Reds/Pirates Catcher Obstruction (7.13)

[john5396]

Look at 3:20 of the video clip. Does the catcher open his glove and bobble the ball for a moment?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Mark, Jr., and I looked at the video today and then downloaded the 2014 MLB Rules. We then read Rule 7.13. After reading R7.13, we could not understand how the PU call was overturned.

Rule 7.13

The Playing Rules Committee has adopted Rule 7.13 as set forth below on an
experimental basis for the 2014 season.

7.13 COLLISIONS AT HOME PLATE.

(1) A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

Rule 7.13(1) Comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the
catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.

(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.


Subparagraph (2) is the governing rule in the video. After we read it we couldn't figure out how the replay umpires in New York could screw up the play.

MTD, Sr.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by john5396

Look at 3:20 of the video clip. Does the catcher open his glove and bobble the ball for a moment?

NO

This has already been ruled another replay flub. Which means we need a more sophisticated system:

1. Replay
2. Replay of the Replay
3. Audience Participation, please press your choice.
4. Flip a coin

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by jicecone

NO

This has already been ruled another replay flub. Which means we need a more sophisticated system:

1. Replay
2. Replay of the Replay
3. Audience Participation, please press your choice.
4. Flip a coin

5. Get rid of replay except for boundary calls.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.


Subparagraph (2) is the governing rule in the video. After we read it we couldn't figure out how the replay umpires in New York could screw up the play.

Actually it's pretty simple. Nowhere in the paragraph that you highlighted does it say, "...and hinders the runner in the process."

It all boils down to this: They are trying to prevent collisions at home; they are not trying to prevent obstruction at home. This isn't new language under rule 7.06; it's a new rule all unto itself that really has nothing to do with a runner being hindered.

They want catchers to position themselves in front of the plate or behind the plate, not in the runner's path. By being in the runner's path without the ball as the runner approaches, it may force the runner into deciding to crash into the catcher, and that's what the suits in NYC want to prevent. And even if the runner turns out to be a dead duck on the play, the rule penalizes the catcher for being where he isn't supposed to be. It doesn't matter what happened afterward. Once that catcher is in the runner's path without the ball as the runner approaches the plate, the bell is rung.

All that said, I think the new rule tips the balance too much in favor of the offense. On plays where the catcher straddles home plate and gives the runner access to slide in, and the runner is easily thrown out, then there shouldn't be a violation. It should only be a violation if the catcher sets up further up the line, which would motivate the runner into crashing the catcher. And on force plays at home, there shouldn't be any reason to penalize the catcher for being on the plate.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And on force plays at home, there shouldn't be any reason to penalize the catcher for being on the plate.

Excellent explanation that the home plate collision rule is not a type of obstruction. And I agree that merely being on the plate cannot be a reason to penalize the catcher.

But if the catcher on a force play is blocking the runner's pathway as he is attempting to score, the risk of collision is still present. On a force play where the runner can overrun the base, like at first or home, the runner does not want to slide, since that is slightly slower to the base than overrunning it. So the risk of collision on a force play when the catcher blocks the runner's pathway perhaps is even greater than on a tag play where sliding or avoiding is used. The catcher just needs a toe on the base/plate and a glove well away from the runner's pathway. Absent a bad throw, there's no reason to block the runner's entire pathway.

(p.s., I know the putout at first is not technically a force play.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Excellent explanation that the home plate collision rule is not a type of obstruction. And I agree that merely being on the plate cannot be a reason to penalize the catcher.

But if the catcher on a force play is blocking the runner's pathway as he is attempting to score, the risk of collision is still present. On a force play where the runner can overrun the base, like at first or home, the runner does not want to slide, since that is slightly slower to the base than overrunning it. So the risk of collision on a force play when the catcher blocks the runner's pathway perhaps is even greater than on a tag play where sliding or avoiding is used. The catcher just needs a toe on the base/plate and a glove well away from the runner's pathway. Absent a bad throw, there's no reason to block the runner's entire pathway.

(p.s., I know the putout at first is not technically a force play.)

Yet they overruled OBS on this very play just this week.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by jicecone

My words exactly:

"Cry-baby whining perfection sickos that scream injustice over a GAME"

The level of ball WE do is a game.

There's millions of dollars at risk on every game in MLB, so calls need to be right. It's more than a game at that level. It's a business.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Manny A

All that said, I think the new rule tips the balance too much in favor of the offense. On plays where the catcher straddles home plate and gives the runner access to slide in, and the runner is easily thrown out, then there shouldn't be a violation. It should only be a violation if the catcher sets up further up the line, which would motivate the runner into crashing the catcher. And on force plays at home, there shouldn't be any reason to penalize the catcher for being on the plate.

Originally Posted by Paul L

But if the catcher on a force play is blocking the runner's pathway as he is attempting to score, the risk of collision is still present. On a force play where the runner can overrun the base, like at first or home, the runner does not want to slide, since that is slightly slower to the base than overrunning it. So the risk of collision on a force play when the catcher blocks the runner's pathway perhaps is even greater than on a tag play where sliding or avoiding is used. The catcher just needs a toe on the base/plate and a glove well away from the runner's pathway. Absent a bad throw, there's no reason to block the runner's entire pathway.

And yet...

MLB adjusts rule on home plate collisions after controversy - ESPN

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And yet...

MLB adjusts rule on home plate collisions after controversy - ESPN

Okay . . .. I did not realize that the intent of the home plate collision rule was only to avoid collisions on tag plays, not on force plays.

Look at the play again at post #1. Catcher Martin was blocking runner Mesoraco's pathway to the plate before the throw was released. If Mesoraco had stayed up, rather than slide, he might have both collided with Martin and touched home before the catch. Either player might then have been injured. Is MLB saying injuries on force plays are acceptable, just not on tag plays?

I predict that before the year is out, a hard collision will occur at the plate on a force play. And within three years, a player will go on the DL as a result of such a collision.

They are not done refining this rule.