Master Index of Archived Threads


Blocking The Plate

seawolf17 Aug 01 2014 07:46 AM

Marlins got boned last night on an overturned blocking-the-plate call: http://deadspin.com/blocking-the-plate- ... 1614363370 Side note: That run was unearned, thanks to an error on 2B Jordany Valdespin (HA!) that allowed the runner to reach base.

Frayed Knot Aug 01 2014 08:36 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

And that tag woulda/shoulda been the 3rd out, but then Cincy got a hit right after that and scored another run or two. Final score: 3-1 I no longer understand this rule. I liked the idea of it at first but that was back when I thought it was going to be different from what it has become. In this case, the catcher CLEARLY has the ball prior to the runner ever reaching home (he's barely getting to that outer circle) so I don't see how the catcher is 'blocking' him.

seawolf17 Aug 01 2014 08:52 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

And that tag woulda/shoulda been the 3rd out, but then Cincy got a hit right after that and scored another run or two. Final score: 3-1 I no longer understand this rule. I liked the idea of it at first but that was back when I thought it was going to be different from what it has become. In this case, the catcher CLEARLY has the ball prior to the runner ever reaching home (he's barely getting to that outer circle) so I don't see how the catcher is 'blocking' him. Exactly. And this was the exact play that they called Wright out on against Florida a few weeks ago and DIDN'T overturn it.

seawolf17 Aug 01 2014 09:14 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

Almost literally the same play. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.js ... mode=video

Frayed Knot Aug 01 2014 09:27 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

The Miami catcher is blocking the plate slightly more in this case than against Nieuwenhuis, but I still don't even think that's the point. The rule I supported (and thought was the one they implemented) was that if a catcher blocks the plate without the ball a runner sliding around, crashing into, or bowling over him was going to be declared 'Safe' even if he didn't reach the plate because of the illegal block. On the other hand, a runner crashing into a catcher who was giving him a path to the plate was going to be declared out (and probably ejected) regardless of whether or not he beat the tag. What we have instead is some hazily defined rule where if a catcher is between the plate and the runner at some point--but at what point?: when he gets close?; how close?; when he's halfway down the line?; as soon as the throw is made?--then the runner is safe no matter what.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2014 09:46 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

The thing is, the rule in place pretty much was what you describe, it just wasn't enforced, so rather than saying, "Hey, let's look at this thing closely and enforce it correctly to protect both runner and catcher," they wrote in this clarification --- which served to obscure instead. Because I don't know, I guess we can't read anymore.

Frayed Knot Aug 01 2014 02:17 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

From the game story on MLB.com: [Miami catcher] Mathis was ruled to be in violation of the newly instituted Rule 7.13 from Major League Baseball, which stipulates: "unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher, without possession of the ball, blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe." Oooooh-Kaaaaaaaay, but nowhere does it stipulate what constitutes "blocking" in relation to the location of the runner. The way it's been enforced makes it clear that the runner doesn't yet have to be at home plate, but how soon before? two strides?, six?, the moment he leaves 3rd base? Reds manager Price: "The throw clearly beat our guy, Cozart, and he was out by a fairly reasonable margin [but] the catcher from the inception of the ball going off the bat had taken away the entire plate. " --- Me: So? Reds runner Cozart: "I really didn't know what to do, because [Mathis] was in front of the plate ... It was kind of an awkward thing to not be able to slide or anything." --- Me: Oh bullshit, you could have slid into him, around him, or barreled through him because he had the ball by that point and had it before you even had to begin a slide. Oh, and the replay review took over six minutes, something we were assured was never, ever going to happen. 'No really, it'll be quick, it won't add any time to the game at all'

Zvon Aug 01 2014 06:56 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

I did get to see that play and as I've said before, by the letter of the rule, a review ump can do just what that guy did. Why he would want to remove the discretion factor from his thinking is beyond me. We all knew that the runner had the right to go for the plate in any fashion he saw fit (as soon as the catcher had the ball) and if the runner didn't, that's his fault. Too many players have no clue and I don't understand that.

