Just saw the replay of this on Sportscenter when they were showing highlights of the Braves/Angels game.

Can anyone help me understand why this is a legal play by Erstad, even in MLB?

This one strikes me as a different animal that the famous Rose - Fosse collision because in this case, Erstad left his path to home and clearly intended to <b>take out</b> Estrada rather than reach home plate.

If A-Rod gets called out for slapping the ball out of an F3's hand on a tag attempt, why is this not ruled offensive interference?

Thanks.

JM

It's legal because there is no rule against malicious contact in MLB. I see no difference between this play and the Rose/Fosse play, in that the intent of the runner was malicious, no attempt to reach the base, but only to injure the catcher.

DG,

I believe there is a material difference. In the Rose/Fosse play, Fosse was actually in between Rose and the plate. He <b>had</b> to go through him to get to the plate.

In this play, Estrada is set up in front of (i.e. to the pitcher's mound side of) the plate and is <b>not</b> in between Erstad and the plate. Erstad changes his path to move away from the plate and into Estrada in what appears to be an intentional move to knock the ball loose while making <b>no effort</b> to touch the plate - until <b>after</b> he had take out Estrada.

JM

Rose made no attempt to reach the plate. He could have slid to try to knock Fosse off his feet, or tried to slide by him and reach out for the plate. He saw his path was blocked and his intent was to knock the ball away from Fosse, even if he had to injure him to do so. Where they were set up has nothing to do with this. Both were malicious collisions.

I can only assume that major league catchers, as a group, do not make enough money for owners, and/or the players association, to be concerned about losing this valuable commmodity and insist that the rules be changed. Perhaps the college rule would save some catcher's careers (ie Fosse), or at least not put them on the disabled list for a period of time. Can you imagine paying A-Rod money to a catcher and having the prospect of losing him to malicous contact? Can you imagine some of the best pitchers in the game being subjected to this, ie Clemens, Johnson, Maddux. What if one of these guys was covering home on a pass ball, and a runner from 3B ran them over with malicious intent? Would the rules change? It seems acceptable in MLB to run over catchers, and possibly end their careers. It is simply amazing to me!!

[Edited by DG on Jun 7th, 2005 at 01:07 AM]

Nothing dirty about this play. Just good old fashioned hard ball.
First, Erstad does everything balls out, whether diving for a ball, coming into home, or eating soup.
Yes, he went at Estrada. But Estrada was receiving the ball, and was turning back to (dropping down low) to make a play on Erstad.
As they said on Baseball Tonight, they all agreed nothing wrong with the play. Kruk said thats what Darren Daulton used to do on the Phillies. Daulton would give the appearance of "giving" one side of the plate to the runner, as he was receiving the ball, and coming down to make a play.
Then would quickly drop down and block that part and not let the runner in.
I could see maybe it being perceived as dirty had Estrada not started turning towards home. But Estrada (when the collision happenned) was turned close enough to the plate that Erstad was ok to take a shot to knock the ball loose. Which he did.
Plus, as mentioned on Baseball Tonight, Better Erstad went up high, than go at his knees.
The only reason Erstad went at Estrada was Erstad could see the ball was going to beat him. Otherwise, Erstad slides in, most likely an out.
As we all know, sometimes in Baseball, minor contact is something. And a "train wreck" is nothing. This was Amtrak meeting a wall.
Hard play? Yes. Dirty? No.

<i> Originally posted by CoachJM

Just saw the replay of this on Sportscenter when they were showing highlights of the Braves/Angels game.

Can anyone help me understand why this is a legal play by Erstad, even in MLB?

This one strikes me as a different animal that the famous Rose - Fosse collision because in this case, Erstad left his path to home and clearly intended to <b>take out</b> Estrada rather than reach home plate. </i>

Coach in watching that collision you now know why amateur leagues have the safety rules and why the NCAA changed their ruling on Obstruction.

In major league baseball when you block a base, get ready. When F2 blocks the plate he better get ready for a collision. I have seen it go the "other way" also, meaning F2 knew the runner was going to try and "take him out" and when all was "said and done" the runner was the one lying on his back in pain.

In addition, there is no malicious contact rule in major league baseball.

Side Note: for those who think LL is safety conscious, the aforemetnioned play would have been leagal in a LL game. The player would get ejected, but the run counts.

