"Ban on plate collisions seen as likely"

[tommyleo]

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."

[Manny A]

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.

[bwburke94]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

I believe the rulebook as it is written right now bans the catcher blocking the plate without the ball

Not in MLB. Quite the contrary in fact.

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.

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).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

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.

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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by tommyleo

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.

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

Originally Posted by tommyleo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tommyleo

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.

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.

[scrounge]

I'm perfectly fine eliminating this play from baseball.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

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

And Bryce Harper for a time.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

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

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.

[voiceoflg]

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.

[BSUmp16]

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).

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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?