Frayed Knot Aug 01 2014 07:02 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

But even Sandy admitted that it's a gray area as to when the blocking rule comes into effect. He specified "25-30 feet out", then added: 'or something like that', but it's exactly that sort of wishy-washiness that's getting everyone confused. Is 35 feet OK? How 'bout 40? Catchers are being called for blocking a runner who isn't close enough to be blocked.

Zvon Aug 01 2014 07:21 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

But even Sandy admitted that it's a gray area as to when the blocking rule comes into effect. He specified "25-30 feet out", then added: 'or something like that', but it's exactly that sort of wishy-washiness that's getting everyone confused. Is 35 feet OK? How 'bout 40? Catchers are being called for blocking a runner who isn't close enough to be blocked. I think an umps discretion can and should be a factor, but only within logical reason (and I'm more so talking about the field ump than the review ump-right now field umps feel they dont have to make the right call.- Or maybe they just don't want to so as to assure these extra ump jobs don't go away [I'm reaching there]). If the guy is rounding third when the ball gets to the catcher where he takes the throw should not be a factor. I know that's an exaggeration. If I was an ump I would not want the catcher blocking the plate if he doesn't have the ball yet and the runner is entering the average cutout area around home plate. But that would be me, so it don't matter. It's almost as if people in the game are trying not to grasp this rule.

Zvon Aug 01 2014 10:00 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

Zvon wrote: I tuned in to the game when Sandy was talking about the blocking the plate rule, and I missed most of that. Just got the very tail end. I'll have to replay that later- that sounded interesting. Just listened to this. I totally disagree with Sandy. And if he's on the rules committee it's no wonder no one knows whats going on. I was joking about a guy rounding third and having an open lane (at that point) and he was being serious about it. Did Sandy play the game? The business about the "must slide" was interesting. I think I brought that up before but I didn't know that it was set up that way in an earlier, discarded version of the rule. I don't think I meant what they did though. And I'm not saying I endorse this either. I was saying what should be banned is bowling over the catcher and/or going in elbows up or out, and a runner can have two choices. Sliding in feet first or wussin out ahd standing there and being tagged. In other words, only feet first sliding allowed. I'm not a fan of this way either but if their priority is to cut out collisions at the plate wouldn't that do it?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2014 10:09 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: I was saying what should be banned is bowling over the catcher.... But a catcher in possesion of the ball is allowed to block the plate. In that instance, a runner should be allowed to bowl over the catcher. If I was a catcher, and I had possession of the ball and there was enough time --- wanna know what I'd do? I'd sit on the plate and cover it with my ass. And then I'd put my throwing hand inside my mitt, to hold the ball firmly in place. Is that against the rules?

Zvon Aug 01 2014 10:56 PM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: I was saying what should be banned is bowling over the catcher.... But a catcher in possesion of the ball is allowed to block the plate. In that instance, a runner should be allowed to bowl over the catcher. If I was a catcher, and I had possession of the ball and there was enough time --- wanna know what I'd do? I'd sit on the plate and cover it with my ass. And then I'd put my throwing hand inside my mitt, to hold the ball firmly in place. Is that against the rules? I think this new rule is ridiculous and unnecessary. I even said before it's worked out some runner will break a leg because of a moment of stupid decision, or indecision. Of course a runner should be able to bowl over the backstop IMO. He's the backstop. His job is to keep the plate away from the runner. As the rule stands now you would be in the wrong. Somewhere inside the rule is a force that wants catchers to never block the plate, and always apply a sweep tag.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 02 2014 06:05 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

I disagree. It makes no sense to me that a runner can try to bowl over a catcher and not another fielder. Do you want someone bowling over a third-baseman? I'm not saying the rule can't be better written or improved. I just agree with the intent.

