OT - I'm bored, Part Pangos & Bell!

[Comeds]

That's a classic.
Both pretty amazing people. Reiner tweets some pretty funny stuff.

 

[naslundfan19]

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

By a stroke of incredible luck, I heard this song while flicking through the radio on a car trip -

[YOUTUBE]GkpN-MsYoM8[/YOUTUBE]

Guy's got talent. I'll keep an eye on him in the future.

 

[naslundfan19]

The new Five Iron Frenzy album is really, really good.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Sup, Nas? Still enjoying your Super Bowl win?

 

[naslundfan19]

I am But, I gotta go for now. Might be back later.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Later dude.

 

[dash]

MLB accepts home plate-collision rule, leaves open exception

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

MLB accepts home plate-collision rule, leaves open exception

NEW YORK, N.Y. - Major League Baseball and its players have banned most home plate collisions but left open an exception if the catcher has the ball and is blocking the runner's direct path to home plate.

A new rule, 7.13, was adopted by MLB and the players' association on a one-year experimental basis, the sides said Monday.

A comment attached to the rule states "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."

A runner who violates the rule shall be declared out even if the catcher drops the ball. If a catcher blocks home plate without possession of the ball, the runner shall be safe. However, a catcher may block the plate to field a throw if the umpire determines the catcher could not have otherwise fielded the ball and that contact with the runner could not have been avoided.

I've read it four times and still don't have a clue what it means.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

And if I don't know what it means, just imagine how tough it's gonna be for this guy to figure out what it means:

 

[dash]

How about we juat allow any and all contact at home plate? If players don't like it, take up badminton or canasta.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Or here's a novel idea: since this appears to be about catcher safety, how about the catcher NOT stand in the baseline? He's free to do it.

 

[Comeds]

Yeah, I am not sure I understand what the new rule is. I guess if its obvious the player is going right at the catcher then he will be out, but if the catcher is in the way and he goes at him then its ok. Maybe.

Im ok with the removing of the home plate collision. It doesnt happen all that much to affect the game (which can be used as an argument to keep it) but the catcher is pretty defenseless sitting duck target there. Shoulders, knees, elbows - pretty much anything goes.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

I don't see how eliminating home-plate collisions won't favor one side more than the other (offense or defense). They occur for a reason - there is a potential run at stake and runs are hard to score. The baserunner wants the run and the catcher wants to prevent it.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Also, the catcher is not completely defenseless - he is an armored tank on much of his body and if he does not have the ball and is worried about his safety (ie being blindsided), then he should not be in the baseline.

 

[dash]

"An intentional walk with the bases empty? This is baseball, not backgammon!"

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

"An intentional walk with the bases empty? This is baseball, not backgammon!"

Blow me, ump!

 

[Comeds]

Also, the catcher is not completely defenseless - he is an armored tank on much of his body and if he does not have the ball and is worried about his safety (ie being blindsided), then he should not be in the baseline.

He has equipment on but as the rules are he has to block the plate and hold onto the ball. The catcher is going to get hurt far more often than a runner ever will. The nail rarely hurts the hammer. I think we have all seen runners primarily focused on hitting the catcher and making him drop the ball and not focused much at all on touching home plate. I think we have all seen elbows and forearms to heads, necks, and chests of catchers.

That rule is an anomoly in what is in essence a non contact sport and its probably time it is removed.

I am not sure what you mean by the catcher not being in the baseline. If you mean if he doesnt want to get hit then he should give up the run - then I dont agree with that. If you mean he can stand off to the side and try to tag the runner out as he runs by, thats fine as long as they are strict in calling the runner out if he runs out of the base path to avoid the tag. That also assumes the catcher has the ball long enough to move into a better position, thats not always the case.

 

[Darkstone42]

As I read it, the rule prohibits catchers from getting in the baseline without the ball, and runners from exiting the baseline to make contact with the catcher.

Catchers, though lightly padded, are at greater risk in these collisions in general, though. They are often in a more awkward and less athletic position because they have to field the ball prior to administering the tag, and are starting at a standstill in contrast to the runner who is moving at full speed. This means most of the energy of the collision is being transferred to the catcher, which puts him at a greater injury risk than the base runner.

This rule is fine with me. Most of the time, a good slide is a more effective method of reaching home safely than colliding with the catcher anyway, and it prevents the catcher from interfering with the baserunner without the ball, which was always illegal at every other base anyway.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

He has equipment on but as the rules are he has to block the plate and hold onto the ball. The catcher is going to get hurt far more often than a runner ever will. The nail rarely hurts the hammer. I think we have all seen runners primarily focused on hitting the catcher and making him drop the ball and not focused much at all on touching home plate. I think we have all seen elbows and forearms to heads, necks, and chests of catchers.

That rule is an anomoly in what is in essence a non contact sport and its probably time it is removed.

I am not sure what you mean by the catcher not being in the baseline. If you mean if he doesnt want to get hit then he should give up the run - then I dont agree with that. If you mean he can stand off to the side and try to tag the runner out as he runs by, thats fine as long as they are strict in calling the runner out if he runs out of the base path to avoid the tag. That also assumes the catcher has the ball long enough to move into a better position, thats not always the case.

Your scenario sounds to me like the runner has no chance to score whatsoever. If the catcher has the ball and is in the basepath and the runner cannot exit the basepath, where is the runner supposed to go? The plate is behind the catcher - and the catcher is in the way.

If you mean if he doesnt want to get hit then he should give up the run - then I dont agree with that

And if you are suggesting the runner slow down and get tagged for the out, I don't agree with that.