MLB votes to eliminate home-plate collisions

[DG]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Next, under the sissification of America, NASCAR will eliminate all collisions.

What a bunch of pussies.

Some collisions are unavoidable, some are entirely avoidable and can cause death on the NASCAR circuit and major career ending/limiting injury in MLB.

Eliminating collisions that serve no purpose other than injuring your opponent is long overdue, and has mostly been done already in the NFL.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DG

Eliminating collisions that serve no purpose other than injuring your opponent is long overdue...

Those collisions DO serve a purpose. If the runner manages to dislodge the ball from the catcher during the collision, he prevents an out, likely will score a run, and maybe even allow other runners to advance. I seriously doubt the runner goes into the collision with the mindset that all he's trying to do is hurt the opposing player, and has no intent of scoring.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Those collisions DO serve a purpose. If the runner manages to dislodge the ball from the catcher during the collision, he prevents an out, likely will score a run, and maybe even allow other runners to advance. I seriously doubt the runner goes into the collision with the mindset that all he's trying to do is hurt the opposing player, and has no intent of scoring.

You could make the exact same argument to allow a runner to barrel into F6 at 2B as well. What's the difference? I'm perfectly fine eliminating this play from the game, it's rare enough that no one will really notice and isn't at all integral to the game.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by scrounge

You could make the exact same argument to allow a runner to barrel into F6 at 2B as well. What's the difference? I'm perfectly fine eliminating this play from the game, it's rare enough that no one will really notice and isn't at all integral to the game.

I'm only pointing out DG's faulty premise that the collisions at home serve no purpose other than to inflict injury, that's all. If that were really the case, the practice would have gone away a long time ago, because teams would retaliate the act. The fact that they don't--even when their catcher gets seriously injured--proves that the practice is accepted for what it is really meant to be: a way to try and score.

And I would argue that, historically, it was integral to the game. It was much more common in the past. The reason that it's rare nowadays is because catchers don't put themselves in harm's way as much as they used to. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that players are much bigger and stronger than before, so catchers have learned to stop setting up in the basepath.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Those collisions DO serve a purpose. If the runner manages to dislodge the ball from the catcher during the collision, he prevents an out, likely will score a run, and maybe even allow other runners to advance. I seriously doubt the runner goes into the collision with the mindset that all he's trying to do is hurt the opposing player, and has no intent of scoring.

Same premise, for which NFL has put up numerous rules, and fines, to remove this type play from the game. One might argue that NFL is much more violent a game than MLB and NFL sees the point in eliminating this type of action.

I agree the runners most likely have the mindset that they can dislodge the ball with a violent collision much like a free safety mindset when bearing down on a receiver, who unlike the catcher, does not even know what is coming.

[bossman72]

Baseball umpires and players resisting change?? No way!!!

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DG

Same premise, for which NFL has put up numerous rules, and fines, to remove this type play from the game. One might argue that NFL is much more violent a game than MLB and NFL sees the point in eliminating this type of action.

The NFL has created a mess and if MLB is not careful they will fall into the same "trap"

Now-a-days in the NFL the defense does not know where the "target" area is anymore.

NFL teams are losing games because of this "uknown" factor.

Case in point: The 49ers lost to the Saints which ultimately can cause them hom field advantage thru-out the playoffs on a "legal" hit. Ahmad Brooks of the niners tackled Drew Breeze in the neck area (not the head) and was flagged. It's not just the 49ers either.

Also, defenders are now targeting the knee area because they are afraid to hit high and get a flag. Now there are more ACL type injuries.

Here is the bottom line. PRO sports are not for everybody. You know going in what the parameters are and you make BIG bucks doing it. No-one is "twisting your arm" to play.

Football obviously is more violent.

In baseball it's very simple. If F2 does not want to get "laid out" then don't "camp out" at home plate without having the baseball. Once F2 goes in "harms way" all bets off. How is the runner suppose to score when F2 is completely blocking his path. That run could be the difference in making the post season or going home.

When you make these types of subjective changes, ultimately the officials get the brunt of it. Just look at the NFL.

Pete Booth

[APG]

That's on the 49er's...the rule mentions contact with the forearm/shoulder/helmet against the head or neck area. The target area is at or below the shoulders...unless it's the passer...in which case it's at/below the shoulders and above the knees.

The NFL has reported that ACL injuries are down from the past couple of years.

NFL says ACL injuries are down through 13 weeks this season - ESPN

Even if that wasn't so, the NFL would rather ACL injuries than concussion injuries.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by APG

That's on the 49er's...the rule mentions contact with the forearm/shoulder/helmet against the head or neck area. The target area is at or below the shoulders...unless it's the passer...in which case it's at/below the shoulders and above the knees.

The NFL has reported that ACL injuries are down from the past couple of years.

NFL says ACL injuries are down through 13 weeks this season - ESPN

Even if that wasn't so, the NFL would rather ACL injuries than concussion injuries.

That story means nothing to me. For all we know, there could have been two to three times as many hits of the knees this year than in previous years, but only a few of those hits resulted in torn ligaments.

What I find ironic is how the major sports are so concerned about concussions that they're trying to mitigate them, but then we have this relatively recent explosion of professional MMA fighting on pay-per-view and even cable. You can see UFC fights on Fox, FX, ESPN2, AXS, HDNet, and SPIKE. You also have the growth of other extreme sports on TV, like X Games, Winter X, etc. etc.

Why try to minimize the violent nature of pro sports to the masses on the one hand, while opening the window to even more violent sports on the other?

I know, I know: it's all about the money.

[CT1]

When MMA & UFC get hit with a $765M settlement over concussions, they'll likely institute safety rules also.