Time for a rule change?

[calsnowskier]

Although I think it was a clean play, is it time to tweak the rules for home plate collisions? Should a catcher be treated the same as a 2B or SS?

I think it is worth looking at and discussing...

 

[msgkings322]

Although I think it was a clean play, is it time to tweak the rules for home plate collisions? Should a catcher be treated the same as a 2B or SS?

I think it is worth looking at and discussing...

Agreed, and it looks like they have already started the drumbeats on it.

 

[Heathbar012]

It's difficult to say this after watching my favorite player lose the rest of this season, but I say no. It's part of the game. It's an exciting part of the game. Guys get injured walking to their cars or sneezing (joke). It's bad luck, not bad rules (or lack thereof, in this case).

 

[Heathbar012]

I'd like to amend my last statement to say that I definitely don't think catchers should get 2B-SS treatment, but a judgment call can be made by the ump, if there was an obvious alternative path that could have scored the run (such as this isolated incident). That said, it all happens so fast, I don't know that they could judge intent in that split second unless the catcher is partially up the first base line. In that case, however, the runner can probably score standing up. Basically, I believe any rule that tries to protect the catcher in a collision at home plate will end up hurting the game. I felt the same way about that stupid horse collar rule and now blows to the head in the NFL. Careers may end, but the risk is known.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'd like to amend my last statement to say that I definitely don't think catchers should get 2B-SS treatment, but a judgment call can be made by the ump, if there was an obvious alternative path that could have scored the run (such as this isolated incident). That said, it all happens so fast, I don't know that they could judge intent in that split second unless the catcher is partially up the first base line. In that case, however, the runner can probably score standing up. Basically, I believe any rule that tries to protect the catcher in a collision at home plate will end up hurting the game. I felt the same way about that stupid horse collar rule and now blows to the head in the NFL. Careers may end, but the risk is known.

Why not treat catchers like 1B or 2B? A runner can run-through the 1B bag, but he can not bowl into the first basemen. Why can he bowl into the catcher? Are we getting too attached to tradition?

If a player slides hard into 2B to break up a dp, it is OK, but if he rolls in, that is dirty. Why is OK to knock a catcher into next week?

 

[Heathbar012]

Why not treat catchers like 1B or 2B? A runner can run-through the 1B bag, but he can not bowl into the first basemen. Why can he bowl into the catcher? Are we getting too attached to tradition?

If a player slides hard into 2B to break up a dp, it is OK, but if he rolls in, that is dirty. Why is OK to knock a catcher into next week?

Because it's the difference in a run. In most cases, a really important run. In sports, we have to reward the fast, smart and strong or it turns into a bunch of tip-toeing, pussy nonsense. There are already enough borderline athletes in baseball. We don't need to encourage the weak to make this their professional sport of choice.

Yes, upon the replay (and maybe some could tell in the moment), Cousins made contact when it wasn't completely necessary, and he will be punished. It doesn't have to be by MLB because the players do a pretty good job of policing these things on their own. I would favor reviewing and looking into fines for certain cases (the one thing the NFL got right - though some of the amounts and suspensions are absurd). It should still be an option to bowl the catcher over, and it certainly should still be a run.

I appreciate your point that the infielders should be no different than the catcher, but they are different. They are the last player between a win and a loss sometimes. An extra 90 feet on the base paths is a big deal, but none more than the last 90. I can't get behind any rule that could eventually punish a guy for using his strength and speed to his advantage. Going out of his way to nail a guy definitely deserves some review. That said, even in Buster's case, I think Cousins was well within his rights, and made the smart play. If he didn't gun for Posey, he would have been out. That's baseball. That can't change, in my opinion.

 

[tzill]

For me, it's pretty simple -- catchers are not allowed to block the plate. The rulebook covers this and it's called obstruction. If a player veers out of the basepath to collide with any infielder (2b, SS, C) then he's immediately out. If it's a blatant hit, he's ejected and suspended.