In FED/NCAA - We have an out and an EJ. The reason for the out is that Erstad Maliciously Contacted Estrada BEFORE he touched home plate.


Pete Booth

He hit a catcher with the ball who was waiting to make a tag. He did not go out of his three feet baseline to do so. This is Major League Baseball. Exactly what is the problem? He didn't reach for the glove like A-Rod, he just lowered his shoulder and hit the catcher.

So, if A-Rod would have lowered his shoulder, stayed within 3 feet of his established running lane and plowed over the pitcher, it would have been legal?

I viewed the play over and over and even though Erstad went for Estrada rather than the plate, it was not against any MLB rule. I did not see the game, but I hope that the first pitch to Erstad was in his ear! You see, while it may be okay in MLB to intentionaly take out F1, so is "what comes around, goes around".

This is what FED, NCAA and Babe Ruth try to avoid with Malicious Contact rules and FPSR. Amateur coaches that insist on this type of play should be forced to put on the gear and stand in the path of a guy like Erstad without the benefit of an MLB catcher's paycheck. I'm willing to bet that none of them would even stand their ground in a situation like this.

Yes.

You remember the Albert Belle vs. Fernando Vina incident a few years ago. Belle wasn't called out.

What very few people know about that incident is that in Belle's prior at bat, he had the same play happen, and he just stopped, let himself be tagged and Vina completed the double play. He got his a$$ chewed by his coach for that.

Next at bat, same exact thing happens, except this time Belle plows Vina.

The rest, as they say, is history...

Gentlemen,

Let me just say that I am most certainly <b>not</b> 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 <b>violent</b> 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 <b>any sense</b> "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 <b>full access</b> to the <b>entire</b> plate prior to and and up to the point in time of the collision. In the (in)famous Rose/Fosse collision, Fosse had the <b>entire</b> 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 <b>obviously</b> and <b>deliberately</b> altered his path so as to move <b>away</b> from the path that would take him to home plate and <b>towards</b> Estrada who, again, was <b>not</b> 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 <b>pretending</b> 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 <b>MLBUM 6.1 Offensive Interference</b>:

In my judgement, Erstad's actions were flagrant, intentional, and <b>unrelated to a legitimate attempt to reach home plate</b>. 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 <b>not</b> 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

I'm a Braves fan. Play legal. Bush in the fact he went for the jaw as opposed to the body, but perfectly legal. These are the big leagues, and crap happens. The play happened in the 8th inning, so Erstad hasn't batted yet. Depending on who is starting, and how pissed they are, he may get plunked more than once tonight. They may go for the head until they hit him in the head. They may plunk him once and be done with it. Just depends on what kind of control is shown by the Braves. Umpires may issue warnings at plate meeting. It would be prudent in this case, because replays indicate Erstad was trying to hurt Estrada, as opposed to just jarring ball loose. Since these teams may not meet again for a few years (barring World Series) you can bet Braves won't wait til next time for paybacks. The next two games will be quite interesting.
Edited to add...

Braves have been in a funk for the last couple of weeks so Bobby may go ahead and plan a vacation and let the chips fall where they may.

[Edited by TBBlue on Jun 7th, 2005 at 02:10 PM]

As with many coaches, you seem to be guilty of selective reading.

Let's look at it again:

<i>a runner is not allowed <b>to use his hands or arms</b> 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.</i>

That covers the A-Rod situation.

Erstad, in time honored and legal tradition, plowed intot the catcher. He did not use his "hands or arms to....."

Legal play, coach. Good thing you work coach Little League, eh? You won't have to worry about it.

[Edited by GarthB on Jun 7th, 2005 at 02:55 PM]

Hmmm,
 

John while your twirl well written prose it really has nothing to do with real baseball.

I am being very selective in my term "real baseball" this time -- it means the contest as played by men, for financial gain, as a profession, and at the highest level.

This play is nothing more than a standard plate crash surrounded by the normal comments with any activity of this type in MLB.

Erstad will, hopefully, get drilled a couple of times with an inside fastball or maybe taken out at second base with a "rolling block" and it will care for itself.

BTW, you get paid by the word over on the paid site . . . here all those words still equal one free post.

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

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

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.

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.

LMan
 

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]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Well,
 

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!

