If you look very carefully, Posey's left ankle got hung against his right leg and that is when he snapped the bone. I remember a test with an MLB player running into a dummy catcher and they measured over 3000 lbs of force split between the two. And people wonder why we don't want players "taken out" in HS & youth ball.

MLB DOES have a malicious contact rule - of sorts.

This is what the MLBUM says:

Now, to me, the runner launching himself to throw his shoulder into Posey's head IS "...an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases..." - because Posey was in no way blocking the R3's access to the base, especially not with his head.

Based on this and other similar instances, that is clearly not how MLB wants the language interpreted. Maybe they should rethink that.

JM

And while this has actually been invoked, I can't recall it ever being invoked in a play at the plate.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;761557]yep it's just a matter of time. More and more players in MLB are more interested in their health than playing everyday. That's why so many of them sit out so many games now. I wouldn't be surprised in a few years to see something about plays at 2nd also.

Players have too many incentives tied in with their contracts now to have to sit out games due to serious injury.

Thanks
David

When you watch the old MLB films, you can see that at one time practically nothing was prohibited—case after case of obvious intentional interference, with little or no effort to disguise it. Apparently the runner from 1B not only had the right to interfere on an attempted DP, but was expected to do so by everyone on the field. Runners (1) went ten feet out of the baseline to crash the fielder at 2B, (2) in obvious attempts to interfere, went into 2B standing up after being put out, (3) crashed the catcher at home if he was anywhere near the plate, ball or not, and (4) feigned "protective" moves when they used their hands and arms to grab and tangle and otherwise interfere.

The umpires seemed simply to watch it all happen but let it go, and fielders never seemed to look to the umps for some kind of call. You wonder what runners would have had to do to get an INT call, much less get ejected.

Jack Clark has a radio show each night on one of the talk radio channels, and I listen when the Cardinals aren't on the other station.

Last night, they were discussing the Posey incident. Jack prefaced by saying Posey wasn't a dirty player, so the story wouldn't apply to him; however, he said the players always found a way to crash into "dirty" catchers. He explicitly gave Mike Scioscia as an example. If you came home, Jack said that Mike would always find a way to hip check you or give you an elbow to the ribs, especially if there was no play being made on you. Jack said that because of this, players were always looking at ways to get the upper hand; he implied that injuring a "dirty" player was a goal of many other players.

Now, I don't know how true it is, but seeing video like you mention doesn't discredit what he said.

That has been my thought for years. I know collisions at the plate have been a part of MLB for years, but why is a play at the plate different then, say, a steal attempt at second base? Shouldn't a runner be allowed to throw a shoulder into the shortstop?

He implied that injuring a "dirty" player was a goal of many other players.

I think that's true. Since the rules didn't penalize dirty play, the players exacted justice themselves.

In 1964, in my first pitching start in American Legion, an opponent thrown out at 1B clearly attempted to step hard on our first baseman's foot. (He did hit some of the foot, but not enough to cause injury.) The umps said nothing, and our F3 just glared at the guy as he went toward his dugout.

At the end of the inning, my coach told me, "When that ba$t-rd comes up again . . ." and pointed to his own head. As a 15-year-old, I was taken aback somewhat and asked, "Really?" to which the coach responded, "You gotta protect your teammate."

The coach was a well-respected former pro, and the guy I was supposed to throw at was in the minors a few years later.

When the guy came up again, the bases were loaded with two out. I didn't want to risk hitting the guy and giving up a run, so I threw a strike, which the guy lined back to me for the third out. My coach wasn't happy, and asked me if I remembered his order. I said, "Well, I didn't want to be obvious and throw at him on the first pitch. Plus, I didn't want to fall behind him with the bases loaded."

(Fifteen years later, that same bast . . . er, guy was playing shortstop in a softball game, and I slid into him to break up a possible DP. He complained to me about it.)

Nice. Coming from a Guy who I believed said the DH rule is bad. This is a can left unopened.

My feelings on the DH are this: I'm OK with it, but both leagues should use the same rule. I'd prefer to see pitchers bat. Cliff Lee had 2 hits and 3 RBI yesterday. Roy Oswalt had an RBI single tonight.

Violent collisions at the plate are of dubious value. Once the catcher has the ball, it rarely comes out. Most times there's a collision, the runner would score without the collision anyway.

Well and now with NCAA and HS having rules, the future MLB players have grown up with rules that protect at 2nd and home.

Then they get to MLB and all of a sudden its "gloves off". Interesting to read on ESPN what some old MLB players said. Obviously they don't have a inkling that today in college and in HS there are rules to protect the F2.

Many of the comments were "there is no way to govern what happens at the plate etc., " Guess it shows a little head in the sand for those guys.

I agree that most collisions at the plate are unnecessary - and that the runner would have scored anyway.

Thanks
David

Many of today's MLB players did not grow up with Fed or NCAA rules. OBR governs much of the planet from adolescents on up. They permit take out slides, brush backs and MC. We have those rules because of litigation and a desire to protect. Much of the world plays hardnosed baseball.

I'll agree with NCAA, but not with Fed. Considering a majority of the players are my age or younger, and I played under Fed rules when I was in high school, then I can say that almost all of the MLB players (that went to high school in the United States) played under Fed rules.

Then again, your point could be that a high number of players are from foreign countries. this 2005 study showed only 30% of the players were "International."

I think it's simply that they, like most players and coaches, were ignorant to the rules when they were in high school.

I think it's simply that they, like most players and coaches, were ignorant to the rules when they were in high school.

When I was playing in school and college (1964-1970), I thought I knew a lot about the rules (ha ha!), and yet I wasn't even aware that separate rules existed for high school, college, and MLB. I knew that my college coach was on the NCAA rules committee, but even then I thought simply that, on the field, baseball rules were baseball rules.

I think that back then American Legion used OBR, with a few minor exceptions that didn't involve actual play. No crash rule, no FPSR, no dead ball appeals, etc.

I coached high school baseball for a couple of years after college. If we were indeed covered by FED, I'd love to see a book from those days (eBay?). At the time, I wasn't even aware that one existed. My authority was a 49-cent folded brochure of OBR rules, in very small print.

Fed goes back at least to the 1940's. I have seen FED rules that date from the mid 50's.