Frayed Knot Aug 02 2014 06:32 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

It's almost as if people in the game are trying not to grasp this rule. That's increasingly what it sounds like. Runners certainly seem to be treating this as a 'must slide' kind of mandate popular in weekend softball leagues, and because such an attitude effectively eliminates ALL collisions it's as if the league isn't interested in correcting that notion even though the rule says nothing of the sort. I was for this rule and I'm still OK with the idea of it but, like replay, implementation of it is a lot more complicated in practice than in theory. To me it should be fairly simple: 1) if the catcher has the ball he can block the plate and if he doesn't then he can't 2) blocking without the ball results in a safe call no matter the actual outcome 3) hitting the catcher who is NOT blocking results in an out call no matter what the actual outcome This all gives the catcher clear options. If you know the ball is going to beat the runner then you can opt to block the plate or to go for the swipe-tag. If you don't know know if ball is going to beat runner then it's best that you stay out of the path lest ye get steamrolled and, yes, steamrolling is still legal. Where they're getting hung here up is on point #2, specifically what constitutes 'blocking'. At the moment it seems to be interpreted as the catcher being on the 3rd base side of the plate without the ball at any point during the play - or at least at some un-defined distance that could be interpreted that way, or maybe in a different way depending on the crew inside the stadium or back in NYC on that particular night. I certainly don't think that was anyone's intent when they started but there seems to be no logical cutoff that allows for anything else. There was no chance of contract in this Marlins/Reds play (not before Mathis had the ball anyway) but now you've got folks talking about how the catcher's stance affects the thinking of the runner before he's even halfway home.

Frayed Knot Aug 02 2014 06:46 AM Re: Division Rivals 2014: The Miami Marlins

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I disagree. It makes no sense to me that a runner can try to bowl over a catcher and not another fielder. Do you want someone bowling over a third-baseman? There's actually never been any kind of rule that treats fielders differently than catchers in these situations. The differences between plate-blocking and base-blocking has always been more tradition than rule and other fielders have simply been smart enough not to physically block bases. Though obviously there's more than just smarts going on here, There's just little to gain for a runner hitting a fielder both because many plays at bases are force plays (they're out before they even get there) but mainly, unlike at home, the runner needs to retain possession of the base after the collision. Shit, if I were David Wright and saw big 'ol Yasiel Puig barreling in on me (and he's probably just the guy who'll try it) I'd just step aside while he rolls over the bag and then tag him out somewhere over by the coaching box.

seawolf17 Aug 02 2014 07:32 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

I split this discussion out so it's not lost in the Marlins thread.

Zvon Aug 02 2014 07:47 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

There might be another thread that should be added to this, if it was only about this subject. I knew we talked at some length about this somewhere else but it may have been in a thread not specifically about the topic. If there is could both be merged?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 02 2014 09:48 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

I should probably read the new rule closely before I post this, but I'll post anyway, uninformed or not: I can't figure out what's so new about the new rule. If the catcher doesn't have the ball, he can't block the plate. Otherwise he can. So what's so new? This is how it always was. Maybe the new rule was to get the umps to enforce the old rule, which they never did anyways, as far as I can remember. In the old days, a catcher could practically rip home plate out of the dirt and fling it into his own dugout and then put a wooden fortress made out of baseball bats in front of where home plate was to block the runner from tagging the plate which wasn't there anymore anyways and the umpire would stand there and do nothing like it was the commercial break in between half innings.

Frayed Knot Aug 03 2014 08:01 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I should probably read the new rule closely before I post this, but ... I can't figure out what's so new about the new rule. Rule 7.13 stipulates: "unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher, without possession of the ball, blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe." I too originally thought the new rule to be intended more as a clarification than a shift in thinking, but the way it's been enforced over the first 2/3 of the season certainly looks more like a major change.

