Malicuous contact in MLB???

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

My first thought is that the reason we have MC rules is to protect those who aren't being paid to play - many times, minors.

The reason we have MC rules in amateur ball is because of insurance. If there were NO MC rules in place I doubt the vast majority of us could afford the premiums.

I do think MLB will take a look at some form of MC rule.

Look at the NFL. They have moved the kickoff from the 30 yd line to the 35 yd line. Trying to "crack down" on vicious hits etc.

PRO Sports is sbout money and they will do what they have to to protect it's stars that's why I said it would not shock me to see MLB adopt some of the safety rules in place at the FED / NCAA level.

Pete Booth

[umpjim]

Joe Torre on one of the radio talk shows said that's baseball and he would not recommend changing anything.

Off topic: Is that Joe West calling the play from the RH batter's box? Maybe you need to be that close for the type of collisions you see in MLB.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Off topic: Is that Joe West calling the play from the RH batter's box? Maybe you need to be that close for the type of collisions you see in MLB.

Yikes! Did you see how Posey's head almost bounced off West's shin guard or shoe? He was too close for his own sake too.

[ozzy6900]

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.

[UmpJM]

MLB DOES have a malicious contact rule - of sorts.

This is what the MLBUM says:

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. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well (see Section 6.3, specifically Play (4)).

Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct.

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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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

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?

[DG]

Owners have a vested interest in a change. "Players" are not all catchers. They should establish a sub-committee with equal mix of position players and catchers to provide feedback on union position.

[MikeStrybel]

A subcommittee? They have those already and they have long recommended that this part of the game not change. EVERY player's union member has a vote already. EVERY means that they include all position players - even the ones on IR and DL. Nearly 100 players who aren't even active can still voice their concerns - yes, those are the injured ones who are probably predisposed towards protecting their own! Plenty of managers and coaches, including former catchers, stand by the desire to not change the rules. Mike Scioscia is one who is adamant about it and instructs catchers on how to block the plate properly. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...k_ana&c_id=ana

One of the most famous collisions in baseball involved Pete Rose bowling over Ray Fosse in an All Star game. Ray Fosse separated his shoulder in a fairly meaningless contest. He was never the same after that injury. He is on record as saying that collisions at the plate are and should remain part of baseball. His position has not changed and he was sought out after Posey went down. He maintains that changing the game is wrong.

Posey was hurt on a clean play. His spikes caused his ankle to be held in place while his body rolled back. Outlaw metal spikes?

They are paid to play and risk injury. They are entertainers.

[greymule]

They are paid to play and risk injury. They are entertainers.

Entertainers to the fans, I guess. But to the owners, the players are, as Jim Bouton said, farm animals.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

One of the most famous collisions in baseball involved Pete Rose bowling over Ray Fosse in an All Star game. Ray Fosse separated his shoulder in a fairly meaningless contest. He was never the same after that injury. He is on record as saying that collisions at the plate are and should remain part of baseball. His position has not changed and he was sought out after Posey went down. He maintains that changing the game is wrong.

Anyone hear Posey's comments about the incident? An ESPN interview has him stating that he doesn't want the rule changed and how collisions are part of professional baseball.

Do you have a recent link for either one of those assertions? I think you have mischaracterized the position of both Fosse and Posey.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Do you have a recent link for either one of those assertions? I think you have mischaracterized the position of both Fosse and Posey.

Is someone trying to compare the hit Fosse took while blocking the plate with the hit Posey took while NOT blocking the plate?

Try this one: (Which opens with: "Ray Fosse watched the crushing blow to Giants star Buster Posey and wondered why after all these years there are still few rules to protect catchers at the plate.")


[url=http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ci_18161068?source=most_viewed]Posey's injury stirs debate about home plate collisions - Daily Democrat Online[/url

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by DG

Owners have a vested interest in a change. "Players" are not all catchers. They should establish a sub-committee with equal mix of position players and catchers to provide feedback on union position.

A change is coming. Owners will realize their investments are in unnecessary jeopardy and players will will choose to protect their future earnings. It will take time and a seminal moment, but just as sure as all batters will wear helmets in today's games, a change is coming.

[MikeStrybel]

A little history lesson is in order. The first helmet used for protecting a batter was introduced in 1907. Ray Champman was beaned in 1920 and died as a result of the injury. Owners did not rally to 'protect their investments'. Several players chose to wear plastic inserts under their caps for protection. In 1952, the Pittsburgh Pirates mandated that their players wear a helmet, sans ear protection. It was not until 1971, after several years of brutal beanings at the plate and while sliding, that MLB instituted a helmet policy. Helmets with earflaps were shunned by the Players Union until 1983 when they aqcuiesced to mandatory single earflaps. Several players who were grandfathered in elected to wear the flapless helmets until retirement.

It seems that the death of a player is not considered a seminal moment. Several decades of horrific beanings didn't change player mentality. It took almost a century to provide for player safety gear to be mandatory. One catcher breaking an ankle won't be the impetus for adopting a MC rule in MLB. Given the bantering here about what constitutes MC, it will be a disaster upon implimentation in the bigs.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

A little history lesson is in order. The first helmet used for protecting a batter was introduced in 1907. Ray Champman was beaned in 1920 and died as a result of the injury. Owners did not rally to 'protect their investments'. Several players chose to wear plastic inserts under their caps for protection. In 1952, the Pittsburgh Pirates mandated that their players wear a helmet, sans ear protection. It was not until 1971, after several years of brutal beanings at the plate and while sliding, that MLB instituted a helmet policy. Helmets with earflaps were shunned by the Players Union until 1983 when they aqcuiesced to mandatory single earflaps. Several players who were grandfathered in elected to wear the flapless helmets until retirement.

It seems that the death of a player is not considered a seminal moment. Several decades of horrific beanings didn't change player mentality. It took almost a century to provide for player safety gear to be mandatory. One catcher breaking an ankle won't be the impetus for adopting a MC rule in MLB. Given the bantering here about what constitutes MC, it will be a disaster upon implimentation in the bigs.

This isn't 1907 or even 1957. I'm not saying it'll happen now, but just because it didn't in 1907 or 1961 doesn't mean anything with regards to today.