"Ban on plate collisions seen as likely"

[ozzy6900]

Gentlemen, Let me make one, simple statement:

Keep the damn nanny state out of baseball!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So I ask you ... what is GOOD about allowing the catcher, and only the catcher to violate the obstruction rules that every other fielder is held to, and to allow a runner to maliciously contact the catcher ... and only the catcher ... in a way that would warrant an ejection anywhere else on the field?

I'm not sure I understand your reference to the catcher violating the obstruction rule. If the catcher has the ball and blocks the plate, how is that obstruction?

Also, when have you ever seen an MLB umpire eject a runner who did crash another fielder? I honestly cannot recall it ever happening. Not that crashes away from home plate happen often, but should it happen, do you think a pro umpire would eject the runner?

That said, there was the case of Albert Belle decking Fernando Vina while running the bases. He didn't get ejected. And it happened after Belle was hit by a pitch, so there were extenuating circumstances that would warrant an ejection here.

I think you don't see collisions elsewhere, not because of fear of ejection, but because it would be viewed by opponents as a cheap shot that warrants retaliation.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Gentlemen, Let me make one, simple statement:

Keep the damn nanny state out of baseball!

Yeah - Safety Rules are for sissies! No more padded gloves; let 'em sharpen their spikes and aim for the fielders knees (it was good enough for Ty Cobb, dammit); helmets just prevent the pitcher from really letting a batter know he's standing too close to the plate. It just ain't the real thing anymore

[DG]

Football is much more dangerous sport, on any given play, and the NFL outlaws certain types of hits. Why MLB does not do likewise on malicious hits at the plate is beyond explanation.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Yeah - Safety Rules are for sissies! No more padded gloves; let 'em sharpen their spikes and aim for the fielders knees (it was good enough for Ty Cobb, dammit); helmets just prevent the pitcher from really letting a batter know he's standing too close to the plate. It just ain't the real thing anymore

We are talking about PRO, not amateur. Amateur ball has the rules to prevent this and penalties if the rule is ignored.

edit to correct spelling of amateur..... damn fat finger!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DG

Why MLB does not do likewise on malicious hits at the plate is beyond explanation.

Probably because there hasn't been an outcry by hundreds of retired catchers that they need compensation due to the lingering effects of all those malicious hits they took during their playing days.

Buster Posey suffered a very serious injury due to a plate collision. I did a Google search to see if I could find anything from Posey asking for changes to the game to prevent this from happening again. Nothing.

Look, it's not that I want to keep plate collisions as part of the game. It's just one of those things that has been accepted through the game's history and, with rare exception, has never resulted in the kinds of injuries that warrant serious consideration for change. If change happens, I won't lose any sleep.

[PeteBooth]

The reason why "other" baseball leagues outlawed collisions etc. is because of insurance reasons. As Ozzy pointed out "back in the day" we played like the "big boys" no safety rules etc.

What happened!

Law-suits, insurance costs etc. Then and only then were safety rules added. It's like most things in this country when money is involved "things" happen.

IMO, the NFL and NBA have gone "way overboard" with this safety stuff. It's simply a PR move.

The NFL did need to provide more education on concussions and stop some of the hits that happened in the past.
ie; what the assassin, Jack Tatum did to Darell Stingly of the Pats. Tatum ruined Stingley's career and the hit paralized him for life. Back then the hit was legal. We could go on and on with these type hits.

That's what the NFL needed to address. Now look what they have done.

Defenders are now targeting the knee / leg area because they are afraid if they hit high they will be flagged and fined. Even the players themselves would rather be hit high then low. Their legs are their livelihood.

Also, the NFL is so safety concious but they have games every Thursday night. Go figure

The NBA flagrant foul also has become somewhat of a joke. The "Nasty Boys" (Detroit Pistons) used to mug Jordan. He survived. Now a hard foul will result in a flagrant foul and perhaps a fine to boot.

Ok back to baseball. Yes baseball needs to ban what Pete Rose did to Ray Fosse in the All Star game. That is NOT baseball but intent to injure another player. Fosse was never the same after that play.

Collisions are a part of the sport. What you do not want is a player diving (ala Pete Rose) or launching themselves into another player. Also, using a for-arm etc. to dislodge the ball.

No-one is "twisting one's arm" to play sports. There is going to be contact and it is virtually impossible to have a given league put in rules to avoid it without making said sport a joke.

Pete Booth

[bluehair]

My question would be, how would you change the rule to where players will adhere to the no-collision motivation for the rule change. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that players will comply unless you put teeth into the rule change.

