break up a play and both risk great injury. The play early in the season where Nick Swisher(I think, can’t remember if it was him or not) slid into Tsuyoshi Nishioka without even going for the bag springs to mind. The comments there were all it was a good play, unfortunate that he got hurt type of things. How is this any different? Was it because its a star getting hurt as opposed to a relative no name? Both plays have been part of baseball for some time, and are both dangerous. Why no outcry then?
-
- CJ - May 26, 2011 at 10:16 AM
-
didn’t see this comment until I posted, but I absolutely, totally and completely agree. This is no different than the “headfirst slide” uproar after the Josh Hamilton injury. Give it a week and they’ll forget it ever happened.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM
-
What ““headfirst slide” uproar after the Josh Hamilton injury. “?
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM
-
That’s fine. Any discussion about whether this particular thing needs a rule is fine with me. But to dismiss discussion about it because “injuries happen” or to decide that rule making is a bad way to deal with problems, or to think that concern about injuries is overreacting, makes me question our morality.
In this particular situation, you may be right. I think the catcher’s play is a little different from the other bases because blocking the bases isn’t allowed, and barreling into a guy without sliding isn’t allowed. But I confess that that’s just how I feel about it. If there’s data that no more injuries occur per number of plays at the plate than at other bases, I’d buy it.
-
- CJ - May 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM
-
+1 and you make a great point about the HBPs as well, my opinion is there’s a laundry list of plays that cause more injuries than plays at the plate.
…and as a wise man once said: “my opinion is always fact.”
-
- pmcenroe - May 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM
-
Personally I don’t care if they keep or change/better enforce the rule. However I think we need to limit the scope of the argument b/c too many posts are comparing apples to oranges here. Example, SLIDING into 2nd to breakup a DP is different from crushing a guy at homeplate. As it currently stands both the runner and catcher are at risk on a play at the plate (I remember in 2007 Justin Morneau got knocked out for a few games after coming up spitting blood-lung contusion after a collsion with M. Olivio in FL), and since the tough guy mentailty rules neither of them want to give ground and be the reason their team loses a run. Because of this I can def. see the players union stepping in trying to make a rule change however I don’t actually believe it will happen.
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 10:35 AM
-
Bowling over a player to remove him from the ball is not the same as interfering and causing a poor or delayed throw for the DP. It’s not the same as taking a guys feet out either. Because it’s not done with the intent to remove them from the ball.
This is why I tend to say “do nothing” because too many other doors will be opened, and before we know it baseball doesn’t look or feel the same anymore. These guys are tearing into pitchers with the intent to harm them really. I mean no other result could be expected with how they are hitting them.
-
- CJ - May 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM
-
I’m not sure I follow your line of thinking. If the intent of bowling a catcher over is to dislodge him from the ball and thus causing the runner to be safe, and the intent of taking out a SS or 2B at the turn is to cause a delayed and/or errant throw to make the runner safe, then how are they not the same? Isn’t the basic intent to still remove the fielder (first baseman in the DP example) from the ball?
Just because one scores a run and the other doesn’t? Is that the difference?
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM
-
CJ, the intent of a “hard slide” on a base is not “to be safe by knocking the guys lights out” which is the case at home plate. The guy is already out, and is already committed to taking that base by force, so he has to slide and is trying to disrupt the double play, sometimes guys get hurt, but by percentage it isn’t bad compared to when a catcher is smashed into for the sole purpose of knocking the sh!t out of him so much so that he can’t hold onto the ball. I think they are two different things being looked at the same way.
-
- pmcenroe - May 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM
-
CJ to physicaly dislodge the ball and causing a delayed or errant throw are completely different. How are they the same?
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM
-
And the runner isn’t running by force at home, and yes, a run scores. So there are those differences here as well I didn’t add that above.
-
- CJ - May 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM
-
my point was the goal is the same, to ensure that a runner is safe. admittedly the action taken to get there is different, but both are cheap in my view. Of course I know the difference betwwen taking a guy’s legs and and going full throttle with lowered shoulder into the catcher.
also admittedly, one scores a run, and the other does not; and one is to ensure the own runner is safe and the other does so for a teammate.
I stand by my opinion that those differences do not invalidate the prior comparisons between the two, as the actions taken at their core are for the same intent: to ensure that a runner reaches base safely.
I may be dumb, but I’m not stoopid.
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM
-
Cj, your points are very valid. I wasn’t implying they weren’t. I do also feel the big difference between the two is the forcing of the runner to move to the next base. It’s an easy out so why not afford the runners the benefit to try to at least break up the dp. Plus it’s not as dangerous as the home plate “tackling” of the catcher either, which only happens when the runner makes a boo boo and runs when he shouldn’t have, again it’s not forced.
