The Official Forum - Erstad - Estrada Collision at the plate

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Erstad - Estrada Collision at the plate (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/20725-erstad-estrada-collision-plate.html)

well, FED takes this in account and penalizes it. But then, FED aint real baseball, right? ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by CoachJM
Tim,

Thanks for your comments.

I fear that your assessment will ultimately prove to be correct.

Yet, I foolishly cling to the naive and ill-founded hope that Mr. Watson has remained silent thus far only because he is in deep contemplation regarding the severity of the penalty that will be imposed on Erstad. Time will tell.

I'm quite familiar with the precedents regarding collisions in MLB play. This one struck me as a little different.

Sometimes I just can't help saying what I think. Besides, I'm more in it for the fun than the money - except to the extent that it "supports my habit" in acquiring rules interpretation books & such, of course.

John

Ever see a runner take out the second baseman in MLB? Ever seen a "malicious contact" call made?

I would hope that Mr. Watson knows better than to get involved, but is this day of feel-good, warm-fuzzy umpiring, it wouldn't be totally surprising.

Quote:

Originally posted by LMan
well, FED takes this in account and penalizes it. But then, FED aint real baseball, right? ;)

Right. And the thread is about the proper call in OBR, not FED, NCAA, LL, PONY, American Legion, Dixie, Babe Ruth, or Calvin Ball.

Again, as a Braves fan, I hope the proper penalty is dished out. Then Mr. Watson can begin his suspensions and fines, which will surely follow....

Being a hard nosed ballplayer, Erstad knows what goes around comes around.

That is WHY, specifically, I identified the term "real baseball" -- I was hoping to head off this type question.

But alas, that failed.

EDIT:

But, sadly, I fall into the same postion as Garth and in this feel good times of professional sports nothing would surprise me.

Let's hear it for Tim MCClellen totally screwing up an "overcall" last year and being a hero and Dale Scott getting his correct call over turned this week.

Ain't change wonderful.

[Edited by Tim C on Jun 7th, 2005 at 04:54 PM]

Quote:

Originally posted by CoachJM
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

My opinion is that you need to get out of the ivory tower and find some common sense.

Again, it's MLB. He hit the catcher. All perfectly legal at that level of play. Had the plate umpire done anything but signal "safe" there would have been multiple ejections.

Quote:

Originally posted by LMan
well, FED takes this in account and penalizes it. But then, FED aint real baseball, right? ;)

Don't make me say. OK, I will. No, it's not. The most pure of all rule sets is that which is played in the National League.

Erstad was not trying to hurt Estrada. Erstad is not that type of player. He has a rep around the league as someone they would want as a teammate, who leaves everything on the field. Some guys say it, but Erstad does it. I dont think there are that many players for that matter who try to "hurt" first, before other aspects of the game.
Erstad was trying to score, pure and simple. As he said, as he was approaching home, he had a split second to decide what to do. Estrada was starting to come back towards home when the collision occurred.
Yes, Erstad went at Estrada. Because Estrada was going to make a play on him. If Erstad goes in sliding, the percentages are weighed heavily in favor of the defense on that.
He goes in hard, better odds of scoring a run. All the hoopla was because it was a violent collision, and Estrada wasnt EXACTLY 100% Pi=Mc squared in front of the plate.
Geez, give it a rest Coach JM.
Erstad sees Estrada starting to come back, and realizes he has to try to knock the ball loose. And in doing so, he knocked Estrada loose. I bet when Estrada comments he wont say it was a dirty play.
Ive always enjoyed reading your posts, as your one of the guys who make sense in what they say, and say it intelligently. That was knocked back a bit when you posted this.
I cant believe all this commotion what was in reality just a good, hard play.
And of course, in the game tonight, first pitch to Erstad goes two feet behind him, and HP ump overeacts and issues warnings to both sides.
The Braces pitcher did what he was supposed to tonight in throwing at Erstad, just as Erstad did what he was supposed to do (within the accepted framework of the game) in trying to score.

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckfan1
Erstad was not trying to hurt Estrada.

IMHO that is the largest load of horse crap I have ever read on this site,and that's saying alot. He was not trying to score because he had access to the plate on a normal slide, and certainly on a head first, wide right slide with left arm extended. The fact that this sort of play is condoned in MLB does not make it right. It is incredible that MLB will not allow spitballs, but will allow this. Simply amazing!

Quote:

Save the whining and the "how baseball SHOULD be" for the paid site. I'm sure Carl would welcome an article describing how the All American Game would be played in your world.

Pete, why would an out not be called in LL? I am not questioning you, just wondering the rule citation.

Here is the rule:

7.08- Any runner is out when -

(a)(1) running more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged, unless such action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball; or (2) after touching first base the runner leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning all effort to touch the next base; or (3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag;

Seems to me that he did not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who had the ball and is waiting to make a tag.

[Edited by illini_ref on Jun 8th, 2005 at 06:48 AM]

DG: Use some common sense. Erstad was trying to score. And he tried to score by taking out the catcher. Why? The catcher was starting to swing around to make a play. As in my earlier post, Kruk (Baseball Tonight) hit in on the head when he gave the example of Darren Daulton, and how he used to deke the runner, so the runner would think he could slide, to the outside of the plate, with his left hand, as previoulsy mentioned.
Without actually knowing Erstad personally, from watching him play, from all indications over the years, from comments he has made, from his manager, teammates, other players, he is not that type of player.
As he's coming into home, Erstad is not thinking, "Gee I dont know the guy, but I think Ill try and cripple him."
Nooooooo, Erstad could see the best way to tip the scale heavily in favor of scoring a run, is to knock the catcher into tommorrow, so he cant make a play, or drop the ball, or miss the tag, or whatever.
In the process of doing THAT, Estrada got hurt.
With all the comments from the commentators, players (excepting the Braves of course) from ESPN, saying it was a clean play, I think their opinion has a bit more validity than yours. Or mine.
Erstad had two choices, slide (and most likely have a greater chance of being out) or take out the catcher,( and increase his chance of being safe).
Looks like he made the right choice.
Erstads reputation has never been questioned, this aint the play to start.

Chuckfan wrote

"And of course, in the game tonight, first pitch to Erstad goes two feet behind him, and HP ump overeacts and issues warnings to both sides."

No he did not overreact. Had he issued the warning at the plate meeting, that would have been overreacting. He gave the Braves the chance to send their message (Braves actually showed class and threw behind his butt, as opposed to his head, so even if he backed into it, he would not have been injured). He gave them one chance. Then he controlled the game by rule. If umpire thinks someone is thrown at intentionally (I believe this fits) both benches are warned, and the next time it happens, pitcher and Manager are ejected. If he doesn't issue that warning, Braves have a second chance and all bets are off, a mess will insue. Turned out to be a very good game.

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckfan1
And of course, in the game tonight, first pitch to Erstad goes two feet behind him, and HP ump overeacts and issues warnings to both sides.

So before the game, the PU is expecting whatever his name is to be thrown at.

The pitcher throws at him intentionally, and the PU issues warnings.

I don't see how you can have a problem with this.

chuckfan has never worried about the logic of his posts.

Let's see:

the ball went behind Erstad,

when questioned about it after the game the offending pitcher laughed,

all the Brave players commented on how good it was that the pitcher stood up for them,

the warning was exactly by the book . . . both teams

the situation, for this specific game, appeared to end at that point

yeah chuckfan, he really overracted.

Lah Me!