To GarthB: I don't know much about the Major League Rules but if the following quote from your missive is correct, "
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.", then I can't see why you wouldn't classify dropping a shoulder as "obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike". Now, if the MLB interpretation is that anything goes, it was a legal maneuver.

<i> Originally posted by Illini_Ref </i>

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

Here is the rule:

7.08(a) - Any runner is out when -

(3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who <b> has the ball and is </b> waiting to make the tag;

I guess we saw the play differently. Remember we had the privelage of watching the play over and over again in slo mo.

IMO, it was a bang bang play meaning that as soon as F2 had possession of the ball the runner collided with him.

IMO, the aforementioned does not meet the second part of the rule (Fielder Waiting to make a tag)

The ball F2 and runner arrived at approx same time.

Pete Booth

Technically, I believe Pete is correct, if you judge catcher did not have ball, and not waiting to make play. LL Malicious Contact rule is eject only. However, in this case I would be inclined to judge that the catcher had the ball for .0000000001 seconds (if pressed), therefore technically waiting for same amount of time to make play. Out on the slide or attempt to avoid, EJ on the malicious contact. Gotta look at the spirit of the rule in this case, as opposed to the black and white wording.

<i> Originally posted by LMan </i>

<b> well, FED takes this in account and penalizes it. But then, FED aint real baseball, right? </b>

The NCAA also has the rule so I guess NCAA isn't real baseball either.

Playing for pay is one thing amateur athletics is another.

Pete Booth

I guess it's all in reading the rule.

I would think that it would be like a banger at first, I got to see the runner beat the throw or the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense.

Tim C: Easy huh? Just cant resist to take a shot at someone huh?
Anyways, heres all Im trying to say. Yes, everyone knew Erstad was going to get thrown at. My problem was WHEN the warning was issued. Managers and players have the same concern.
Of course give the Braves their shot at him, which they did. But no warning should be issued at that point. Why issue a warning to the Angels? They havnt even thrown a pitch yet. Why should Byrd have that burden on his mind the whole game? Byrd now has to alter his game, not being a power pitcher, he relies on control, and being able to pitch inside. If he does that, and doinks someone, he gets ejected? Thats not right. The warning should have been issued only after, or IF an Angel pitcher konked someone. Because THEN its turned into retaliating for the Erstad brushback.
Said Byrd.."Immediately at first, you want to go out there and stand somebody up, but lets say I do go out and hit somebody with a fastball, now who do we have to come in? (assuming he gets ejected).."Its a fine line. Its tough decesion to make. I have to stand up for my teammates, but they need me to pitch the game."
Byrd said he was affected by the umpires warning....."When I dont even take the mound and Ive already got a warning, yeah, it makes it tough."
I just think that baseball, in giving the authority to the umpires to issue warnings, its usually unfair to one of the teams. And this has been an issue for a long time, not just last nights game. In essence, one team, gets a free shot, which is fine (usually in taking up for a teammate). And the other team gets warned, and like in last nights game Byrd gets dinged.
Also, back to whether Erstad was trying to hurt Estrada, heres what Erstad said in todays paper....."I didnt sleep much last night. When somebodys injured, thats the last thing you want, I thought about it from every angle, every possible thing I could have done differently. I play the way I play."

[Edited by chuckfan1 on Jun 8th, 2005 at 07:25 PM]

Hmmm,
 

chuckfan1 . . . I'll type Reeeealll slow.

Because that is the way the rule is written.

The warning is ALWAYS argued that it isn't fair to the team that hasn't thrown yet.

It is not an overreaction . . . the fukking pitch went BEHIND the hitter.

Yep, I couldn't help taking a shot . . . and I will continue to do it to people who REFUSE to understand the way things work when done correctly.

Shoot, you probably agree with McClellen last year when he screwed the pooch.

EDIT:

Jeff:

Do you really think that the crew (and maybe even the Commishes Office) didn't discuss this issue before the game? Do you really think that the PU decision was made without ANY OTHER input?

I am not sure that your post is not the one that is "taking a shot".

Edited to correct to whom it was directed.

[Edited by Tim C on Jun 9th, 2005 at 09:01 AM]

Re: Hmmm,
 

Tim, I agree with you about the ruling in the game. It was done just the way it should have been.