Pretty simple. Homeplate collisions were never IN the rulebook; let's just enforce what is already there.

 

[calsnowskier]

For me, it's pretty simple -- catchers are not allowed to block the plate. The rulebook covers this and it's called obstruction. If a player veers out of the basepath to collide with any infielder (2b, SS, C) then he's immediately out. If it's a blatant hit, he's ejected and suspended.

Pretty simple. Homeplate collisions were never IN the rulebook; let's just enforce what is already there.

Good point...

 

[Heathbar012]

For me, it's pretty simple -- catchers are not allowed to block the plate. The rulebook covers this and it's called obstruction. If a player veers out of the basepath to collide with any infielder (2b, SS, C) then he's immediately out. If it's a blatant hit, he's ejected and suspended.

Pretty simple. Homeplate collisions were never IN the rulebook; let's just enforce what is already there.

That's the thing. He didn't go out of the base path and Buster didn't block the plate. There is a gray area that requires judgment that can't be made in a split-second. Are you saying that every collision is either an out with ejection or obstruction? There should be no such thing as a legal collision at home plate?

 

[tzill]

That's the thing. He didn't go out of the base path and Buster didn't block the plate. There is a gray area that requires judgment that can't be made in a split-second. Are you saying that every collision is either an out with ejection or obstruction? There should be no such thing as a legal collision at home plate?

Unless it's incidental, yes. Hey, sometimes collisions happen -- at any base. But Cousins' INTENT was to hit Posey. I'm not saying what he did wasn't within the accepted norm. I'm saying the norm doesn't conform with the rulebook.

Enforce the rule book. I guarantee the first time a catcher blocks the plate and makes a tag on a runner and it's called Obstruction will be the LAST time a catcher blocks the plate.

The first time a runner is called out on a dropped ball by a catcher b/c the ump rules that he had a clear path to the plate but forwent it to hit the catcher will be the LAST time we have a non-incidental collision.

 

[Robotech]

I think that a rule change would be a kneejerk reaction.

I'm torn on this because having a good-hitting catcher is a big advantage, but a position change might be the best thing for Buster and the Giants. Once Huff is gone, he can play 1B. If Panda doesn't work out, maybe 3B is an option too. Didn't Buster play SS in college? And, it seems like anybody can play LF for the Giants. Buster's gotta be faster than Pat Burrell.

 

[Heathbar012]

Unless it's incidental, yes. Hey, sometimes collisions happen -- at any base. But Cousins' INTENT was to hit Posey. I'm not saying what he did wasn't within the accepted norm. I'm saying the norm doesn't conform with the rulebook.

Enforce the rule book. I guarantee the first time a catcher blocks the plate and makes a tag on a runner and it's called Obstruction will be the LAST time a catcher blocks the plate.

The first time a runner is called out on a dropped ball by a catcher b/c the ump rules that he had a clear path to the plate but forwent it to hit the catcher will be the LAST time we have a non-incidental collision.

Good points. I'm not in favor of changing the current rule book to allow for more physical confrontations, so enforcing the set in place seems logical to me. It is an exciting play, though, and I believe that even if the ump was focusing on the possibility of an obstruction call (which obviously would have been incorrect) or intentional contact by Cousins (which would have been understandable), the blue would have come up with the same conclusion in that split-second.

 

[Heathbar012]

I think that a rule change would be a kneejerk reaction.

I'm torn on this because having a good-hitting catcher is a big advantage, but a position change might be the best thing for Buster and the Giants. Once Huff is gone, he can play 1B. If Panda doesn't work out, maybe 3B is an option too. Didn't Buster play SS in college? And, it seems like anybody can play LF for the Giants. Buster's gotta be faster than Pat Burrell.

Hahahaha. Not by much, unfortunately. I've thought the Giants would move Buster to second after Freddie's contract was up since last year. If he can develop the range necessary to be an effective major league shortstop, that would be ideal because I hate to see his arm wasted at second base. Third could certainly be an option. Him and Panda could have a catcher/third base platoon to extend their careers!

