"Ban on plate collisions seen as likely"

[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.