Erstad - Estrada Collision at the plate

[UmpJM]

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 take out 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

[DG]

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 take out 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.

[UmpJM]

DG,

I believe there is a material difference. In the Rose/Fosse play, Fosse was actually in between Rose and the plate. He had 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 not 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 no effort to touch the plate - until after he had take out Estrada.

JM

[DG]

Originally posted by CoachJM
DG,

I believe there is a material difference. In the Rose/Fosse play, Fosse was actually in between Rose and the plate. He had 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 not 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 no effort to touch the plate - until after 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]

[chuckfan1]

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.

[PeteBooth]

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 take out Estrada rather than reach home plate.

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

[Rich]

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 take out 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

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.

[Matthew F]

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?

[ozzy6900]

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.

[Kaliix]

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...

Originally posted by Matthew F
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?

[UmpJM]

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:

"...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

[TBBlue]

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]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by CoachJM



From the MLBUM 6.1 Offensive Interference:

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

Let's look at it again:

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.

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]

[Tim C]

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.

[UmpJM]

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