-
- The Dangerous Mabry - May 26, 2011 at 11:39 AM
-
So forgetting the double play: Can the runner lower his shoulder and plow into the shortstop in an attempt to dislodge the ball? Aside from scoring a run, this is exactly the same situation as a play at the plate. A fielder is receiving a throw while a player who is not forced is running to the base. Yet somehow, it’s not ok to attempt to destroy the shortstop, but it’s perfectly reasonable to mutilate a catcher. Doesn’t seem right.
-
- CJ - May 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM
-
J5, fair enough.
Dangerous: to your point, the same rule applies to both cases. For some reason one is enforced (or players for some reason know better), and the other no so much.
__
I still feel like this issue is being made bigger than it really is due to the Posey issue last night, very much like the Hamilton head first slide earlier in the year. Even with the rules being as they are currently enforced, I still think there are plays that cause more injuries in baseball that ought to be addressed first if in fact baseball were to go down this road.However, with that said, if the umps simply applied the rule as it is written in the rulebook, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
-
- Tim's Neighbor - May 26, 2011 at 12:15 PM
-
If you come in high on a double play you’ll get a ball to the face and you’ll get an interference call. Catchers aren’t throwing the ball. If someone is standing in the baseline, I’m throwing through them.
-
- indyralph - May 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM
-
I don’t recall seeing that exact play, so I’ll respond in generalities. There are some major differences that you are ignoring. One is that there already exist certain rules that govern how a player slides into the base. I don’t have time to look it up in the rule book, so I’ll paraphrase: the player must slide in a fashion that affords them the ability to touch the base (note there is not a need to actually touch the base if the player is already out, only the ability to touch the base). If Swisher did not have the ability to touch the base, then he should have been called for interference. It seems pretty straightforward to apply this rule at home plate as well. Second is that the nature of the play is different in that the fielder is generally making a force play where there is the possibility (and desirability) to get away from the base and the runner before continuing the play. If the timing of the play is such that a legal slide results in incidental contact, I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. At the plate, it is a tag play, so the fielder must wait for the runner. So it seems fair (or even more appropriate) to enforce a similar slide at home, rather than allow a runner to intentionally try to dislodge a ball from a fielder who has the right to the play. If the fielder doesn’t have a right to the play, well, then the runner should take what they have the right to.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM
-
If you want to say that you can’t barrel over the catcher, then you also have to make the rule that the catcher can not block the plate. He would have to straddle behind or in front of it and give the runner ample room to be able to slide into it. But catchers feel it is their duty to block the plate like a goalie in hockey, and when someone is coming in to score, if they try to slide feet first, they slide into the catcher’s leg. Then the catcher gets the ball and tags the runner. If you make it against the rules to barrel over the catcher, then you cant allow the catcher to continue to block the plate too. That would be patently unfair to the runner.
But all of this is BS anyway, because I guarantee more guys get hurt getting hit by pitches than the 2 or 3 catchers a year at most that get run over at home plate, and they aren’t making rules regarding hitting a batter are they? Yeah, sure you might get a warning after plunking 2 or 3 guys. But if they really wanted to “make the game safer” they would make it an automatic ejection the first time you hit a guy. Then I wonder how many hitters would lose 2 months with a broken wrist or concussion after being hit by a pitch.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM
-
I agree with what you say about runners. You’re exactly right. They’d have to change both the running and the catching to make it fair.
MLB has paid attention to batters getting hit. They’ve issued warnings, and they’ve allowed batters tow ear much more body protection. I don’t know if it’s cut down on the number of seriousness of injuries. It would be interesting to find out.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 10:41 AM
-
I will concede this though, after watching the clip a bunch of times, Posey clearly was NOT blocking the plate in the typical way a catcher does, and the runner clearly could have slid around the tag and avoided the collision. This was a case where, as stated above, the runner decided to bowl over the catcher early and Posey wasn’t even really blocking the plate at all. He was just fielding the ball and reaching around to make the tag. In THIS case, the runner was 100% at fault because Posey wasn’t even standing in front of the plate at all.
-
- Jonny 5 - May 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM
-
And should have been out. In my humble opinion. I just feel that in addition the catcher with ball should be afforded the benefit. He beat the play to home, if you can’t slide around the tag, you’re out, even if you knock the catchers head off and remove him from the ball. Then guys would at least try to slide, which should be the std anyway imo.
