Master Index of Archived Threads


Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2013 05:36 PM

Major League Baseball Plans to Ban Collisions at Home Plate By BENJAMIN HOFFMAN Published: December 11, 2013 It is an iconic part of baseball: A player rounds third base, sprints toward home plate and barrels into the catcher at full speed. But now, baseball officials have decided to ban collisions at the plate to protect players from concussions and other injuries. The decision, which could go into effect as soon as next season, is the latest example of sports officials looking to improve safety amid a growing awareness of the long-term dangers of head injuries. Mets General Manager Sandy Alderson, the chairman of Major League Baseball’s rules committee, announced the plan Wednesday at baseball’s winter meetings in Lake Buena Vista, Fla. “This is, I think, in response to a few issues that have arisen,” Alderson said. “One is just the general occurrence of injuries from these incidents at home plate that affect players, both runners and catchers. And also kind of the general concern about concussions that exists not only in baseball but throughout professional sports and amateur sports today.” The details of how the ban would work have yet to be announced. For the plan to take effect for the 2014 season, it needs approval from team owners and the players association. It will be presented to the owners for a vote at a meeting on Jan. 16. If the players reject the change, M.L.B. can put it into effect without their approval for 2015. Collisions between base runners and catchers have traditionally been viewed as integral to the game. Catchers like Mike Scioscia, the current manager of the Los Angeles Angels, became stars based on their ability to block the plate. But a series of high-profile injuries to catchers in recent seasons has resulted in an about-face from some of the game’s most powerful voices. Perhaps the most famous home-plate collision occurred during the 1970 All-Star Game, when Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds ran over Ray Fosse of the Cleveland Indians. Fosse, a 23-year-old, up-and-coming player, sustained a fractured and separated shoulder. Although he made the All-Star team again in 1971, it is widely believed that he was never the same after the collision. San Francisco catcher Buster Posey, less than a year after helping the Giants win the 2010 World Series, was injured in a collision at home plate with Scott Cousins of the Florida Marlins on May 25, 2011. Posey sustained a fractured fibula and torn ligaments in his ankle that forced him to miss the rest of the season. After recovering from the injuries, he won the National League’s Most Valuable Player award in 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/sport ... .html?_r=0 [fimg=555]http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec034b4b8/images/30605FLPE101-2.jpg[/fimg][fimg=555]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0724/mlb_parker_300.jpg[/fimg][fimg=555]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/dam/assets/130409122629-00-josh-thole-single-image-cut.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=566]http://blog.detroitathletic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ty-Cobb-home-plate.jpg[/fimg]

Frayed Knot Dec 11 2013 07:49 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

The details of how the ban would work have yet to be announced. And as usual (quicker games, expanded replay) instead of figuring out what to do and then announcing it, MLB oddly decides to do things the other way around. I'd be in favor of a simple rule where a catcher allowing the runner an unimpeded path to the plate is off-limits to be hit while one who chooses to stand in the way without the ball is both subject to obstruction rules and liable to be run over by a large man with a head of steam behind him. This way it would be up to the individual catchers and teams to decide how they want to play it. I'm not totally sure why the league figures that they have to protect the players from themselves.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2013 07:56 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

What's a collision? Will all contact be banned? Does this mean that a catcher will no longer need a Ramon Castro type of body to catch. and that someone as skinny as Bud Harrelson would be a feasible candidate, assuming he, you know, could catch?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2013 08:01 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Frayed Knot wrote: The details of how the ban would work have yet to be announced. .... I'd be in favor of a simple rule where a catcher allowing the runner an unimpeded path to the plate is off-limits to be hit while one who chooses to stand in the way without the ball is both subject to obstruction rules and liable to be run over by a large man with a head of steam behind him. This way it would be up to the individual catchers and teams to decide how they want to play it. I'm not totally sure why the league figures that they have to protect the players from themselves. You left out the tough one: a catcher blocking the plate while in possession of the baseball.

Edgy MD Dec 11 2013 08:03 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Well presumably that body type is about more things than colliding. Besides, who needs another Harrelson in the lineup? Anyhow, I'm glad protections will be put in place before something happens to Anthony Recker.

Zvon Dec 11 2013 08:14 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Frayed Knot wrote: The details of how the ban would work have yet to be announced. And as usual (quicker games, expanded replay) instead of figuring out what to do and then announcing it, MLB oddly decides to do things the other way around. I'd be in favor of a simple rule where a catcher allowing the runner an unimpeded path to the plate is off-limits to be hit while one who chooses to stand in the way without the ball is both subject to obstruction rules and liable to be run over by a large man with a head of steam behind him. This way it would be up to the individual catchers and teams to decide how they want to play it. I'm not totally sure why the league figures that they have to protect the players from themselves. I could get with this^. No contact at the plate if a guy is standing in front of the plate is ridiculous. Forcing a player to slide in that situation is, also ridiculous, possibly dangerous in its own way. Hey, its a game where the goal is to keep the other team off the plate. People get hurt. Careers sometimes get affected or shortened. They get payed well to take these kinds of chances.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 12 2013 07:01 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

I think they're saying that you can't knock over the catcher in an attempt to dislodge the ball. That doesn't mean you can't come into contact with the catcher. If that was the case, then he wouldn't be allowed to tag you, would he? They seem to be saying that you have to slide into home plate feet first if the catcher is there, and that the catcher can't be there unless he has the ball or needs to be there to get the throw. My daughter's softball league had a similar rule. Anyone who didn't slide into home plate was out. (And that happened a lot because most of the girls in this particular league, at least, didn't like to slide.)

