Time for a rule change?

[tzill]

Just a quick question:

When is Huff going to stop ass raping the team?

 

[tzill]

I think tz has completely convinced me. Change the CULTURE of the game by enforcing the existing rules, and all is good.

Jeez, tz, you make a good argument. Have you ever considered becoming a lawyer?

I hear "lawyer" is latin for "liar."

Not interested.

 

[Heathbar012]

But Heath,

If the collision play is removed from the game as an accepted play, than Cousins NO QUESTION goes for the plate instead, and is likely called safe since Posey did drop the ball.

Since the collision play does exist, though, he made the split second decision to break up the play instead, and we all know what happened.

Given the current culture of the game, clean play. But if Selig comes out today and says that the rule book will be enforced from now on, this play does not happen tomorrow.

I just don't think it is wise to take away another potential avenue to score. Of course, I agree with how the rule book is written and believe that it should be enforced as such. That will certainly curb the collision instances. Will it curb injuries, in general? Maybe a little bit.

I don't want to see a baseball game where a guy is second-guessing his decision to try to beat a great outfield arm by running into the catcher for fear of being called out, ejected and fined. I have enough of that watching free safeties and linebackers worry about helmet-to-helmet hits. I understand that comparing football to baseball is apples and oranges, especially when it comes to contact, but the premise remains the same. I watch sports because I enjoy watching people as competitive as myself do anything they can, within the rules, to win a game. That is where I disagree with most. In real time, I thought Cousins play was legal, and should remain as such. Feel free to review it and fine him (or the next guy), but that play doesn't always end in a season or career ending injury and should not be eliminated from the game because it did this time.

 

[tzill]

I see what you're saying but that "avenue to score" is contrary to the existing rule book. Simply put, blocking the plate is illegal. Running into a defensive player intentionally is also illegal.

Just call the rules in the book. There is no place for intentional collisions at the plate; you don't have to worry about oversliding the bag as you do at second and third.

 

[Heathbar012]

I disagree. Umps make split-second judgment calls ALL THE TIME. Balls and strikes, safe/out, interference, fair/foul, etc. This would just be another call.
Umps would blow it sometimes, but I'd bet they'd err on the side of protecting the catcher.

And in THIS case, it was pretty clear that Posey wasn't blocking the plate. No replay necessary; that's how I saw it in real time.

I don't think it'd be a lot to ask the umps to do.

Of course umps make split-second decisions throughout the course of an entire game. Rarely, do they have an immediate and direct effect on scoring, though. Certainly, there needs to be judgment calls in any sport because I don't think the honor system works too well with billions of dollars essentially on the line.

My take is that the possibility for judgment calls directly effecting scoring should be lessened as much as possible to avoid the flopping we see in soccer, basketball and hockey. Allowing a certain amount of contact at the plate leaves it up to the players. Real time, it didn't look like Buster was defenseless, to me. Turns out, he was. Did he look defenseless to Cousins? Maybe. If he did and Cousins still went through with it, do I blame him for winning the game for his team? No.

Where we disagree is that, in real time, it looked to me like Buster had at least half of the plate blocked off, turned to make a tag, got clobbered, dropped the ball and got injured. In replays, he may have had slightly less than half the plate blocked, never had control of the ball and had no chance to brace himself for a blow that ended his season and maybe his career. I don't fault Cousins for the decision or the ump for the non-call. The players took care of it on the field, and they will take care of the punishment, too.

Two big losses last night, but making an incorrect call based on interpretations of obstruction versus intent would have been a bigger loss, in my eyes. I agree with your take about the rule book, and it certainly should be addressed and enforced. My point is that I don't actually think Cousins would have been called out due to gray areas of how open the path to the plate needs to be, when the ball arrives and how much of an effort to get to that path there needs to be before contact is acceptable. Yes, if the rule book is enforced, tomorrow that same play might be an out. Your theory states that will lead to players always taking the open path and catchers not obstructing the plate once they get called for it. In the immediate future, I agree with this, but how long until requirements are laxed. How many runs and outs will be called incorrectly. That's a giant swing from an out to a run.

You can counter that as long as the correct call is made most often and less careers are shortened it is a success. While that sounds good in theory, in practice there will be horrible calls that have dire consequences on the outcome of a game more so than they do now.