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM
-
Jonny, they will NEVER EVER EVER EVER make that an out call EVER. Not at Home Plate. It would be like the pine tar rule…the guy who barreled into the catcher would come running out of the dugout with those crazy eyes like Brett had.
It would be insane. Actually, I would love it. Let’s see it happen next time!!!!!!!
-
- heynerdlinger - May 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM
-
I don’t know… Take a look at the video (or even the picture in the post, for that matter), the runner had a clear path to the plate and he chose to plow his shoulder into Posey’s body instead. You can even see that the angle he’s taking in the still frame is toward the catcher.
The still frame above even shows that Posey’s not actually blocking the plate at all. His left foot is in front of the plate and he’s in the process of leaning over to tag the runner (with an empty mitt). The runner doesn’t know that mitt is empty, but Posey’s not impeding his path to the plate either. Are these conditions where it should still be okay to flatten a fielder?
-
- Chris Fiorentino - May 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM
-
See comment from 10:41 above…I agree with you 100% in THIS case. I don’t have any problem with this being a judgment call for the ump and if they ascertain that the runner could have slid into home without contacting the catcher, then he is out. In THIS case, the runner would be out.
-
- heynerdlinger - May 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM
-
Agreed. This is a bit of an unusual case in that the runner is really going out of his way to flatten Posey. If the catcher is truly blocking the path to the plate, I think the runner has the right to make contact with the catcher. However, this play is an example of where that rule interpretation is being taken too far.
-
- sportsdrenched - May 26, 2011 at 10:29 AM
-
Anyone stop to think what MLB Catchers think about this? After all, they’re the ones with the most at stake.
If they get together and decide some rule tweak is necessary. Fine, they’re the ones playing. If they say “Nahh we’ll take the risk” You have to respect that.
It irritates me when a group of people tries to decide what’s best for another group of people.
-
- Professor Longnose - May 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM
-
OK, good idea to ask them. But they don’t usually have a say. No young catcher is going to go to his manager and say “I don’t feel like blocking the plate because of injury.” They’d get punted form the team. So they don’t always have an opportunity. Sometimes someone else needs to bring up the question.
-
- sportsdrenched - May 26, 2011 at 11:00 AM
-
I didn’t mean bring their “concerns” to the manager.
Have the MLBPA some how, through some medium have a private discussion with their catchers.
-
- Joe - May 26, 2011 at 10:53 AM
-
Posey’s really not blocking the plate there, and Cousins clearly went for Posey and not the plate. Bottom line for me – if it looks like a football hit, it should be illegal and the base runner should be out. This was a bull—- play byo Cousins, IMO.
-
- pmcenroe - May 26, 2011 at 11:07 AM
-
I don’t particularly like the play but it was “clean” and given the current state of how catchers typically block the plate its difficult to lay all the blame on Cousins because he had to make the decision not to slide 10-20 feet up the line just guessing where Posey would be.
-
- Joe - May 26, 2011 at 3:11 PM
-
That’s simply not true. If you watch the video, you see that Cousins actually takes a less-direct route to run over Posey IN FRONT OF home plate. He didn’t weigh any option other than taking out the catcher to keep him from catching the ball. You can’t do that anywhere else on the field.
-
- tigerprez - May 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM
-
Perhaps after banning hard slides at home, we can also get rid of the demon known as pitching inside. Did anyone see Marlon Byrd get hit in the face last week? How is that acceptable? We need to amend the rules to ban all inside pitching, and any pitcher who hits a batter will receive a lifetime ban. It’s just too dangerous to be playing with these guys’ lives.
Also, we should change the baseball to a softer, less dangerous substance. Perhaps a whiffle ball? Or an oversized ping pong ball? We can’t have another Ray Chapman.
Finally, I propose banning of all booing by fans. It hurts people’s feelings, and that’s not what baseball is all about.
-
- The Dangerous Mabry - May 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM
-
I realize your sarcasm, but it IS against the rules to intentionally throw at a batter. Now if you’re running to the plate and there’s incidental contact, that’s one thing. If you lower your shoulder and lay a football tackle on a guy who’s standing still, that’s something completely different. There’s some inherent risk in throwing inside, and in running towards a base. But there’s a big difference between situations with a potential for danger, and intentionally attacking someone.
-
- The Dangerous Mabry - May 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM
-
Ok, if it’s ok to plow a catcher and try to make him drop the ball, how is that different than crushing a shortstop on a stolen base attempt? Send Prince Fielder every time he gets on first. When the throw beats him, he just has to lower his shoulder and crush the shortstop, and see if he can pop the ball loose. Same deal, right? If the shortstop doesn’t want to get hit, he shouldn’t try to tag the guy coming to the base.
