"Ban on plate collisions seen as likely"
 

See here.

I'm all for this rule change. The catcher has an unfair advantage: shin guards and other protection. No other fielder attempts to block a base due to the fact that taking a hard SPIKED slide can cause serious injury. But catchers use their shin guards (and chest protector and even mask/helmet) to block the plate -- something they would not attempt without all that gear.

And when the catchers block the plate, the runners realize that sliding will be a near certain out since they can't even reach the plate. So the runners collide and it looks cool -- except when injuries occur.

Enough already. Many other baseball leagues have outlawed these collisions long ago. Make the catcher field tag plays the way tag plays are made at the bases: catch the ball and tag the runner.

BTW, consider a runner attempting to steal second base who decided to plow through the shortstop rather than sliding. That would be considered a very dirty play. But when a runner plows through a catcher, it's considered a "clean play."

From the article:

"Given how quickly sentiment within the sport about collisions is shifting -- particularly as information about concussions has come to light, including the cost of concussion-related lawsuits faced by the National Football League -- some officials talk of change as inevitable and predict that it could come swiftly."

Therein lies the real reason they're looking into this, IMO.

"The team officials who expect the change to occur believe that Major League Baseball will simply adopt the rules on plays at the plate that are used at every level below professional baseball: The baserunner is guaranteed an avenue to the plate and is not allowed to target the catcher."

Well, I don't know of any organization that allows this once the catcher has the ball and is waiting to make a tag. Yes, a catcher is susceptible to an obstruction call if he blocks the plate before he has possession of the ball (or, in some organizations, is in the act of fielding the throw). But once the catcher has that ball, the runner is not guaranteed anything in every organization I'm aware of.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing against change. But use the right arguments. Bottom line: everybody else is on the concussion bandwagon, and MLB wants to join as well.

Oh, and your argument about an unfair advantage of the catcher doesn't mean anything when it's the runner, not the catcher, who initiates the collision. So I'm not sure why you even bother bringing that up. In fact, in most situations I've seen, it's the catcher who ends up bearing the brunt of the crash since he's standing still and, in some cases, not in a ready position to take on the runner. More often than not, it's the catcher who ends up banging his head against the ground or having his leg caught awkwardly underneath (re: Posey). No amount of gear is going to help him then. Most runners, meanwhile, end up just bruising their forearms when they crash into the catcher.

That's why most catchers are now setting up in front of the plate, and then swipe-tagging runners, as opposed to completely blocking access with their bodies.

I believe the rulebook as it is written right now bans the catcher blocking the plate without the ball. Without knowing the proposed wording of the change, we can still infer that the change will also ban the catcher blocking the plate with the ball.

Not in MLB. Quite the contrary in fact.

Bad inference based on the initial misconception.

The change will not prevent a catcher from being in the runner's path WITH the ball. It will, likely, not allow a runner to plow through a player with the ball (like at every other level of play).

Then it would become the only organization in baseball that does this, and I don't think that's what they want. Besides, what would you rule if the catcher blocks the plate with the ball, and the runner simply slides or outright gives himself up? Obstruction? No way.

If they want to eliminate collisions at home, then they need to simply say that. The NCAA has a clear collision rule. FED has similar rules on failing to legally slide and on initiating malicious contact. That's what the MLB rule should look like.

Obviously! Have you ever seen F1 covering for F2 block the plate?

Sigh! It's up to the runner to slide and crash or give up and no, it dosen't look cool. You sound like the guy who goes to a NASCAR race to see the big crash.

Yes AMATEUR leagues have banned it, HS & NCAA don't want it but we are talking about professionals, here. They are paid to do what it takes. Also, you suggested rule change would so nothing to stop the collisions.

BTW, consider a runner attempting to steal second base who decided to plow through the shortstop rather than sliding. That would be considered a very dirty play. But when a runner plows through a catcher, it's considered a "clean play."[/QUOTE]
There is no comparison with F4 or F6 at 2nd base and a fully dressed F2 getting clocked. F2 is wearing protective gear (for the most part) and F4 or F6 have nothing. That is why the neighborhood play was an accepted method of making the out at 2nd base.

Look, no one wants to see injuries, as in the Pete Rose/Ray Fosse incident (which was totally uncalled for), but it is the job of F2 to place himself between the runner and the plate and take his lumps. I ran through many catchers in my time and the professionals put themselves in proper position to put all the gear toward me as I came in. Sometimes, I think I was the one taking the lumps, considering all the black & blues I had. As a former player, I can assure you that 99% of the collisions are simply the runner trying to get to the plate and F2 trying to keep him from doing so. The situations where there was solid intent of hurting the opposition are far very few between.

