Skip to content

Two thoughts about the elimination of home plate collisions

Dec 12, 2013, 7:48 AM EDT

In the wake of yesterday’s news that home plate collisions will now be outlawed, I have a deep thought: will players who used to bowl over catchers now be retroactively considered cheaters the way pre-testing PED users are? Like, will we hold it against them for knocking over catchers even though there were no penalties for doing so?

Just kidding.

But some people are serious about the topic. My exceedingly informal polling of Winter Meetings attendees last night shows that, at least among people in and around the game, the rule change is quite popular. Of the couple of dozen people I asked about it around the Winter Meetings lobby, all but one or two were sharply in favor of eliminating collisions. The couple who were less enthusiastic were still nonetheless in support of the rule change on some level — they acknowledged its utility and necessity — but offered some vague misgiving about not being able to see an exciting play like a runner knocking into a catcher.

The farther you are from the game, however, the more sharp one’s disagreement may be. Here’s an email I received last night:

I was stunned reading the headline of the Major League Baseball article about abolishing collisions at home plate. I started catching baseball and softball in 1952 and hung up my spikes in 1989.  I was run into many times over the years. It’s an integral part of the game.  It’s an exiting time for the catcher, the throwing player, and runner. What is wrong with Joe Torre? He caught for years and should have enjoyed the same exhilaration of the event . . . This new rule is childish. Today contracts mean more than risking your body. It’s an art for the catcher to end the collision play with success. If the players vote for this, they agree with me about their contracts.

That sort of thing makes me wonder if people think of ballplayers as actual people or as mere instruments of their entertainment. But I bet a lot more people feel that way about the matter than you think.

  1. NatsLady - Dec 12, 2013 at 7:56 AM

    Check Doug Melvin’s interview on MLB Tonight last night. He is against the collision rule, says players should use “judgment.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2013/09/06/nationals-minor-leaguer-brian-jeroloman-remains-hospitalized-two-days-after-violent-collision/

  2. largebill - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:02 AM

    What is everyone’s favorite collision? Favorite might be wrong word. Most memorable? The Rose at the All Star game is the most famous, are there other ones which jump out?. I remember Bo Jackson looking like a running back coming down the 3rd base line and sending an Indians catcher into retirement. I think it was Rick Dempsey on the receiving end of that meet & greet.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM

      Jack Clark using his forearm to barrel into Mike Scioscia, who gets knocked unconscious but still holds onto the ball. Eat it Jack!

      I am totally bummed about this rule.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:21 AM

        Booooooo!!!!

        /throws candy canes

      • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:38 AM

        Toss a latka my way. With applesauce, please.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:47 AM

        There’s no sharing in baseball.

        nom, nom, nom

    • gothapotamus90210 - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:40 AM

      AJ Pierzynski & Michael Barrett.

      “I didn’t have the ball, b-tch!”

    • dawgpoundmember - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:03 AM

      My most memorable for the sake of this thread is game 3 or 4 from the 2012 ALCS, Cruz throws out Cabrera and Napoli squats like a pedal on one leg so when Cabrera tries to run him over, Napoli just falls over and rolls, not taking any of the force.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM

        Mine is Kit Keller plowing into big sister Dottie Hinson for the winning run! Mule! Nag!

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM

      My favorite collision was the one a few years ago when Buster Posey got his ankle blown up and missed the rest of the season. My second favorite one was when Carlos Santana tore his knee to shreds and had to miss the rest of that season.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:20 AM

        Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance!!!

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:22 AM

        Hey, at least he got the sarcasm.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM

        Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance!!!

        Et tu Brute? Considering the last 15-20 comments are nothing but complaining from you…

    • jkcalhoun - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      Todd Jennings / Mitch Maier. You can read about it here, even though csnbaryarea seems to have lost most of the formatting of the original article.

    • cohnjusack - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      Lankford V Daulton! Ray Lankford scores the game winning run from second base…on a ground ball to 2nd! He bowls over Daulton for the winning run.

      • blacubed - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        Norm Charlton vs. Mike Scioscia is the all-time best.

  3. nyyankeefanforever - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:06 AM

    If by “far from the game” you mean those who pay to watch and follow it religiously rather than be paid to do so, count me in — and I believe the rule change is just another example of a trendy feel-good solution in search of a problem. I’ve never heard a player complain about this situation before. Penalizing runners and fielders for naturally converging in the course of play at any base is ridiculous; and imho this will result only in more games being decided subjectively and erroneously by the umps.