Ceetar Aug 03 2014 08:40 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

I like Ron's solution. Don't try to kill people on the field, whether it's at home, or second, or wherever. suspend/fine them if they do so. i.e. homeplate collisions are now illegal. If a runner is blocked by the catcher, call obstruction the same way you would if the SS was standing in the basepath w/o the ball. The rule already got some blowback from 'traditionalists', perhaps it's a halfway measure, whether purposefully or not, towards simply banning collisions. It's really not that much different than third base anyway. Where does the third baseman stand when fielding a throw from RF on a first to third advancement after a single? The only difference I see is that a runner, perhaps, would need to slow up in order to not overrun the base, but that's why they slide. But it's exactly as effective (perhaps more) to barrel over the third baseman who already has the ball as it is the catcher and hope he drops it.

Edgy MD Aug 03 2014 05:22 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

The difference, as noted above, is that nobody's gonna barrel into a thirdbaseman, because after reaching third base, unlike home, you have to maintain possession of it. Somebody comes barreling into third, you step out of the way and get him after he flies into the coach's box. Maybe they can achieve what they want if they just make that the rule. You have to establish possession of home plate. Come to a rest on it. They'll slide like boy scouts, then.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2014 05:51 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

'Blocking' rule gets even more absurd. See: Giants/White Sox reversal from Wednesday afternoon's game. Ventura got himself ejected over this and I don't blame him.

Vic Sage Aug 15 2014 09:49 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

i think confusion on this rule is often expressed by those who don't like it. Unless I'm missing something, it seems fairly straightforward to me. Each time i've seen this infraction called, its been because the 3rd catcher set up with his foot outside the 3rd base line. So apparently if a catcher has a foot outside the line before he catches the ball and after the runner has rounded 3rd, then an ump may call it "illegal blocking" and the runner will be safe. So it should be a simple matter for a catcher to take an appropriate stance with his left foot inside the baseline as he waits to receive a throw. If he doesn't, he runs the risk the runner will be called safe, just like a 1bman who didn't have his foot on a base when he caught the ball. Once the catcher has the ball, he can block the plate and the runner can try to knock him out of the way. Once catchers get used to this, and adjust the way they set up for a play at the plate, and once umps learn to call this more consistently, this will become a non-issue and suddenly the rule won't be confusing anymore. And if it keeps one catcher from having his career cut short by an unnecessary collision, then it'll have been worth it, despite all the macho posturing from Keith and Ronnie.

Frayed Knot Aug 15 2014 10:05 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

So apparently if a catcher has a foot outside the line before he catches the ball and after the runner has rounded 3rd, then an ump may call it "illegal blocking" and the runner will be safe. It's this part that has me confused. First of all, I don't know that the rule says anything about "after the runner has rounded 3rd". IF so I think that would be a REALLY stupid over-reaction to Buster Posey's injury which is essentially what triggered all this. What I thought the rule was going to be and what I was very much in favor of was that if contact was made in the line prior to the catcher receiving the ball then that's on him and the runner is safe whether he beat the tag or not. And that if the runner made contact with a catcher who was NOT in the line then the runner is out (and subject to ejection and/or further discipline) even if he did beat the tag or dislodge the ball. But was it really the intent of the rule to flag the catcher for a having a foot on the wrong side of the 3B line when the runner is still 20, 40, 60, 80 feet away? IOW, I'm not confused because I don't like the rule, I'm confused because I don't know where the boundary is (or even if there is a boundary). It's come to the point where every manager who has a player thrown out at the plate immediately claims interference when no such thing that fits any definition of interfering with the runner's path has yet to come into play. It's like getting off on a technicality that in no way had anything to do with the crime or the arrest.

Ceetar Aug 15 2014 10:31 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

needs clear and concise guidelines and rules of enforcement, and public ones. None of this umpire discretion stuff. (like balks and checked swings)

Frayed Knot Aug 15 2014 10:41 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

There's always going to be some form of discretion to calls, that's not my problem here. But, yeah, the guidelines do need to be more concise. I just don't see it as 'blocking' if the catcher is in the line but the runner hasn't reached anywhere near him anymore than a 2nd baseman who might happen be in the line when the batter is rounding 1st is preventing him from stretching his hit into a double. If he STAYS there and alters the runner's path then, sure, but that's a different story.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 15 2014 10:52 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

They should draw a line in the sand. Literally. Only when the baserunner passes that line is the catcher prohibited from blocking the plate without the ball. [fimg=366:2f2rvcxv]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5568/14740917969_206667664a_s.jpg[/fimg:2f2rvcxv] (Can't figure out why my flickr pics are showing so blurry.)

