Apr 19, 2014, 10:10 AM EDT
While expanded instant replay in MLB has had some missteps in the early going, it has been an overwhelming positive for the most part. However, confusion remains about the new home plate collision rule and the new interpretation of the transfer rule. And it looks like something is going to be done about it soon.
FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal has the story:
The first, at minimum, would be a guideline in which catchers will be asked to give the runner a lane to the plate in their initial positioning, further reducing the possibility of collisions at home plate.
The second would be a less strict interpretation of the transfer rule, in which umpires would rule on catches the way they did in the past, using more of a common-sense approach rather than following the letter of the law.
Officials from the union met with MLB executives earlier this week to voice their displeasure over what constitutes a catch now that baseball has expanded instant replay, sources said.
Both sides agreed that certain plays are being called incorrectly, and MLB officials will seek to clarify what constitutes a catch in a conference call with members of the umpires union early next week, sources said.
It’s refreshing to hear, as both rules have been major sources of frustration this season and obviously need some clarification and/or tweaking. We have seen multiple instances of catchers seemingly blocking the plate without being called for doing so and the changes to the transfer rule are simply counterintuitive. By the way, here’s the latest example of the transfer rule in action.
Kudos to all involved for making it a priority to accomplish some clarity in the near future. We can’t have this level of confusion linger into the postseason.
- At least Hunter Strickland entertained us last night 0
- Royals even up World Series with 7-2 Game 2 victory 22
- Craig Kimbrel wins Trevor Hoffman Award; Greg Holland gets Mariano Rivera Award 5
- World Series, Game 2: Giants vs. Royals lineups 10
- HBT Daily: Are the Royals doomed, doomed, doomed? 11
- Giants inhaling the air of superiority after Game 1 7
- What’s in a name? “Big Game” James did not come up big for Kansas City 23
- World Series Reset: The Royals look to pick themselves up off the mat 8
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (129)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (121)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (112)
- PANTY RAID! Homeland Security agents confiscate unlicensed Kansas City Royals underwear (95)
- “The Kansas City Royals Are the Future of Baseball” — someone actually said that. (93)