Malicuous contact in MLB???

[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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

You are correct. Changes progress at different tempi at different times regarding different issues and different rationale.

A change is coming. If you take the time to listen, and tune out the broadcasters and old school toughies, you can hear it from owners, players and even ML umpires.

[bob jenkins]

The NCAA rule makes sense to me. If theplate is blocked, you can got for the plate, even if that means going "through" the catcher. If the plate isn't b;locked, you can't go after the catcher.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The NCAA rule makes sense to me. If theplate is blocked, you can got for the plate, even if that means going "through" the catcher. If the plate isn't b;locked, you can't go after the catcher.

Yep. Some ML umpires have opined similarly. Others have suggested simply callinging plays at home as they would at first using current ML interpretations would be an improvement over the current situations. I doubt owners will trust umpires to change their calls without a change in the rules.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The NCAA rule makes sense to me. If theplate is blocked, you can got for the plate, even if that means going "through" the catcher. If the plate isn't b;locked, you can't go after the catcher.

Unless the contact is judged to be above the waist. Then it violates the collision rule. Then it is judged as an attempt to dislodge the baseball, not an attempt to reach the plate.

[MikeStrybel]

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.

Someone rekindled a thread from 4 years ago regarding INT at 2B. It is interesting to see some say how rule changes will be forthcoming because the players will demand it. Four years later...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

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.

Someone rekindled a thread from 4 years ago regarding INT at 2B. It is interesting to see some say how rule changes will be forthcoming because the players will demand it. Four years later...

1. It's not up to Posey.
2. He would like like a big baby if he were to come out now and push for a rule change. No way he does that.
3. I anticipate the owners will push for it harder than the players.
4. One incident won't be a catalyst.
5. It'll probably have to happen to a more high profile player before a rule change is made.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Unless the contact is judged to be above the waist. Then it violates the collision rule. Then it is judged as an attempt to dislodge the baseball, not an attempt to reach the plate.

that's a guideline, not an absolute. I wasn't trying to recreate the entire rule and interp in my post.

[piaa_ump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The NCAA rule makes sense to me. If theplate is blocked, you can got for the plate, even if that means going "through" the catcher. If the plate isn't b;locked, you can't go after the catcher.

this sounds sensible to me.......