Vic Sage Aug 15 2014 10:58 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

i agree that its a stupid overreaction, but its not confusing. It's the way they're calling it so catchers need to adapt to it.

Frayed Knot Aug 15 2014 11:38 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

Well it IS confusing if the rule doesn't say 'after the runner has rounded 3rd' or any other such specific point.

Edgy MD Aug 15 2014 12:18 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

As far as I'm concerned, if the catcher has ceded the "lane" at any point prior to collision, he's in compliance with the rule.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 15 2014 12:52 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

I would think so too. What should matter is where the catcher is when the runner arrives, not when the runner is 40 feet away.

Zvon Aug 15 2014 02:01 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

Say a catcher is in the "legal" position, both feet inside the 3rd base foul line leaving an open lane, waiting for the throw. The runner has rounded third and is 2/3 down the line as the throw comes in. The throw is right on the money, looking to land right where the corner of the plate meets the third base line. The ball arrives an instant before the runner. The way I understand the rule, now the catcher can't catch that throw properly. He can't have his body in front of it to make sure the ball doesn't get though to the backstop. He must stand to the side like a bullfighter, try and catch the ball and tag the runner as he slides (or runs) by. This is ridiculous. This is a country club softball rule the way it stands now. After the play the other night with denDekker, after the game he made a comment that was loosely: " I know you're not allowed to run down a catcher anymore..." He's a player and he doesn't even know what's going on. I blame the team in this instance- denDekker was going by what he heard in spring training ( IIRC he eluded to that)- as the season has progressed the interpretation has been evolving and a team should really hold meetings and discuss the rule to keep players more informed.

Edgy MD Aug 15 2014 02:12 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

The best way to protect both and still play baseball as far I'm concerned, if he can make the catch before the runner arrives, caveat auceps. If he can't, he better get out of the way before the runner makes contact. And if he doesn't, the runner is safe and he's tossed. If he's out of the way, but the runner still sees fit to initiate contact, then toss the runner and call him out.

Frayed Knot Aug 15 2014 02:25 PM Re: Blocking The Plate

Edgy MD wrote: As far as I'm concerned, if the catcher has ceded the "lane" at any point prior to collision, he's in compliance with the rule. Or if he, y'know, has the ball prior to collision. I heard an explanation which dealt with the catcher's placement "altering the runner's thinking" as he's halfway down the line as a reason why said runner should be called safe even though the ball beat him by multiple yards.

Frayed Knot Sep 10 2014 07:55 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

Not changing the rule just clearing it up a bit - or something along those lines. Major League Baseball issued an illustrated memorandum to all teams Tuesday in an attempt to clear up any potential confusion about the rules governing collisions at home plate. The key point, according to managers who saw the letter, is that common sense must prevail. Specifically, even though catchers are required by the letter of Rule 7.13 to allow a part of the plate to slide to, a runner who is clearly beaten by the throw should not be called safe on a technicality. ESPN.com reported that the letter instructs umpires not to call a runner safe if there is no evidence that the catcher has "hindered or impeded" the runner's path to the plate. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/93914144/ ... ision-rule Supposedly this "new" version of the rule dicked the Yanquis last night, although I didn't see what happened there specifically.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 10 2014 08:08 AM Re: Blocking The Plate

I saw the play and it's true -- last week, Drew would have been called safe. In fact the Rays' catcher was so "blocking" the plate -- really just awaiting the throw where it ought to have been made -- that Drew tried the unusual tack of sliding to the first base side of the plate. He was out. LOLDrew