Do you think, Tim, that maybe they should consider changing the rule so that only one team is warned, the team that actually threw at someone?

Do you have any opinion on that?

Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

Why give the other team a chance to dot someone?

If they get warned at the time of the first dot, the ump it theoretically stopping the retaliation.

It is amazing to me that the pitcher missed Erstad on his first pitch to him.

Hay Now...
 

How did I get pulled into this?? I have no problem with the play or the resulting warning to both teams after the pitch. That is the way it is done. Advantage LAA on the take out. Braves got their "shot" Ump issues warning and "ends it". If he waits till Byrd comes out and chunks one at a batters head then it is advantage Angels again. Warning too late at that point as there will be another "message" sent, benches clearing ejections, fines, suspensions because then Braves will feel they still need to get their shot back since the "score" is 2-1 Angels in this mess.

Watson will not say anything as he knows the deal and knows it is baseball the way it is played from about AA full season on up. And as far as it being a "cheap shot" to the jaw, Erdstat was at the disadvantage there as Estrada had his helmet on. Estrada got his bell rung a bit and that is all. I bet you Estrada will not think it was a dirty play. And the intent was not to hurt as they only MLB players who think that is American League pitchers. Case in point, how many heads has Pedro thrown at this year?? None, as he knows HE will get drilled if he tries. If he is in the AL still, he'd have a few of those pitches thrown already.

Thanks Pete, I figured that was your reasoning. You may bery well be right, but if I'm calling that play in a LL game, the benefit goes to the catcher for safety reasons. I don't think anyone would argue if you called interference, and malicious contact in a LL game for that same play. If you didn't you might get crucified though!

Re: Hay Now...
 

Confused by your 100% turnaround, but ok. Glad you actually see the point of the rule.

Pedro always has been and always will be a headhunter. When he came up with the Expos, he hunted heads. Granted he did it a lot more with the crappy AL DH rule, because he knew his teammates would take the heat. But just wait. When he feels he needs it to get the edge this season, he WILL throw at someone. He is a great pitcher, and doesn't really need to throw at people, but that's Pedro. He may care more, now that he is more mature, but when he was with Montreal, the fact that he had to bat did not stop him from letting one go every once in a while.

Blocking Plate
 

What everyone has failed to point out is this:

1) The purpose of a base runner is to reach home plate
2) The catcher was in the legal base path area
3) It is perfectly legal for a base runner to make contact
with a catcher to attempt to dislodge the ball.
4) This is not malicious. He didn't use contact to be
malicious, he used contact to dislodge the ball
resulting in scoring a run.

Why is everyone having so much difficulty with this. If the catcher doesn't want to risk getting injured, MOVE!

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.

Re: How ridiculous
 

(1) You clearly aren't an official, (2) You don't have a clue.

It is just a discussion man.
 

How did you offend me?

I gave an opinion and that is all there is to it. If you feel baseball is the same as hockey that is your opinion. I just disagree with that point of view. It takes a lot more than a silly discussion (which ultimately this is) for me or to worry about it.

Peace

Umpire
 

Actually, I am. I have coached baseball for about 25 years and have been an umpire for 17 years. Experienced, certified and trained. I don't comment based on personal likes and dislike. I'm talking about the rules and the honest interpretation of judgement calls based on facts, without regard to personal preference of teams or players.

As an umpire, we get most of the calls right. This does not include balls and strikes since that area has become completely judgemental with disredard for the rules. Our job is to make the call based our judgement of the facts and interpretation of the rule without personal regard to the parties involved. In other words, it's player A and player B, not Erstad againt my team's catcher.
There is no point to discussing this play in a forum and debating a judgement call if you do not have the ability to look at the situation without bias.

It's clear that this discussion is becoming more about what happened to my team's catcher when it should be about the rules.

No honest, impartial umpire would make a judgement of that play and say that Erstad's only intent was to injure another player. In this play there are only two possibilities when making the judgement call to determine malicious contact.

1) Did the baserunner legally make contact with the catcher with the sole intent of injuring the catcher without regard to scoring the run?
OR

2) Did the baserunner make contact with the catcher to dislodge the ball to avoid being tagged out and thus scoring a run?

It's that simple. You decide which one honestly fits this situation.

As stated early, this play is legal in OBR.