  4. pastabelly - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:07 AM

    I am very surprised that the Players Association hasn’t been out in front on this. It’s great that they are cooperating more on PEDs, but this also goes to player safety and they should be all for protecting their fellow members. It’s great to see the league (maybe just protecting their investments or concern about concussion lawsuit) actually out in front on this one. There have been smart catchers through the years who avoided collissions and still found ways to tag out runners at the plate. Carlton Fisk comes to mind and he had a very long career. When they do come up with a new rule, Fisk ought to be someone who they talk to.

    • nyyankeefanforever - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:20 AM

      The players union hasn’t been in front about this because there is no evidence collisions at home are any more dangerous than collisions at other bases. There isn’t a catcher in the game past or present who has said they want or need this kind of protection and many are expressing reservations, including our own Joe Girardi, Tony Pena. Jorge Posada and Yogi Berra. If a catcher at the MLB level doesn’t already know how to safely and properly protect the plate and make a tag on an approaching baserunner (who btw, often has no way of seeing or knowing where and when the throw home is coming) then his coaches and manager should be the ones who get penalized for putting him in harm’s way; not the baserunner.

      • granfergiachi - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:30 AM

        1. There are no collisions at other bases – you can’t run over the first baseman to get him to drop the ball.
        2. A lot of people in baseball, including former catcher/current manager Mike Matheny supported the rule change.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

        @granfergiachi

        1. Really? You don’t actually believe that, do you? If you’re standing 5 feet up the line in the runner’s way with the ball, he most certainly can run your behind over, and I’ve seen it happen. There is NO RULE against that. MLB rules 7.09, offensive interference, tell me where it says that no contact can be made in that instance:

        http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

      • granfergiachi - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM

        @mtr75. So the runner can drive his shoulder into a second-baseman’s chest to jar the ball loose and be called safe? That’s a play we see? Before the rule change the catcher was allowed to block the plate, and the runner was allowed to run into him. That’s different from a collision resulting from another fielder being in the basepath.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        @granfergiachi: “So the runner can drive his shoulder into a second-baseman’s chest to jar the ball loose and be called safe?”

        Sure, if the second baseman is physically blocking the bag.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM

        ” Before the rule change the catcher was allowed to block the plate, and the runner was allowed to run into him. That’s different from a collision resulting from another fielder being in the basepath.”

        How?

      • granfergiachi - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:10 AM

        @mtr75 – How?

        Because other infielders are not allowed to block the bag, and the runners are not allowed to try to get the ball loose. Remember ARod slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo’s glove? ARod was called out. At the plate ARod would’ve been able to run Arroyo over.

    • nyyankeefanforever - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:48 AM

      @granfergiachi 1) Of course there are collisions at other bases and they’re far more more common; only they’re at more oblique angles than at plate and result in far more injuries — and yes, you CAN run over the first baseman if he’s in the basepath. That happens all the time.

      2) Matheny has expressed reservations about the ability to apply this particular rule change fairly to solve the problem. There’s ways to deal with this problem — if it even exists — and this isn’t it.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM

        Thank you, finally someone with a brain. Of course there are collisions at other bases and of course you can run over a fielder with the ball in the basepath. To argue otherwise is simply incorrect.

      • nbjays - Dec 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        Funny, in 40+ years of watching baseball, I can’t recall EVER seeing a runner intentionally bowl over the first baseman in order to make him drop the ball. Unintentional contact because of a bad throw, yes, but not a purposeful body hit. And the “basepath” from home to first that the runner is supposed to follow is actually OUTSIDE the foul line.

        Another thing, how many times have you seen a runner caught in a rundown lower his shoulder and try to knock over a fielder trying to tag him out? Avoiding the tag is the way runners get out of a rundown, not trying to jar the ball lose by taking out the fielder? But, using your argument, this should be happening all the time because there is no rule against it.

      • forsch31 - Dec 12, 2013 at 3:01 PM

        You should listen to Matheny again. He wants to ban home plate collisions entirely, and met with Joe Torre recently to discuss it.

        http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130226&content_id=42009480&c_id=mlb

        “I’d just love to hear the rebuttal,” Matheny said, “because what I’ve personally witnessed was enough for me to change my mind. It actually took me a little longer ’till I got to the realization of the risk we’re putting these guys in — and the runner, too. The runner is stuck in a spot sometimes where if he doesn’t do it, he feels like he’s let his team down. Take it out of their hands. This isn’t a collision sport. There’s enough of a physical grind with guys being out there for 162 games. We’ve got the physical aspect of this game. It doesn’t need to include that one spot.”