Similarly, if the fielder on a steal of second tries to receive the throw standing in the basepath, that’s clearly interference, and nobody would think twice about calling it. In all other ways I think it’s basically the same play, except that in one case, it’s home, and in the other, it’s second base. But what’s the difference?
-
- seanmk - May 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM
-
simpe answer, no it should not be banned. huge reactionary move because the one time out of the hundreds someone gets hurt. The throw was bad and posey didn’t have the best positioning.
-
- churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - May 26, 2011 at 11:39 AM
-
Didn’t Carlos Santana lose last year’s season because of the same thing?
-
- pmcenroe - May 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM
-
Sure it may be reactionary, but its worth the discusion. I would have to disagree about the number of injuries though, most cases when a catcher blocks the plate and the runner doesn’t slide and there is a full scale collison someone gets hurt (although instances itself are pretty rare). I’ll see if I can find more examples but off the top of my head as a Twins fan I remember Torri Hunter knocking out Jamie Burke in Chi, Miguel Olivio hurting Morneau in Fla…
-
- kage10 - May 26, 2011 at 11:44 AM
-
And the studpid announcer says, “it’s a clean hit at the plate.” WTF Really? I didn’t realize that barreling into the cather with the clear intent to hurt him is allowed in baseball. There is no tackling in baseball. Even if there was a rule against it, it wouldn’t stop. And what are they going to do? not count the run? That’s horrible. Maybe the guys should be taught the current rules of baseball and try not to be so out of control. That Marlins guy didn’t have to barrel into Posey like that. It’s horrible. Ridiculous. But no rules, just maybe humane men playing the game, would help.
-
- scatterbrian - May 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM
-
There are aspects of baseball with a potential for injury, collisions at the plate, diving for balls and running into walls, breaking up double plays, or possibly getting hit by a pitch or a line drive. But they are part of the game. When I played, you were basically taught that catchers wear protection, and if you as a baserunner have the balls to run him down, have at it.
Curious what Ray Fosse has to say…
-
- astrozac - May 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM
-
Why don’t we just adopt some more Little League rules? No bats longer than a certain size, even if you’re a mammoth 6’8 kid. Pitchers can’t pitch more than a certain number of pitches.
It’s only when bigger names or name from the big markets possibly get hurt does the national media care…Hence Brad Thompson a few years ago when as a Cardinal threw a clearly errant pitch and either hit David Wright in the head or came close. Thompson got a nice suspension over it.
-
- bigtrav425 - May 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM
-
this is one of,of not THE most re GODDAMN dicolous things iv ever heard…so much so that im am refraining from commenting on this for now…have a great memorial day everyone..except for the jackass who thought of this article
-
- derpdederpdederp - May 26, 2011 at 1:24 PM
-
no need to address this issue, home plate collisions are an interesting aspect of the game. just ask buck martinez
-
- spudchukar - May 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM
-
There are a myriad of problems with a rule change. As I stated above, catchers are taught to give you the outside (inside actually) part of the plate and then kick you off of it as you slide to the outside part of the plate. Plus, what happens if a throw comes up the third base line slightly? The catcher wouldn’t be able to go after it in the rule change scenario, because he would be blocking the plate. Blocking the plate is the risk you take. No one says you have to block the plate. You have the option to take the throw in front of or behind the plate and then move, but these options are not ones that are acceptable at the big league level. I was taught to tag a runner who was trying to block you with his shoulder rather than slideing, hard, real hard up under the chin, but this only works when you get the ball in time. The catcher has equipment and most of the time has the advantage, but in rare instances the ball arrives a little later than antipated and the catcher gets plowed and occationally injured. The excitement that is anticipated when the announcer bellows, “there is a play at the plate”, and the results that follow typify those special moments in a ballgame, and in my mind to remove this action from the game, especially when it is a tying or winning run would do irreparable damage to the game.
-
- kage10 - May 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM
-
If Cousins would have slid or dove towards the plate, away from the catcher, the whole thing could have been avoided. Posey wasn’t blocking the plate. Horrible play Cousins.
-
- skipperxc - May 26, 2011 at 2:54 PM
-
Saw someone on Twitter bring this up, and it’s a good point: funny how there wasn’t this big of a stir when Nishioka broke his leg in the first week of the season. Random infielder gets hurt? Nah, no problem, it happens. But a star gets hurt? Hold the presses, change the rules! What bunk. I don’t even know where I stand on the rule change part of it.