It seems that you will have to require fielders (especially F2s) to provide access to the base if they don't possess the ball. Currently, F2s get away with the "in the act of fielding a throw" exemption from obstruction. That would need to go away and make it like Fed's less than perfect "allow access if you don't have the ball yet" requirement. This would partially take away a runner's justification to way-lay F2.

Second, they're going to have to make the "truck F2" penalty significant. If the runner is a dead-meat with or without a collision, why not try to knock the ball loose and put it on the umpire to make the out call (the runner has nothing to loose). If they are going to achieve the desired no-more-collisions objective, then they'll have to include a MC/ejection penalty...possible suspension if they really want to put teeth into rule.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

It seems that you will have to require fielders (especially F2s) to provide access to the base if they don't possess the ball. Currently, F2s get away with the "in the act of fielding a throw" exemption from obstruction. That would need to go away and make it like Fed's less than perfect "allow access if you don't have the ball yet" requirement. This would partially take away a runner's justification to way-lay F2.

That really doesn't matter. The vast majority of these collisions in MLB happen after the catcher has the ball, not before. We hardly ever see a runner waylay a defenseless catcher as he's waiting for the throw to come in.

And it's rare that a catcher will put himself in harm's way by blocking access to the plate with his entire body. Normally, he blocks the plate with his leg as the throw comes in, forcing the runner to hookslide and touch the plate as he goes past it. Only when the catcher has possession of the ball will he turn the rest of his body into the baseline.

And if you watch again the play where David Ross ran into Alex Avila in the ALCS, you'll see that Avila received the throw from Omar Infante while he was standing in front of home plate (0:28 mark of video). He then turned to face (and brace) for the incoming Ross. Avila never really blocked full access to the plate, and Ross actually moved toward the front of the plate to crash into Avila. The crash was legal in that Ross was still close enough to touch home.

So if there's going to be a rule change, it should be one that addresses the action of the runner, not the fielder.

Red Sox Catcher David Ross on Both Ends of Ugly Collisions in ALCS Game 5 | Bleacher Report

[bluehair]

Sure, there are times when runner sees that he is dead meat and tries to run F2 even though F2 hadn't blocked access prior to receiving the ball. But there are also many times where F2 will set up blocking access to the plate before the ball arrives and when a runner sees access blocked, he decides to crash F2 (but if the base is accessible, there is no reason to crash F2).

Both cases happen.

If you are going to continue to allow F2 to block access without the ball, then even if you make a rule against it, you're going to keep having collisions with F2. If the objective is to prevent injury/concussions both sources of collisions should be outlawed.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'm guessing that the real reason behind the prohibitions in amateur play is more to prevent tempers from flairing than it is to minimize injury.

100% disagree with the "temper" assertion. The game at this level it played by men who do this for a living. Nobody gets pissed at a collision at home plate. They all know that it is currently part of the game.

The F2's also get paid millions of dollars to play defense and not sit on the bench with a broken ankle from a collision. It's not just about the offense.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

100% disagree with the "temper" assertion. The game at this level it played by men who do this for a living. Nobody gets pissed at a collision at home plate. They all know that it is currently part of the game.

The F2's also get paid millions of dollars to play defense and not sit on the bench with a broken ankle from a collision. It's not just about the offense.

You misread my point. I said the "temper" issue is at the amateur level. I've seen enough high school games to know that things like the FPSR have much more to do with preventing testosterone-filled wanna-be's from punching each other's lights out than avoiding injuries.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You misread my point. I said the "temper" issue is at the amateur level. I've seen enough high school games to know that things like the FPSR have much more to do with preventing testosterone-filled wanna-be's from punching each other's lights out than avoiding injuries.

Why does your "temper" reason for a no-collision rule have to compete for importance with the injury prevention reason for a no-collision rule. These reasons don't conflict. Unless you deny that an injury prevention reason exists (deny a testosterone-filled teenager could seriously injure another), then to say that your temper reason is more significant than the injury prevention reason is just silly.

[brainbrian]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Nobody gets pissed at a collision at home plate. They all know that it is currently part of the game.

CHC@CWS: Benches clear after play at the plate - YouTube

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

CHC@CWS: Benches clear after play at the plate - YouTube

Should have been titled "Benches clear after F2 takes the opportunity to slug AJ"...which just doesn't happen often enough. I think this fight broke out after the contact after the contact.

AJ plays for my team now, but he's still a prick. He used to catch for Yu Darvish until Yu got tired of his crap and got AJ benched whenever Yu starts.