      • cur68 - Dec 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        @mtr75: lol. Dude, do you even watch baseball? Its called a “rundown”, not “smash the fielder to kindling”. Basepath collisions are as rare as hens teeth. And, if the fielder is blocking the path to the base without the ball and such a collision occurs, the runner is called safe due to obstruction by the fielder.

    • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM

      “I am very surprised that the Players Association hasn’t been out in front on this.”

      Because they’re not the ones worried about the lawsuit, that’s why the owners are doing this. Notice they don’t give a rat’s behind what the players think.

  5. jlinatl - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    The important thing now is that the catchers are called for interference if they are blocking the plate without the ball.

    • nyyankeefanforever - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:35 AM

      The only problem with that is now runners are forced to slide whether the catcher has the ball or not. So if a throw is a little late or going to be close, catchers can simply wait for the throw a few feet further up the line where a slide is useless to the runner — and if he gets creamed, nothing’s lost and there’s a chance the runner draws the penalty instead of him. This is going to be a mess.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:13 AM

        Yep, more games decided by umps instead of players. That’s what we’re cheering about.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

        catchers can simply wait for the throw a few feet further up the line where a slide is useless to the runner — and if he gets creamed, nothing’s lost and there’s a chance the runner draws the penalty instead of him.

        Your antecedents are horrible. Are you saying that the catcher will wait further up the line, meaning the 3b path without the ball? Or up the 1b line? The former is interference and the runner is awarded home. The latter puts the catcher out of position to make the tag.

      • Francisco (FC) - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM

        No he can’t because the fielder will be called on obstruction since he’s not doing a fielding play. Going further up the line like McCann will only award home plate to the runner.

    • teefour - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:09 AM

      But will that really deter much of anything? The run scores either way… It’d make sense for the catcher to take the risk of being called for interference by blocking the plate with the small hope of somehow still getting the runner.

      Blocking the plate without the ball and interference is called = the run scores.
      Stepping away from the plate when the catcher doesn’t have the ball = the run scores.

      The penalty is 100% worth the reward. Interference won’t deter anybody. Immediate ejections for this type of interference would, however.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        I don’t get the reward. If he blocks the plate and the run scores, there is no incentive for him to have blocked it.

  6. greymares - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    It’s not about baseball it’s about money that in itself makes it a bad rule change

    • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM

      Exactly! This has NOTHING to do with baseball or player safety. This is about owner liability. Period.

      • RickyB - Dec 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        This is not about owner liability. It’s about the owners protecting their investments, like Buster Posey. If you have a great catcher and sign him to a $100 million-plus contract, you don’t want his knee getting blown up in a collision that is unnecessary. You want him playing as much as he can. Losing a great catcher to an avoidable injury is not good business.

  7. sdelmonte - Dec 12, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    I was on the fence. It felt just a bit odd to get rid of this one play. But that was a gut reaction. The more I thought about it, the more I began to see that in theory, a play that has limited effectiveness, and that is against other rules anyway isn’t really needed. I just don’t know how you police it effectively, but that will come in time.

    But what convinced me was that Pete Rose is opposed to it. And using the same “be a man!” arguments that I hear from former NFL guys. Old school blood and guts play might have a place in football. But it doesn’t belong in baseball. Yes, it was there back when players sharpened their spikes. That was then. This is now. And we are better than that now.

    So I am glad to see this one play banned.

  8. paperlions - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM

    I don’t think this rule will be any more difficult to enforce than many other baseball rules. Any obstruction or interference rule is tough to enforce consistently and effectively. The balk rule is horribly and inconsistently applied…heck, even the strike zone isn’t applied very well as umpires are willing to change the zone based on the current count. I see no reason to fret over this rule any more than any other rule in baseball. It should be just as easy to enforce as the same rules for any other base. No fielder is allowed to block access to a base without the ball, no runner is allowed to run over a defender in an attempt to dislodge the ball. The runner will just have to avoid the tag or slide at home, just like any other base.

    In addition, guess how many other leagues allow collisions at home plate. None.

    Not little league, not HS, not college, not in the minors. NONE. They seem to enforce the rules (which were already in existence) just fine at every other level, any one saying that somehow it will be harder for the best umpires in the world to do it is just being unrealistic.

    • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      Excellent point! Let’s make MLB like Little League. Six innings, the mercy rule, the works. It will be better for the health of the players. It’s the right thing to do, guys.

      • paperlions - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM

        Or, they could just follow rules that have been on the books for over 110 years and that were enforced until about 50 years ago.

        You have made zero reasonable points as to why a collision at home plate is necessary, justified, or even historically legal.

        Do you have a problem with making major league baseball like minor league baseball? Where collisions are also not allowed? Or college? Or the NPB?

        If collisions should be allowed at home plate, then there is no reason to not allow them on tag plays at any base, do you want to try to construct that argument?

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:27 AM

        @paperlions: “Or, they could just follow rules that have been on the books for over 110 years and that were enforced until about 50 years ago.”

        Show me the rule where it says that it’s not legal.

        http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/

        “Do you have a problem with making major league baseball like minor league baseball? Where collisions are also not allowed? Or college? Or the NPB?”

        Yes.

        “If collisions should be allowed at home plate, then there is no reason to not allow them on tag plays at any base, do you want to try to construct that argument?”

        They are allowed at any base. Show me where it says they aren’t:

        http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

  9. mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:09 AM

    It officially took less than 24 hours before the first call for eliminating the takeout slide at second, too. And so it goes. I hope you guys are still cheering these rule changes when MLB looks like coed softball. And for any of you dumb enough to believe this has anything to do with player safety, I’ve got news for you. This is all about ownership liability. But hey, it could have saved Joe Mauer last year, right? Oh wait, he got hit by a foul tip, that’s how he got a concussion. Well, we can fix that! Time to put the ball on a tee!

    And so it goes… Does anyone have a few extra pads? Today is a heavy flow day for me. Anyway, a round of Mich Ultras for the Giants fans in the house, it’s on me!

    • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM

      Boy, you really hate those women, don’t you.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM

        BORING.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:51 AM

        No, he really, really hates men. He thinks you’re nothing more than ignorant violent idiots and not acting like that makes you not men anymore. I think it’s sad, as I think men are better than that…well, except him, of course.

      • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:58 AM

        Yeah, I guess. Kind of like nattering on hysterically about a rule change.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:28 AM

        @historiophiliac and stex52: who are you trying to impress?

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:30 AM

        @stex52: “Kind of like nattering on hysterically about a rule change.”

        What about the guy who follows someone from thread to thread nattering on hysterically about their dislike of a rule change? At least I’m making arguments against the change and not just flailing about with ad hominems like you.

      • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:44 AM

        False. At no time in the last two days have I thrown ad hominems at you. I have commented negatively on the quality of your arguments. I understand the point you are driving at, while disagreeing that what baseball is doing is going to create any problems. Short answer. I think you are wrong.

        But I have not insulted you personally. And less you get a lot more personal I have no intention of doing so.

        Who knows? We may agree next time around.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        “But I have not insulted you personally.”

        Really?

        “Boy, you really hate those women, don’t you.”

        Ad hominem.

        “Yeah, I guess. Kind of like nattering on hysterically about a rule change.”

        Ad hominem.

        It’s funny how guys like you like to act all high and mighty, intellectually and morally superior, yet it’s you who’s insulting people instead of arguing the point. You actually have yet to even ONCE actually address my argument. All you do is insult me. Don’t worry, it’s expected.

      • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM

        Hey, Mtr. My latest reply is down a few.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:18 AM

      This is all about ownership liability.

      Let me guess, you’re not a lawyer are you?

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:21 AM

        Ask the NFL about concussion liability for former players. It just cost them, I believe, $765,000,000.

        http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000235494/article/nfl-explayers-agree-to-765m-settlement-in-concussions-suit

      • paperlions - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM

        Yeah, that is exactly the same thing. The NFL is liable because there is tons of evidence that they willingly ignored problems associated with head injuries and then constructed a committee with the express purpose of refuting real science that showed the long term effects of repeated head trauma, and that teams continued to ignore such effects for over a decade.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM

        Yes, it is exactly the same thing, and the MLB owners are worried about getting sued. That’s the only reason for this change. Notice it’s coming from ownership and not the players. Please tell you me you really think the owners are doing something for the players out of the goodness of their hearts. Seriously, please tell me that.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2013 at 3:53 PM

        Please tell you me you really think the owners are doing something for the players out of the goodness of their hearts.