However, at lower levels where a goal is to protect the players from injury, this play would have constituted malicious contact.

While recognizing your years as coaching and umpiring, I'll choose to side with a known authority on the rules and their interpretation... Jaska/Roder, whom write:

(NFHS 3-3-1n) A runner who maliciously crashes into any fielder when the contact was avoidable (or when contact was unavoidable, but the runner’s intent was to harm) is out and ejected, the ball is dead, and other runners must return to their last bases touched or passed at the time of the malicious crash. A runner who has scored and then crashes into a fielder is allowed his run unless he advanced as a result of being forced from third to home (such runner is still ejected).


[Edited by Matthew F on Jun 16th, 2005 at 12:40 PM]

Agree
 

I agree at other levels. But we are not talking about amateur sports. I thought we were talking about one play and Major League baseball.

If we follow that particular interpretation, then every runner who slides into 2nd base to break up a double play would have to be dealt with the same way. That's not the way professional baseball was intended to be played.

There is a reason why MLB does not have a "malicious contact" rule. It's not a game for children where we protect the welfare of those who cannot or do not have the ability to protect themselves. You can't have a "malicious contact" rule and then broaden it to cover every possible situation that might come close. Malicious contact cannot be interpreted in MLB the same as it is in little league.

Re: Umpire
 

You are confusing intent and purpose. If I smash a window only because I wanted to rob the store, did I still not intend to smash the window?

Re: Agree
 

<i> Originally posted by dvellison </i>


<b> If we follow that particular interpretation, then every runner who slides into 2nd base to break up a double play would have to be dealt with the same way. That's not the way professional baseball was intended to be played. </b>

In the aforementioned you are incorrect. I am a Mets Fan and since we are also talking about the Braves, a play happend the last time the Mets played in Atlanta.

If memory serves the Mets were trailing by 2 runs and had the bases loaded and one out. David Right was on first base. There was a ground ball to F4 who threw to F6 for a 4-6-3 DP. David Right went "right at" F6 causing a wild throw to first base. R2 and R3 scored but WAIT

Second Base Umpire can't remember his name ruled David Right for intentional interference and rung up 2. I am a Met Fan but that was an excellant call as David Right could not reach second base if there were 2 of him.

Major League Baseball views the play at the plate differently in line with how tradition has ruled.

As far as your accusation that Erstad was doing his job again IMO is incorrect. His job is to score a run for his team. The base was not completely blocked. He <b> went out of his way </b> to crash into Estrada. It was evident that he wanted to do more than simply score a run for his team. A classic "malicious Act"

With the exception of MLB, the play we saw is an OUT, an ejection and at the very minimum a one game suspension.


Pete Booth

Re: Umpire
 

Nobody even suggested that this is malicious contact in MLB. It is in any level that has a malicious contact rule. MLB has no such rule. Where's the disagreement?

Finally saw the play in question. I'm not an ump, but I do officiate.

My comment is not to debate philosophies of different rulesets or levels of play, but if that was legal, I surely would like to see what it is that becomes illegal.

Stuff like that turns me away from the sport.

In MLB there is no collision between runner and catcher that is illegal. In all other games with a malicious contact rule this is an out and ejection.

You are exactly correct, that is not the way game is supposed to be played, anymore.

And MLB has a way of dealing with players who "go over the line" of what is accepted.

You can count on it happening sometime in the future. Might be a bean ball, might be a spike, but payback always comes in MLB.

So while by rule they allow practically anything, in reality that is why we have so many fights and bean balls etc., because often the line is crossed.

Especially now that the players make $$$$$$$$$$$ and they don't want to miss a game and hurt their stats if they can help it.

When I was growing up and wathcing baseball as a kid, stuff like this was simply ignored, just a good play and everyone on both teams would go "wow".

Baseball was a lot more fun to watch in those days.

thanks
David

After working in the batting cage last night we stopped towatch some of a 16-17 game.

A 1-1 game in the 4th when the visitors R3 decided to run over F2 while scoring without a throw. F2 was standing on the plate for some reason known only to him and god. At that level of ball he should certainly know a lot better than that.

Anyway R3 just plows into him. No need to do it. When the dust settles R3 is ejected. his coach throws his hat and he's gone too. The blues confer and R3 is called out and the run removed. Pretty costly just to run F2 over.

Ahh well.