Don't get me wrong, in amateur ball, I do not want to see the same collisions as in pro ball. If I see a runner coming at a catcher as I did in pro ball, I'll eject that runner in a minute.

I'm perfectly fine eliminating this play from baseball.

Under what pretense? To minimize injuries? Or is there some other reason why you feel it must be eliminated?

Like ozzy mentioned, these are professionals. They make millions of dollars to score more runs than their opponents. Sometimes, they need to put themselves in harms way to either score them or prevent them. It's the nature of the game.

I may be wrong, but 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. Oh, sure, the rules writers will say the FPSR prevents injuries, and perhaps they are right. But I'm thinking that they had seen way too many fights in high school games result from slides that took out pivot men at second base, and that's the real reason they came up with the FPSR.

In the grand scheme, how often does a professional catcher suffer a debilitating injury from a collsion at home? I'm willing to bet they have more concussion-like symptoms from balls fouled into their masks. For every Buster Posey incident, there are probably 25-50 crashes that occur in a season where the two players simply end up with dirty uniforms and a couple of bruises.

It just so happens that there were two that took place in the Red Sox/Tigers ALCS game, with one resulting in the catcher sustaining a strained ligament. If this were a game in June, I seriously doubt it would have been a blip on the radar screen, much less an article in the paper.

Ray Fosse--One guy put out of baseball by this type of play is one too many

And Bryce Harper for a time.

Alright, let's be accurate here. The hit did not directly take him out of baseball right away. It happened in the 1970 All Star game, and he retired in 1979. He played 130+ games for Cleveland and Oakland in '71 thru '73. As late as 1977, he played 89 games with Cleveland and Seattle, and batted a decent .276, including .353 in the 11 games with the Mariners. And he won two World Series rings with the A's in '73 and '74.

Also, he was misdiagnosed after the collision when an X-ray of his shoulder was read as negative. It was only after another X-ray a year later showed that he did have a shoulder fracture and separation, and that the injury healed itself improperly. If they had seen the fracture and separation initially, he might've healed properly and played many more games than he did.

So to say the collision took him out of baseball is quite a stretch. Was it uncalled for? Perhaps, but only from the perspective that it happened during an All-Star game. If this was a regular- or post-season game, it wouldn't have received the same level of criticism. And I don't believe Fosse ever considered the hit, in and of itself, as dirty. He is more bitter that Rose hasn't been very sympathetic since the play. But that's just Pete being Pete.

So should all out runs to the outfield wall be banned? If the purpose is to lessen injuries, then those should be outlawed as well.

Why not just implement the FED Malicious Contact rule? It doesn't prohibit contact; it doesn't prohibit blocking the plate (in FED, with the ball in possession). What it does try to prevent are injuries like Fosse's and Posey's. In FED, it's like pornography - You know it when you see it. For MLB there should be some official definition that deals with contact that is intended to injure or likely to cause injury (regardless of actual intent).

I just don't think it's needed or adds anything to the game at all. Yes, they are professionals and make millions. Not sure why that axiomatically means crashes are good. Actually I'd say that these assets are way too valuable to risk in the relatively rare plate collision. I just don't think it's a big deal if it's removed or would change the nature of the game at all. Beanballs used to be tolerated much more as part of the nature of the game but aren't today. The game will live on and we won't even miss it much.

Manny, you proceed from the notion that allowing collisions at home plate is a good thing and blast the opposing opinion simply because it doesn't prove the converse.

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?

Gentlemen, Let me make one, simple statement:

Keep the damn nanny state out of baseball!

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.

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 :rolleyes:

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.

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!

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.

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

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be F2s
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Tivag5pOBhM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

I never said these two were mutually exclusive. Of course there is concern over injuries.

But I personally feel (and this is just me) that preventing confrontations was foremost on the minds of those who wrote the FPSR and other rules geared to minimize contact. I've seen these kids when they play tournaments for their Little League Seniors and Bigs teams after the high school season is over, and they realize there is no FPSR. They take full advantage of playing like the pros do, and inevitably there's taunting, pushing, shoving, etc. It happens almost every season.

+100

I disagree completely. I believe the REASON is safety. Period. A side-effect may be the temper thing.