Gentlemen,
Let me just say that I am most certainly
not laboring under the misapprehension that baseball is a "non-contact" sport. I fully understand that while baseball may be an "infrequent contact" sport, at the MLB level, contact, occasionally
violent contact, is part of the game and there is properly no penalty when such contact occurs.
However, in some situations, contact between an offensive and a defensive player is, by rule, proscribed, and the offense or defense is penalized if contact occurs. We have Rule 2.00 Obstruction and the penalties defined in Rule 6.08. We have Rule 7.09(l) Offensive Interference.
Of course, this situation is not really addressed by either of these rules because of the simple fact that the fielder had posession of the ball at the time the collision/contact occurred.
But, there are certain principles behind these rules that determine when the contact is penalized or is considered "just baseball. If the defense is attempting to field a batted ball, the defensive player generally has right of way and if any contact occurs, the offense is penalized.
If the defense is not attempting to field and contact with a runner occurs, the defense is (usually) penalized.
Otherwise, as long as everyone is doing what they are supposed to do, contact is not penalized.
So, what's my point or question?
A couple of things.
1. At no point, during the entire play, was Estrada in
any sense "blocking the plate" from the direction of Erstad's advance. (I guess you could say he had Smoltz pretty well "blocked off".) That is, Estrada's positioning gave Erstad
full access to the
entire plate prior to and and up to the point in time of the collision. In the (in)famous Rose/Fosse collision, Fosse had the
entire plate completely blocked from the direction of Rose's advance.
2. As Erstad approached the area of home plate and saw that the throw was going to beat him, he
obviously and
deliberately altered his path so as to move
away from the path that would take him to home plate and
towards Estrada who, again, was
not in any way blocking his access to the plate. As he approached Estrada, he lowered his head and shoulder and threw a "forearm shiver" into Estrada while not even
pretending to try and touch home plate. As Rich F. correctly points out, he did not exceed the "three foot either side" tolerance from his baseline, but he certainly wasn't attempting to avoid a tag, so I'm not sure how that is relevant.
Now DG and PeteBooth suggest that there is no rule against malicious contact in MLB - and chuckfan1 suggest that this was not a "dirty play". I respectfully beg to differ with all three.
From the
MLBUM 6.1 Offensive Interference:
Quote:
"...While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.-to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the
bases. ... Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct. ..."
|
In my judgement, Erstad's actions were flagrant, intentional, and
unrelated to a legitimate attempt to reach home plate. Had Estrada been blocking the plate and Erstad had knocked the ball loose in running through him while attempting to reach home, his actions would have been legal in MLB. I understand that.
That's not what happened on this play. Erstad abandoned his effort to reach home plate in order to intentionally knock the ball loose from Estrada - after he had successfully done so, he then resumed his effort to reach home plate. Therefore, I believe he should have been properly called out for intentional Interference (per the MLBUM 6.1 section quoted) and ejected from the game.
To those who say "that's just baseball", I reply, "No, that's football, that's Lacrosse, but it's
not baseball."
I fear that DG's answer regarding the perceived value of catchers relative to "Marquee Players" is probably dead on point in explaining the ruling that was made on the field. If the hierarchy of MLB feels that the direction taken by the NHL is the right one to take for MLB, I fear that MLB's future may someday be as bleak as the NHL's.
I'm curious to see if Selig or Watson make any kind of statement regarding the play.
JMO.
JM