        Know what’s better than [possibly] saving one run by having Posey/Santana block the plate? Having them play the rest of the season because they won’t get injured in a collision. That’s what the owners are thinking about.

        And you’re wrong about the NFL and concussions, as PL points out. The NFL falsified evidence, had a rheumatologist heading up their concussion committee, tried to discredit any doctor who criticized the nfl’s concussion stance, etc.

    • jkcalhoun - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:20 AM

      Hal McRae would be surprised to hear that the takeout slide at second hadn’t already been eliminated.

    • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:03 AM

      Give me a break. Characterizing an argument as “Hysterical” is about the argument, not about the person.

      And tell me you weren’t insulting women.

      I answered your arguments on several points yesterday. Today was pretty much a rehash. If you didn’t like my points, we don’t have to agree.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        Ah, so you have justifications for your personal insults! Now I understand. I hope it makes you feel better.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM

        “Give me a break. Characterizing an argument as “Hysterical” is about the argument, not about the person.”

        Your statement:

        “Yeah, I guess. Kind of like nattering on hysterically about a rule change.”

        See, this is interesting, because I didn’t realize that an argument could “natter on hysterically”.

        It’s pretty embarrassing when you get caught red-handed doing something you’re accusing someone else of doing, isn’t it?

      • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM

        Perhaps you should look up “ad hominem.”

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM

        “Perhaps you should look up “ad hominem.””

        Oh god, really? REALLY? I understand it’s really embarrassing for you to have been called out for posting nothing but insults, but please don’t actually try and argue the substance of this point as well. I don’t have to look up ad hominem, it’s an attack on the person instead of the argument. It’s a logical fallacy. And it’s exactly what you have done here over and over again. Get over it. If you want to stop embarrassing yourself just stop posting.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM

        Don’t feed the trolls. You’ll just get covered in poo.

      • stex52 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:47 AM

        No kidding, philiac.

  10. m3dman3 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:18 AM

    Stealing a base and intentional walks are eliminated next. MLB is so smart. (Sarcasm)

  11. mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:20 AM

    MLB rules, 7.09, offensive interference by the runner:

    http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

    Someone please show me where it says you cannot make contact with a fielder with the ball in the baseline. Because it doesn’t. “It’s not allowed at other bases!” Um, yes it is. If a fielder is physically blocking any base, you can run him over to get to the base. The alternative would mean that if a fielder has the ball and is between the runner and the base he’s going to, he’s out. Because (according to you guys) you can’t make contact with him, and of course you can’t run out of the baseline, either. So if the fielder has the ball and blocks the base, you’re out. Right? Wrong.

    • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM

      If the fielder is between you and the base with the ball, why would you run INTO the tag?

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM

        Gee, let me think, you’re on first and running to second on a grounder. Duh.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        Are you not familiar with run-down plays?

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM

        Are you not familiar with the fact that that isn’t a rundown play? All the fielder has to do is go to second base or throw the ball to second base. It’s not a rundown when the runner cannot return to the bag behind him. Try again.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        There, there, little troll. Go lay down til your brain clears. I think you’re dizzy from spraying all over this post. Have some soup. I put a little extra estrogen in it for you. You’ll be good as new soon and I’m sure your play-trolls over at PFT are missing you.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM

        @hitoriophiliac: “There, there, little troll. Go lay down til your brain clears. I think you’re dizzy from spraying all over this post. Have some soup. I put a little extra estrogen in it for you. You’ll be good as new soon and I’m sure your play-trolls over at PFT are missing you.”

        That’s what I thought. I even posted the link to the rules, and since you can’t prove me wrong or support your own argument, all you can do is insult me. And you call me a troll! Classic. Well done, my friend. Well done.

    • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      So 5 people have voted me down yet nobody has shown me where I’m wrong, even though I posted a link to the rules. Come on guys. Where does it say you can’t run into a fielder at another base? Anyone?

      • jkcalhoun - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM

        Yet again, you’re making a false argument. We’re all aware that MLB intends to revise the rules to clarify this very point. That you find the existing rules less than definitive on this point is completely consistent with that position.

        Whether or not such a clarification would be necessary to eliminate home plate collisions was part of the discussion yesterday. Some said yes, some said no; I thought yes, so on that point you and I agree.