TransMonk Dec 12 2013 07:07 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 12 2013 07:21 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

That would probably lure Mike Piazza out of retirement!

Ceetar Dec 12 2013 07:34 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think they're saying that you can't knock over the catcher in an attempt to dislodge the ball. That doesn't mean you can't come into contact with the catcher. If that was the case, then he wouldn't be allowed to tag you, would he? They seem to be saying that you have to slide into home plate feet first if the catcher is there, and that the catcher can't be there unless he has the ball or needs to be there to get the throw. My daughter's softball league had a similar rule. Anyone who didn't slide into home plate was out. (And that happened a lot because most of the girls in this particular league, at least, didn't like to slide.) Yeah sounds about right. Making the game safer and avoiding dangerous collisions is a good thing, but I hate injecting more subjective calls in to the game. The umpires are going to have to decide whether or not a guy was trying to take out the catcher or not. And catcher's are going to start fielding the throw in front of the plate and flinging random body parts in the way of the runner without looking, that might not be safe either. I suggest third base coaches err on the side of sending a guy more now. And my gut says to position the catcher, standing, behind the plate to take throws. bigger target, easier to catch errant throws. Then just swipe down at the runner. But that extra split second of bringing the ball down from 6 feet rather than catching it at the ground is going to score a couple more runners.

Centerfield Dec 12 2013 07:37 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

I've never really understood the logic behind blocking the plate being legal. No third baseman ever tries to block a runner from reaching third. It's odd that one set of rules applies for the bases, then suddenly at home the game turns into football. I think the rule change would be pretty simple. Any catcher without the ball that comes into contact with a runner is called for obstruction. Any catcher, even with the ball, that intentionally tries to impede a runner's progress to the plate, should be called for obstruction. Any runner intentionally running into a catcher who has the ball in an attempting to dislodge said ball should be out. Bill Murray can play tough guy all he wants, but it's well past time to start taking concussions seriously. No athlete should have to live with an [u:1iu1tv7n]unnecessary [/u:1iu1tv7n]risk of concussion as part of the game. No matter how well paid they are.

Edgy MD Dec 12 2013 07:50 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

The rules are the same at every base, as I understand it, but the interpretation is somewhat different, and the umps allow for leeway. Any catcher without the ball that comes into contact with a runner is called for obstruction. This is as the rule stands. Any catcher, even with the ball, that intentionally tries to impede a runner's progress to the plate, should be called for obstruction. This would be where it's new. The understanding now is that in the first instance, the baseline belongs to the runner and in the second instance, it belongs to the catcher, even if he has the ball and is not in a position to make the play, and I think MLB hopes to go where you're trying to go. Any runner intentionally running into a catcher who has the ball in an attempting to dislodge said ball should be out. Right, but there's ambiguity that needs to be reconciled, such as when the catcher is up the baseline, too far away from the plate for the runner to enter into his slide, but fielding the ball at a point that's too close in time for the runner's intersection with him for the runner to give himself up by running out of the baseline or slowing up or something. There's got to be some mutual obligation here on the catcher --- to position himself as he takes the throw so as not to impede the runner's progress.

metsmarathon Dec 12 2013 08:47 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

so, what your saying is, that a catcher should be subject to the same provisions as a defender at any other base. is a first baseman allowed to take a throw to the bag where his positioning impedes the runner's progress? i know when runners are sliding into second to steal the bag, the covering infielder often has his feet astride the bag, where one foot or leg is in the way of hte runner (and likely when they know hte base stealer likes to slide headfirst into the bag, as most base stealers are wont to do). this, too, should be called obstruction. the runner is entitled to the base. the fielder's job is to tag him out before he gets there, not to prevent him from getting there in the first place.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 12 2013 08:49 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

I think this is a good rule. Can a runner barrel full speed into any other infielder. I don't think I've ever seen it happen. The goal is running him over is to dislodge the ball, right? The catcher doesn't even have to tag him, but just show the umpire that he held on to the ball? That makes no sense. I've been in leagues that treated every play at the plate as a force play, and I don't think that's the answer. But there's a big difference between some contact with a catcher and dropping the shoulder and head and ramming into him. Catchers get banged up enough. This is a good rule.

Ceetar Dec 12 2013 09:00 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Can a runner barrel full speed into any other infielder. I don't think I've ever seen it happen. I've always wondered why guys don't just barrel into to the SS to break up a DP. Or jump around and wave their arms as they run towards second to distract them at least.

