I'm waiting to the runner to be ruled safe because the catcher came out and stood on the 3rd base side of the plate while the runner was getting to 3rd base.

I have watched this replay several times, and this is a close call to me. I'm inclined to say the umpires got it right in this case, but I think that was absolutely the limit of how far it should go. The play looks worse because of Howard appearing to give up. I think there were ways for the runner to attempt to score on this play without nearly stopping on the way in to draw the call. He could have tried actually running around the catcher or he could have tried to slide behind the plate. At that point there is a bigger argument on the Philly's side about blocking the plate, and it would look so much better than the way this play looked.

I'm not for running over the catcher or anything like it. I felt the rules on running over the catcher were long long overdue, but MLB is taking this a bit too far with the way they have let this go.

Looking at this: "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.," it still looks as though the outcome would have been the same, and the call on the field should have stood.

This rule has created yet another batch of controversy.
Mike Redmond is right: Call that cost Marlins a win was ‘an absolute joke’ | For The Win

Makes no sense why they didn't simply choose to enforce the rules that already exist. 7.13 is absurd.

With the mess that the combination of the collision rule and replay has created I can understand why the manager melted down.

THE THROW TOOK THE CATCHER INTO THE PATH OF THE RUNNER! It had to, he was set up exactly where I told him to set up. :) That means the "collision" rule should not apply.

Another perfect play by the players, correct call by the umpires on the field, and a ****ing joke of a ruling from MLB

And here's your weekly MLB collision rule cluster, this week starring the White Sox and Robin Ventura:

White Sox Boned By Catcher-Blocking-The-Plate Rule, Ventura Loses It

Bonus scene: They had to go back and review where to place the runners after reversing the call. Isn't this new system great? :rolleyes:

What I have found interesting is that not once has the PU called the F3 for Obstruction. It seems that as long as F3 has the Ball in his possession before the Runner gets to him and F3 tags the Runner for the Out, the PU is calling an out and letting the Offensive HC/Manager ask for a Review and letting New York overturn the PU.

MTD, Sr.

The best comment from that article:

"If Vin Scully is America's grandpa, then Hawk Harrelson must be its Drunk Uncle."

I'm not really sure what the MLB standard for blocking the plate without the ball is like. I don't think I'd have called obstruction on this play in a game I work. The original play that Mike posted I probably would have had obstruction there.

6 minutes for a review plus having to go back again to review the placement of the runners is a total cluster. Even if almost 48% of plays have been "overturned".

I spent some time thinking about that for this one before you posted this and came to the opposite conclusion. Here's what I have, just as the fielder is about to receive the ball the runner is going to start his slide. It looks to me like he sees the catcher in front of the plate and instead of sliding at the plate slides toward a spot about a foot back from the plate. (I don't think I'd have gotten that without the slow motion replay, so maybe I agree with you, but seeing the replay...)

Even under softball definitions, if ball arrives before contact, AND the runner isn't hindered by forcing an altered path, then it isn't obstruction. Baseball isn't teaching runners (yet) to obviously alter their path when the catcher blocks; so far just telling them to avoid the malicious collision.

By my standards, if a runner keeps going in the direction and path they were taking all along, they haven't been hindered or impeded until/unless they contact a defensive player before the ball arrives.

Might I suggest that is because there is no OBS to call.

What I meant to express is that I have yet to see the PU call the Runner safe when F3 is, per the rules, in violation of 7.13. Every play I have seen is where the PU calls the Runner out and then the Out call is overturned on review. And since I only umpire baseball using NFHS Baseball Rules, and not OBR, the "best" description I could use was to refer to it as a "type" of Obstruction. But I think you understand what I was trying to infer.

MTD, Sr.

Oh, yeah. I do and completely agree

I believe this has something to do with the "Old Dog, New Tricks" maxim. The PU sees it as a clear-cut out. For years and years, when the throw beats the runner to the plate by as much as it has in these examples, the runner is dead out. Or, in the case of pro baseball, the runner trucks the catcher. Now we have rule 7.13. Since they can't do that any more, they basically give themselves up and say "WAAHHHHHHH! I was 15 feet from scoring but the catcher was in the waaaaayyyyyyyyyy! Call me safe!!"

It's kind of like men's FP, now that I think about it, but with million-dollar contracts.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...s3rftupmcu.png
Caption: [Giants runner] "Yes!! The catcher has the ball and his toe is on the line! I'm going to be safe on review!"