 

[Robotech]

I'm open to being convinced that such plays shouldn't be a part of baseball. It's an awful sight to see a catcher get barreled into full speed while his attention is focused on catching the ball and turning to tag. Do we want to see MLB become more like the NFL, a league which has gradually and continually added new rules to protect the QB?

 

[Mr. Teal]

That hit at home plate was crap. Buster wasn't blocking the plate. Cousins didn't even try for the plate. He was going for Posey the whole way who was defenseless because he was waiting for the throw. Cousins led with the shoulder and went down low.

"Oh I didn't intend to hurt him." says Cousins.
Bullshit. It was a reckless play. In hockey, they call that "intent to injure" and you get suspended for cheap shots like that.

It wouldn't be right to bean Cousins the next three times he comes up to bat either, but hey it's part of the game, right?

Basically, if the league won't take care of business, the Giants will. This is baseball and that shit doesn't go unanswered.

 

[tzill]

Good points. I'm not in favor of changing the current rule book to allow for more physical confrontations, so enforcing the set in place seems logical to me. It is an exciting play, though, and I believe that even if the ump was focusing on the possibility of an obstruction call (which obviously would have been incorrect) or intentional contact by Cousins (which would have been understandable), the blue would have come up with the same conclusion in that split-second.

Maybe I'm not following you, but under my scenario, the HP ump would have seen the clear path to the plate and called Cousins out for intentional contact.

 

[Heathbar012]

Maybe I'm not following you, but under my scenario, the HP ump would have seen the clear path to the plate and called Cousins out for intentional contact.

I understand. I'm saying he couldn't make that judgment call in a split-second. That clear path to the plate was eradicated upon Buster turning with (from the ump's angle) a ball in hand to make a tag.

It's easy to judge intent when you've seen a slow-motion replay or the same shot 100 times in rapid succession. It's a level of required judgment that, in this case, would be virtually impossible to get correct. Sometimes, yes, I think a home plate ump can make that call. I don't think this is one of those times.

Does the ump wait to see if the catcher was injured on the play to decide intent? Obviously not, but that can be used to sway a decision. Baseball will end up with flopping catchers like strikers in soccer and centers in basketball. They'll initiate contact ever so subtly to negate an entire run. I'm not saying that obstruction and intentional contact should never be called. I'm saying it shouldn't have been called in this case.

 

[tzill]

I understand. I'm saying he couldn't make that judgment call in a split-second. That clear path to the plate was eradicated upon Buster turning with (from the ump's angle) a ball in hand to make a tag.

It's easy to judge intent when you've seen a slow-motion replay or the same shot 100 times in rapid succession. It's a level of required judgment that, in this case, would be virtually impossible to get correct. Sometimes, yes, I think a home plate ump can make that call. I don't think this is one of those times.

Does the ump wait to see if the catcher was injured on the play to decide intent? Obviously not, but that can be used to sway a decision. Baseball will end up with flopping catchers like strikers in soccer and centers in basketball. They'll initiate contact ever so subtly to negate an entire run. I'm not saying that obstruction and intentional contact should never be called. I'm saying it shouldn't have been called in this case.

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.

 

[calsnowskier]

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?

 

[calsnowskier]

I understand. I'm saying he couldn't make that judgment call in a split-second. That clear path to the plate was eradicated upon Buster turning with (from the ump's angle) a ball in hand to make a tag.

It's easy to judge intent when you've seen a slow-motion replay or the same shot 100 times in rapid succession. It's a level of required judgment that, in this case, would be virtually impossible to get correct. Sometimes, yes, I think a home plate ump can make that call. I don't think this is one of those times.

Does the ump wait to see if the catcher was injured on the play to decide intent? Obviously not, but that can be used to sway a decision. Baseball will end up with flopping catchers like strikers in soccer and centers in basketball. They'll initiate contact ever so subtly to negate an entire run. I'm not saying that obstruction and intentional contact should never be called. I'm saying it shouldn't have been called in this case.

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.