Edgy MD Dec 12 2013 09:19 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

metsmarathon wrote: so, what your saying is, that a catcher should be subject to the same provisions as a defender at any other base. is a first baseman allowed to take a throw to the bag where his positioning impedes the runner's progress? i know when runners are sliding into second to steal the bag, the covering infielder often has his feet astride the bag, where one foot or leg is in the way of hte runner (and likely when they know hte base stealer likes to slide headfirst into the bag, as most base stealers are wont to do). this, too, should be called obstruction. the runner is entitled to the base. the fielder's job is to tag him out before he gets there, not to prevent him from getting there in the first place. Unlike the catcher, the unarmored fielder at first, second, and third has a material disadvantage to the spike-bearing runner in a tag play at the bases. If he lowers his unarmored knee in the path of an oncoming pair of spikes, the runner's progress would be delayed little more than a few microseconds, but if the runner is sliding with anything like a head of steam, the knee is toast. But I believe under current rules, the right of way in the basepath belongs to the fielder if he's in possession of the ball. Current (and longstanding) practice at the plate would certainly seem to be an abuse of that rule, which is presumably written to give the fielder the right to make his play, not the right to interfere until he can position his hands to make the play.

Frayed Knot Dec 12 2013 10:20 AM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

I don't think they should ban collisions, only those where the catcher is giving the runner a path to the base. A catcher without the ball leaves himself open to being run into AND should be flagged for obstruction. A catcher WITH the ball who is in front of the plate leaves the runner no option but to run into him, run around him, or essentially give up. But having the ball before the runner gets there also gives the catcher enough time to choose how he wants to handle things, and where catchers get into trouble is when they try to have things both ways (and the part of this that doesn't stem from concussion concerns stems from the Posey injury of two years back where he did just that) by catching the ball and blocking the plate at the same time, thereby leaving themselves open to getting steamrolled.

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2014 03:13 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Rule & wording officially approved. Nutshell: • A runner may not run out of a direct line to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher, or any player, covering the plate. If he does, the umpire can call him out even if the player taking the throw loses possession of the ball. • The catcher may not block the pathway of a runner attempting to score unless he has possession of the ball. If the catcher blocks the runner before he has the ball, the umpire may call the runner safe. • All calls will be based on the umpire's judgment. The umpire will consider such factors as whether the runner made an effort to touch the plate and whether he lowered his shoulder or used his hands, elbows or arms when approaching the catcher. • Runners are not required to slide, and catchers in possession of the ball are allowed to block the plate. However, runners who do slide and catchers who provide the runner with a lane will never be found in violation of the rule. • The expanded instant replay rules, which also go into effect this season, will be available to review potential violations of Rule 7.13.

metsmarathon Feb 24 2014 04:35 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

I'm ok with this rule. It basically works like plays at any other base. With the possible exception of second base, which is still a bit of the wild Wild West.

Ashie62 Feb 24 2014 04:38 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

It is a good rule for Travis d'Arnaud....

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2014 05:12 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

metsmarathon wrote: I'm ok with this rule. It basically works like plays at any other base. With the possible exception of second base, which is still a bit of the wild Wild West. Yeah I am too. Sounds to me like it basically codifies what should have been common sense all along: namely that if you don't have the ball you can't block the base - and if you go out of your way to steamroll a guy in the act of catching/fielding the ball (with little or no attempt to get to the base) then it's interference and you can be called out.

Edgy MD Feb 24 2014 06:23 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

The question remains, what happens to the catcher who places his body (or left leg) in the runner's path and he receives the ball an instant before the arrival of the runner, absorbing the collision as he brings the glove around to make the tag? This is the general strategy of the plate-blocking catcher to me. Technically he has the ball at the point of interference, and it doesn't seem particularly less illegal under that language than it had been.

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2014 07:00 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Edgy MD wrote: The question remains, what happens to the catcher who places his body (or left leg) in the runner's path and he receives the ball an instant before the arrival of the runner, absorbing the collision as he brings the glove around to make the tag? This is the general strategy of the plate-blocking catcher to me. Technically he has the ball at the point of interference, and it doesn't seem particularly less illegal under that language than it had been. "All calls will be based on the umpire's judgment."

Edgy MD Feb 24 2014 07:35 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Yes, of course. But I'm stating that this doesn't seem to necessarily provide the umpire with clearer guidance. The typical collision to me occurs where a runner in his natural path hits a catcher in his way with possession of the ball. That would seemingly still legally occur under these rules.

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2014 08:12 PM Re: Safer at the Plate: Collisions are Out at the Plate.

Edgy MD wrote: The typical collision to me occurs where a runner in his natural path hits a catcher in his way with possession of the ball. That would seemingly still legally occur under these rules. Certainly seems to be - as I think it should be. The purpose here should be to get rid of catchers being blind-sided in part because they think it's OK for them to put themselves in that position. Now, though, if the runner fails to reach the plate because there's a large masked man in his way without the ball then he's likely to be called anyway so there's no point in absorbing the contact. By the same token if the runner wants to plant the catcher just to make sure that he can't do a quick tag even though he's got a clear path to the base then he's going to be called Out so save the trouble. There'll shirley be some close calls that can go either way (our 'Syracuse fans can tell you about those this week) but it sounds to me like they got this one right at least in theory; much better certainly than the early stories (which were perhaps mis-reported and/or speculation) when this first surfaced about them wanting to somehow mandate out all contact.