I also understand the need for protecting these multi-million dollar investments (see QBs in the NFL). In terms of football, I favor switching to flags for the QBs, or I don't know, fucking pay them less! (kidding... kind of) Seriously, though, guys get hurt all the time. I didn't see anything blatantly malicious in Cousins hit. He, like Buster, was trying to win the game. It's not like he clothes-lined him while he was driving through the middle of the lane for a lay-up in Game 4 of the Western Conference Semifinals.

 

[calsnowskier]

I just don't think it is wise to take away another potential avenue to score. Of course, I agree with how the rule book is written and believe that it should be enforced as such. That will certainly curb the collision instances. Will it curb injuries, in general? Maybe a little bit.

I don't want to see a baseball game where a guy is second-guessing his decision to try to beat a great outfield arm by running into the catcher for fear of being called out, ejected and fined. I have enough of that watching free safeties and linebackers worry about helmet-to-helmet hits. I understand that comparing football to baseball is apples and oranges, especially when it comes to contact, but the premise remains the same. I watch sports because I enjoy watching people as competitive as myself do anything they can, within the rules, to win a game. That is where I disagree with most. In real time, I thought Cousins play was legal, and should remain as such. Feel free to review it and fine him (or the next guy), but that play doesn't always end in a season or career ending injury and should not be eliminated from the game because it did this time.

Read the GDT from last night. I got in a pretty heated debate with GP and Anthem over this.

I COMPLETELY agree that the play was clean AND legal (given the current culture of the game). However, with a simple statement by Selig, the rulebook will be enforced AS WRITTEN and this type of play will be less likely to happen in the future. Cousins will go for the plate instead of Posey, and the Giants still have their all-world catcher and are playing today to WIN the series instead of playing to prevent a sweep.

 

[Heathbar012]

I see what you're saying but that "avenue to score" is contrary to the existing rule book. Simply put, blocking the plate is illegal. Running into a defensive player intentionally is also illegal.

Just call the rules in the book. There is no place for intentional collisions at the plate; you don't have to worry about oversliding the bag as you do at second and third.

Does the rule book go into detail as to what blocking the plate is? You can't give him the whole thing. Does it outline intent? I never saw Cousins leave the base path.

 

[Heathbar012]

Read the GDT from last night. I got in a pretty heated debate with GP and Anthem over this.

I COMPLETELY agree that the play was clean AND legal (given the current culture of the game). However, with a simple statement by Selig, the rulebook will be enforced AS WRITTEN and this type of play will be less likely to happen in the future. Cousins will go for the plate instead of Posey, and the Giants still have their all-world catcher and are playing today to WIN the series instead of playing to prevent a sweep.

That's one instance. I don't see this utopian situation existing on the majority of calls.

 

[tzill]

Let's agree that Buster had a portion of the plate blocked off. If Cousins had been trying to reach that portion which Buster had blocked off, then it's obstruction. However, it was very clear to me that Cousins ran straight toward the plate UNTIL he got about 10 feet from Posey and then veered to his left to initiate contact. That's not "trying to reach home plate." That's intentionally blowing up the catcher, which Cousins ADMITTED after the game. I'm not pissed at Cousins; he did what he needed to do to score. No problem with that.

My problem is that failure to enforce the rules ALREADY IN THE RULE BOOK lead to unnecessary contact. Let me put it this way:

Suppose Cousins hits a ball into Triples Alley. Torres plays it off the wall, relays to Sanchez who fires the ball to Miggy at 3b to try and get Cousins. Imagine Miggy steps in front of 3b and "blocks" it. The ball and Cousins arrive at approximately the same time and Cousins slams into Miggy intentionally to dislodge the ball if Miggy should catch it.

What's the ruling?

Why should it be different for Posey?

 

[tzill]

Does the rule book go into detail as to what blocking the plate is? You can't give him the whole thing. Does it outline intent? I never saw Cousins leave the base path.

Here's the rule for obstruction:

The fielder may stand in the base path without the ball, IF, the throw is almost to him and he needs to be there to catch the ball. However, he may not actually block the base until he has possession of the ball. Until he has possession of the ball he must give the runner some way to get to the base.

Here's the rule for interference:

Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

These are two sides of the same coin. Obstruction is defensive interference.

A catcher cannot block home without the ball. A runner cannot intentionally try to disloge a ball by making contact.

It's really straightforward. The umps call can be tough, but the rule is plain.