        Whether or not such a clarification is consistent with the intent of the previously existing rules is yet another argument entirely. As several of us have already told you that we think that it is, while you and others seem to care less about that than whether it makes the game more boring or less manly or whatever, there’s no need to rehash any of that.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        “Yet again, you’re making a false argument. We’re all aware that MLB intends to revise the rules to clarify this very point. That you find the existing rules less than definitive on this point is completely consistent with that position.”

        Ah, so the main argument for this rule change is completely, 100% inaccurate? I thank you for your response.

  12. innout10 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    Collisions add excitement but the game needs to adapt and nobody needs to see their career end for the entertainment of those watching from the stands. This was a long time coming

    • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:29 AM

      Are catchers required to block the plate? See, I thought they were human beings, complete with appendages (legs) and a central nervous system which would allow them to move out of the way and give the runner a lane to the plate all by their big selves. Silly me.

      • dcarroll73 - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:58 AM

        Hey mtr75, sorry to deflate your narrative but that is exactly how Posey was making that play and nevertheless the jackass runner went out of his way to take him out. Frankly if you removed all the distortion of fact, macho insults, and bad logic from your posts, there would be nothing left but blank space (which would be a vast improvement.)

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        Ah, the ad hominem. Well done, dcarroll73.

        So, you guys say it’s already illegal; I ask you to show where, and nobody can. You guys say it’s illegal to run into a fielder at any other base, I ask you to show where and even post the link to the MLB rules, and nobody can. But what you CAN do is launch ad hominem attacks. Well done.

      • mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        Hey dcarroll73, do you want to show me again how Buster Posey was moving out of the way?

        It’s ok, just insult me again. It will make you feel better.

      • jkcalhoun - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:01 AM

        You’ve got him there, since that’s the very picture that shows that Posey wasn’t in the baseline to begin with, and therefore had nothing to move out of the way of.

    • paperlions - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:05 AM

      Close plays add excitement. Collision’s don’t add excitement, they just add worry about the health of those involved. That isn’t exciting.

  13. orangecisco - Dec 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM

    Yeah, I’m going to miss those awkward moments that bad baserunners have 2/3 way to home in deciding if they should slide or brace for a collision. Especially the ones that end up doing half of both and wind up sliding on their knees. 95% of catchers today prefer sweep tags to blocking the plate anyways.

  14. 14thinningstretch - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

    I guess coming out of a collision unscathed is an art, but so was throwing a spitter before 1920. I never found collisions that exciting anyway, and I’m glad to see nobody else is going to get hurt on a play that should have been banned a long time ago.

  15. icrew29 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    It is about time they protect the catcher. Baseball is not a contact sport, if you want contact play football or hockey!

  16. icrew29 - Dec 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM

    If a player is blocking a base you can run them over if you want and it is legal. Use you head for something besides a hat rack. If you run over a player blocking 2nd or 3rd base, what do you think happens. The player blocking the base will see he is about to get run over and moves out of the way and the runner continues past the base and is tagged out. That’s why it does not happen.

  17. mtr75 - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:03 AM

    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120830&content_id=37587242&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

    Wow, I thought collisions at other bases were illegal! How strange, the umpire waited to call the runner out until he saw the first basemen held onto the ball (0:36). Why didn’t he call offensive interference for running into the fielder? I just don’t understand.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2013 at 3:56 PM

      You really are thick aren’t you? They ran into each other accidentally, not because one was impeding the path of the other. Also, it’s a force play so Fielder didn’t have to hold on to the ball. As soon as he touched first base before Moose, he’s out.

  18. cardinalcrazy - Dec 12, 2013 at 2:46 PM

    I know there is a lot being said about players colliding with catchers and the new rule that MLB is implementing to prevent such a scenario. But to me what it comes down to for the most part is having catchers not block the plate. Not that I have any proven statistics but it seems logical that if a catcher doesn’t block the plate then most likely a collision wouldn’t occur. So maybe the rule should be that catchers do not block the plate, otherwise they are subject to a potential collision. A part of that rule could also be if a catcher wasn’t blocking the plate and the player still collided with the catcher, then he would be considered out on the play and subject to disciplinary actions according to MLB.

  19. jacksprat57 - Dec 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    I’m okay with it, but ONLY IF runners with whom the catcher interferes are safe by rule.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Final take away from World Series
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Pence (2269)
  2. M. Morse (2240)
  3. J. Panik (2157)
  4. Y. Cespedes (2132)
  5. M. Moustakas (2051)