dvellison,

The catcher was <b>not</b> in the path between the runner and home plate. At <b>any time</b> during the entire play.

This can be seen clearly from the overhead and third base side camera views. The catcher set up to the pitcher's mound side of the plate with <b>both feet</b> entirely in front of the plate. His feet did not move until during the collision and his body never entered the path between the runner and home plate.

Other than that, I completely agree with your post.

JM

Coach,

The runner still has a right to dislodge the ball under these circumstances. You cannot use NF or NCAA logic to apply to Major League Baseball. The ball and the runner arrived at about the same time. Erstad dislodged the ball. That was his right to do so. It is really not that difficult to understand.

Peace

JRutledge,

Based on the ruling made on the play and the deafening silence from MLB, I find myself compelled to agree with your assertion (as well as that of the numerous others who posted in the same vein on this thread).

My post above was merely a statement of fact, not an opinion on the play in question.

It has become clear to me that in MLB it is perfectly legal for a runner to leave his direct path to the base to which he is attempting to advance (perhaps as long as he stays "within reach" of said base - which Erstad certainly did) in order to intentionally crash a fielder who is in posession of the ball in an attempt to knock the ball loose from that fielder so that the fielder cannot complete a legal tag. I used to think differently. I learned something.

I believe I was hung up on the phrase "...<i>unrelated to running the bases</i>..." contained in the MLBUM cite I provided in an earlier post on this thread. Apparently it means something different from what I thought it meant. Now I know.

While I no longer dispute the ruling made on the field, I stand by my previous comments regarding MLB and the NHL.

JMO.

JM

You are not offending me by the comparison. Pro sports are entertainment. Fans like to see the blood and the violence of many pro sports. Even the NFL (who always seems to try to be holier than thou) promotes the most violent part of their game. This is why you see the fights and the controversy lead every Sportscenter. Look at how many times the fight the NBA had in Detroit gets played. ESPN not only covered this play in great detail, they covered the many repercussions of the play that Erstad might endure and the aftermath of the retaliation. We do not get as excited over a routine play, fans get excited over the fights, blood and guts of sports. That is just the way it is and probably will always be.

Peace

JRut,

I certainly had no intention of offending you with my comments above, so I hope it didn't come across that way. I generally try to avoid offending people when I post (I said generally, not always). I come here primarily to learn - occasionally to help other people who are trying to learn. I think differences of opinion are a good thing and spirited debate can be quite constructive. As in this case, where I was wrong and I learned something I didn't know.

I agree with your comments about professional sports being entertainment businesses, the sensational is what the majority want to see, and the sports media tends to feature that which is most sensational and controversial. Such is the world we live in. I sometimes wish it weren't so, but I realize that it is.

Later.

JM

Re: Blocking Plate
 

1) Duh. 2) No he was not. 3) Yes, in MLB. 4) Horse ****. In any game with a malicious contact rule this was malicous contact. This was not one of those games.

DG--

dvellsion on #2 said "base path AREA" And yes DG, the catcher was in the base path AREA. At home plate, where Estrada was, thats the area.
Inches in front of the plate, turning to make a play AT the plate, is THE PLATE.
Those in the MLB community dont have a problem with it. Other players (excepting Braves players of couse, backing up their guy) officials, etc, dont have a problem with it. Baseball Tonite guys, players around the league, dont have a problem with it.
One, it was a legal play, and two, Erstad doenst have that kind of rep.
DG, I respect your view.

Collision
 

The point is that he doesn't have to be in the basepath between the runner and the plate. He WAS in the legal basepath that a runner may legally enter. This is the reason that this play would have been legal even if MLB had a malicious contact rule. It wasn't malicious with the intent to injure, it was contact to avoid being tagged out.

It is the runner's responsibility to do everything possible within the rules to score. This includes making contact with the catcher within the legal basepath.

Catchers should adopt the Mike Scioscia mentallity. When a runner was attempting to make contact, Scioscia met the runner with the intention of hitting him with equal force to avoid having the ball dislodged.

It's the same in all sports, when one player is in motion and one player is stationary, the player in motion always wins.

Coach
 

In response to Coach,

I do not particularly agree with comparing this collison to the fans wanting to see the blood and violence. I look at this play differently. I see a baserunner who is willing to give the game everything he has on every play. This is the type of play that should be rewarded, not the trash talking players who don't have that same team mentality and respect for the game. These players are getting paid enormous salaries and I for one enjoy seeing someone play with this type of mentality. I miss Pete Rose and his style of play.

And it's just friendly discussion, don't want to offend anyone and I'm not offended by any of yor comments.

Re: Collision
 

You are clearly unfamiliar with a "malicious contact" rule as this play would result in an ejection in any game that played with one.

Re: Re: Collision
 

And an out since the contact occured before the plate was touched.

Malicious
 

I would have to say that alot of people don't know the definition of malice. Malice means "with intent to cause injury". In this case it would mean that Erstad's sole intention was to injure another player. I can't see how anyone who has ever played any sport could say that it's not every players responsibility to make every effort to win on every play. That's exactly what Erstad was doing. Had Erstad not scrambled back to touch the plate, I might be willing to say he didn't care about the run and he only wanted to injure the catcher. I'm sorry, that's just not what happened.

Only a Braves fan would say that he made contact with the sole intention to injure rather than the intention of scoring a run.

THE ONLY PURPOSE OF A BASERUNNER IS TO SCORE. THIS IS HIS INTENT.

Re: Malicious
 

The Webster's definition of the word malice is irrelevant. The definition of malicious contact in a baseball context is, by necessity, an interpretation. And if MLB has such a rule, this would be the picture-postcard interpretation of malicious contact. In NCAA and in NFHS, this would be a no brainer ejection. In MLB, the reponse is a shrug by the umpire followed by a fastball to somebody's a$$.

How ridiculous
 

How can the definition of a word be irrelevant?

It's very simple and NO it would not be an ejection. No player should be ejected for doing his job. You cannot compare this play to a pitcher who "INTENTIONALLY" throws at a batters head. Your comment about pitchers throwing at batters is exactly the definition of malice, with intent to cause harm. That is exactly what malice should be.

Let me be perfectly clear, if the catcher does not want to receive contact, he should not place himself anywhere with the "LEGAL" basepath. He did so by his choice.

You can't change the rules because some people want to complain constantly about anything and everything that they think is wrong. That's why we have a rulebook. The last thing baseball needs is another rule that gives umpires the opportunity to screw up another judgement calls.

You guys go at it, I'm done. Thanks.

DevilRay,

Erstad play ok...MLB rules...I'm a Braves fan...Life goes on.

However, with malicious contact rules, here is the call. A forearm shiver to the bottom of the mask with a solid followthrough driving catchers head to the ground, removing mask, sending catcher to hospital, and dislodging ball, IS MALICIOUS CONTACT. PERIOD. Out, eject. No questions, easy call. Hell, it's a 15 yd. unsportsmanlike penalty in the NFL, with up to a $75,000 fine to follow. Go away with your non- malicious logic.