MLB votes to eliminate home-plate collisions
 

It'll be interesting to see how they word it and what they specifically ban when the rule is written.

I don't think it's necessary, myself, but I'm not surprised.

Good...I have no problem eliminating this from the game

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

What a bunch of pussies.

Predictable response. Made me smile, though.

Greaaaat. Not all collisions are the same, so we're going to come up with a rule that's going to only cover some of them. Love it.

Get serious, MLB. IF you really want to eliminate collisions, eliminate all of them. Don't just target the ones that are flagrant. Force runners to either slide or attempt to get around the catcher. Anything that a runner does while in the upright position should be considered a violation, whether or not he throws a forearm, crosses his arms in front of him, turns his body, whatever.

Curious if they'll address anything about sliding with their spikes up in the air or a runner using their arms to push the catcher as they slide.

I suspect MLB's result will look a lot like NASCAR's has for years: contact is allowed; deliberate wanton collisions are not.

Just to rile the indians!

Since when is NASCAR considered a sport anyway?

Very close, Publius. I think we are looking at MLB to become a glorified HS baseball sport in a couple of years.

I wonder if they'll use some form of the HS malicious contact rule.

You kidding, right? Next you will be dissing golf.

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.

I, for one, love HS baseball. I love officiating it and I love watching it.

And cheerleading....

Not really, their performance on the course has a lot to due with their physical condition, which is more than you can say about NASCAR.

Never been in a stock car for four hours at 180 mph in traffic, have you? You know, where it's 120+ degrees and the G-force roller coaster pummels your body the entire time.

You can add the physical demands of NASCAR to the lengthy list of topics about which you aren't too shy to display your ignorance.

It'd be entertaining to see the drivers on the NASCAR circuit go against PGA tour pros in a group competition of physical strength and, especially, endurance. The golfers would get embarrassed.

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.

My only question is: How did he fit into a NASCAR cockpit? lol

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.

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.

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

[QUOTE]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

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.

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

$765M to the NFL is chump change. They are an 11B a year industry and it is growing even more. The ratings for last weeks Wild Card round were "off the charts" and more of the same expected this week. The NFL is talking about expanidg the playoffs.

As far as concussions go this is the NFL and there are going to be concussions and if you "really" think the NFL cares about safety think again.


Just look at their Thursday Night package. If they are worried about saftey why have all those Thursday Night games to begin with.

Answer - The "almighty dollar" The $765M was a "peace offering" for PR purposes only and if the NFL keeps changing rules eventually they will start ruining the game.

Even though I am not a Chicago Bear fan what fan doesn't want to see Devin Hester get his hands on a kick-off and take it to the house, but the NFL in it's infinate wisdom has virtually eliminated the kick-off return.

Also, why not exapnd the roster size so each team can have a good 'taxi squad' rather then use their starters.

Playing defense has become a joke. Look at last week. With the exception of the Charger game, the teams that won had the ball last and simply "ate-up" most of the clock to kick game winning field goals. You might say well it's up to the defense to stop them and I would agree but the defense is so "scared" that if they play "true" defense they will get 15 yard penalties.


Pete Booth

You play on Sunday and then turn around in 3 days (Im counting 1 day travel) and play again on Thursday. That's how Thursday nights has something to do with safety.

Pete Booth

they could solve this by having the Thursday games be between two of the teams that had a bye the previous week.

so you'd play on a Sunday, be off for 11 days until Thursday, and then be off for 10 days until the next Sunday.

I've said that ever since they instituted Thursday games. Makes perfect sense ... which is probably while they'll never do it that way. :)

Well, the MLBPA may not be too keen on the subject:

Morosi: Union has not approved new replay, home plate collision rules - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

The actual rules haven't been formalized so there is nothing yet for the players to approve/disapprove.

From the article:

Sounds like there is disagreement in the "contemplated" proposals themselves. The players can speak of the merits of those proposals without having actual rules in place.

Besides, if it was really so black and white as you suggest, why run the story to begin with? And why would the MLBPA executive director feel a need to say anything? A simple, "Until we see the actual rules in writing, we will not make any comments," would have been more appropriate if that was the case.

Yes, but they don't schedule this very often. And byes are not every week, I think start week 5 and end week 12, or something like that.

Playing on short rest and rehabilitation is definitely a safety issue.

We'll have to wait a few weeks to see what they're teaching at umpire school.

They said two things - one was that they discussed the issues (not the proposed rules) and couldn't agree on anything. Second was that any replay change would be beyond what they had agreed to in the CBA. I see nothing in the story that suggests to me that they saw any proposed rules.