 

[Heathbar012]

Let's agree that Buster had a portion of the plate blocked off. If Cousins had been trying to reach that portion which Buster had blocked off, then it's obstruction. However, it was very clear to me that Cousins ran straight toward the plate UNTIL he got about 10 feet from Posey and then veered to his left to initiate contact. That's not "trying to reach home plate." That's intentionally blowing up the catcher, which Cousins ADMITTED after the game. I'm not pissed at Cousins; he did what he needed to do to score. No problem with that.

My problem is that failure to enforce the rules ALREADY IN THE RULE BOOK lead to unnecessary contact. Let me put it this way:

Suppose Cousins hits a ball into Triples Alley. Torres plays it off the wall, relays to Sanchez who fires the ball to Miggy at 3b to try and get Cousins. Imagine Miggy steps in front of 3b and "blocks" it. The ball and Cousins arrive at approximately the same time and Cousins slams into Miggy intentionally to dislodge the ball if Miggy should catch it.

What's the ruling?

Why should it be different for Posey?

Ruling: Safe. Miggy catches the ball and holds on: Out.

Reasoning: You block any portion of the bag or plate, you can be removed.

Posey: Given the reasoning above, no he shouldn't be treated differently. The plate is bigger, so he is more vulnerable to perceived blocking, but the runner is also more vulnerable to perceived intentional contact. Those cancel each other out. Let the players decide it. Is it okay to block second and third base, but not home?

When breaking up a double play, the runner has to slide or peel out of the path of the thrown ball or relinquish a second out. They are more than welcome to slide in hard and possibly injure someone or themselves to get his teammate onto first base. Home plate, obviously, is the last stop on a base runner's journey. Yes, they are permitted to run straight through it, like first base, so this should help avoid contact, but there is more of a gray area for what obstruction is at the plate versus the bag.

 

[gp956]

Here's the rule for obstruction:

The fielder may stand in the base path without the ball, IF, the throw is almost to him and he needs to be there to catch the ball. However, he may not actually block the base until he has possession of the ball. Until he has possession of the ball he must give the runner some way to get to the base.

Here's the rule for interference:

Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

These are two sides of the same coin. Obstruction is defensive interference.

A catcher cannot block home without the ball. A runner cannot intentionally try to disloge a ball by making contact.

It's really straightforward. The umps call can be tough, but the rule is plain.

Yes, the rule is really straightforward.

 

[Heathbar012]

Yes, the rule is really straightforward.

The blocking explanation makes perfect sense to me, but the interference language is extremely ambiguous.

 

[Heathbar012]

"... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play?" Does this mean when guys try to shield a ground ball from the infielder while running to a base (while staying in the base path), they are committing interference? That happens a few times a game.

 

[gp956]

"... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play?" Does this mean when guys try to shield a ground ball from the infielder while running to a base (while staying in the base path), they are committing interference? That happens a few times a game.

Yes. Essentially, once you've established your base path, you are allowed to run along it, if the ball happens to cross your path, then that's the rub of the green. If you alter your course, so as to cross the path of the ball, you will leave yourself open to being called for interference.

 

[Heathbar012]

Yes. Essentially, once you've established your base path, you are allowed to run along it, if the ball happens to cross your path, then that's the rub of the green. If you alter your course, so as to cross the path of the ball, you will leave yourself open to being called for interference.

That's hilarious. Guys slow down to shield the path of the ball all the time. I have never seen it called. If it hits them, of course, that's an obvious out, but guys get right up on those grounders every time that they can. Should those be called?

 

[gp956]

That's hilarious. Guys slow down to shield the path of the ball all the time. I have never seen it called. If it hits them, of course, that's an obvious out, but guys get right up on those grounders every time that they can. Should those be called?

I think it's about time you take a break.

 

[Heathbar012]

I think it's about time you take a break.

Don't be condescending. That was a legitimate question. Independent of a discussion of home plate collisions, should a runner shielding a ground ball from a fielder be called out for interference? By the letter of the rule, it would be a yes, right? That seems a bit excessive to me.

 

[Heathbar012]

You're a good man, gp. We will resume this discussion some other time. It will be interesting to see if umps start calling things a little differently.

I understand your reasoning and appreciate the discourse, but now I have to go on a hike. Have a great evening.

 

[gp956]

Don't be condescending. That was a legitimate question. Independent of a discussion of home plate collisions, should a runner shielding a ground ball from a fielder be called out for interference? By the letter of the rule, it would be a yes, right? That seems a bit excessive to me.

Are you familiar with the concept of a straw man argument? You're beginning to embed a few nolanesque argumentative fallacies into your responses. Really don't want to deal with that type of BS here. And, really, you wouldn't want me to.