Time for a rule change?

[filosofy29]

I'm wondering if any of these conversations are even taking place had it been Benjie Molina behind the plate (with the same outcome to Benjie)?

 

[tzill]

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.

Your ruling is incorrect, and no ump would call it that way. It's obstruction and Cousins would be safe irrespective of whether or not Miggy holds on to the ball. This is why you never see IF block the bag.

My position, and it's consistent with the rule book, is that YOU CAN'T legally block a base...EVER. Not 1b, not 2b, not 3b, and not HP. EVER. For some goofy reason the culture of baseball has allowed HP to be treated differently and catchers are allowed to obstruct the plate and runners are allowed to interfere with catchers. It's stupid and unnecessary. The rule book is clear and you NEVER see it happen elsewhere on the basepaths. You don't see runners intentionally slamming into 1bmen on bang/bang plays to dislodge the ball.

By your reasoning, that should/would be happening with some frequency. In all my decades of following baseball I've never ONCE seen it happen intentionally except at home plate.

 

[tzill]

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

Agreed. Most umps will tell you it's the toughest call they make. It's rare, but again, IF THE EXISTING RULE IS ENFORCED, it just wouldn't happen very often.

Witness how often it's called at first, second, and third.

Home plate would/should be no different.

 

[Heathbar012]

Agreed. Most umps will tell you it's the toughest call they make. It's rare, but again, IF THE EXISTING RULE IS ENFORCED, it just wouldn't happen very often.

Witness how often it's called at first, second, and third.

Home plate would/should be no different.

I completely understand. I get that this is how the game should have been called for at least the last 50 years. I get that if that were the case, precedent would allow for a more black and white interpretation of obstruction and interference at home plate. I also get that if the full rule book were enforced for at least the last 50 years, the Posey collision likely wouldn't have happened because Cousins would be aware that he should look for and take the open path. I believe that, had he done that, Posey would have secured the hop and been able to dive to make the tag on Cousins trying to take the outside route to the plate. I think we agree on all of this even though there is obviously no way to know what would've happened (though the butterfly effect of highlighting that rule to umps over the last decade or so would be interesting to see).

I don't understand how much of a path needs to be available to a runner to avoid obstruction of home plate. With the orientation of the field and where a catcher needs to be to make a play, the right half of the plate will almost always be obstructed. Certainly, it's easier for a runner from third to get to the left half of the plate, but given the different shape, what will the official ruling be on what is a path and what isn't?

All of this is speculative, and I could certainly be wrong, but in my experience, giving umpires more facets of the game to keep track of during a bang-bang play leads to more mistakes. I understand that this is their job, and they should know the rule book inside and out, but in my opinion, the players have found a better way to decide who earns the run or the out.

The reason you don't see intentional collisions at first is because it is always a force out there, and first basemen rarely use more than a corner of the bag. Interference by a runner at first base would be blatant and easy to call. In real time, the Posey collision might have been blatantly intentional to others, but it wasn't to me. You don't see collisions at second and third because a runner can't run beyond those bases without making himself more vulnerable to being tagged out. Plus, the guy would probably get his ass kicked.

You're right that there is a double-standard when it comes to home plate versus the rest of the bases. They are different. Home plate is the only definitive place where a runner scores a run. Every bit of 90 feet gained is important, but none more so than third to home. I favor keeping that area as a place where outstanding athletic effort earns the run or the out.

Your view that a few obstruction and interference calls at home plate would slow the amount of collisions eventually is definitely sound. I just question how many of those will be wrong calls, and the timing of when catchers stop blocking the plate versus when runners will stop interfering. How many runs that were runs yesterday would be outs tomorrow? Not many, but enough to ruin some games. Should the plate umpire be watching for the ball, the tag, the plate and the timing of it all while the first and third base umpires watch for interference and obstruction? How will that impact throwbacks behind runners if the infield umps are out of position? These are important questions to ask before telling umpires to pay closer attention to a current rule.

 

[tzill]

Agreed, Heath -- it'd be a conundrum until everyone adjusted. Also, I agree that umps would sometimes get it wrong. However, I'd trade all of that to minimize the risk to catchers. Catchers already have to deal with foul tips on a daily basis; football collisions shouldn't be a part of the game of baseball. It's just weird and incongruous and I've never understood it. Seriously, it's not the Buster injury that got me thinking this way; I've always thought that the home plate collision was just dumb and counter to the game.

FWIW, the NCAA changed the rule a number of years ago and requires runners to slide into home if they're going to make contact. So there's a precedent for this sort of thing.

My point remains: the rule is already there; why not simply enforce it? If we're not going to enforce it, then amend the rule book.

 

[Heathbar012]

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.

First off, please don't compare me or my posting style to a self-absorbed, attention-seeking bigot. I am none of those things.

I am familiar with the concept of a straw man argument, and pointing out the ambiguity of part of the rule was not intended to assert that the entire rule is unclear. I apologize if that is how it was interpreted. Based on strict interpretation of the rule, I am genuinely interested in if people think that shielding a ground ball from a fielder should be called an out.

Finally, feel free to point out argumentative fallacies. That is what this board is for. I can take criticism, but I don't appreciate being talked down to. If I typed anything that offended you, I apologize as that was definitely not my intention. I try to infuse a little humor in even "serious" posts (if there is such a thing). I don't want BS here either, and to be honest, I'm a little shocked that you thought I did. I feel that everyone here has earned my respect, and I would like to think that I have done the same.

 

[Heathbar012]

Agreed, Heath -- it'd be a conundrum until everyone adjusted. Also, I agree that umps would sometimes get it wrong. However, I'd trade all of that to minimize the risk to catchers. Catchers already have to deal with foul tips on a daily basis; football collisions shouldn't be a part of the game of baseball. It's just weird and incongruous and I've never understood it. Seriously, it's not the Buster injury that got me thinking this way; I've always thought that the home plate collision was just dumb and counter to the game.

FWIW, the NCAA changed the rule a number of years ago and requires runners to slide into home if they're going to make contact. So there's a precedent for this sort of thing.

My point remains: the rule is already there; why not simply enforce it? If we're not going to enforce it, then amend the rule book.

Sold. It is an exciting play, but you're right. If MLB does decide to highlight the rule, I hope the adjustment period doesn't piss me off too much.

 

[msgkings322]

Sold. It is an exciting play, but you're right. If MLB does decide to highlight the rule, I hope the adjustment period doesn't piss me off too much.

Think of it this way, it was probably pretty exciting when Gibson threw at people's heads...but it's a good thing that's not cool anymore.

 

[Heathbar012]

Think of it this way, it was probably pretty exciting when Gibson threw at people's heads...but it's a good thing that's not cool anymore.

I think a 95 mph fastball at the temple is significantly more life-threatening than a collision at home plate, but I get what you mean. Different eras. More money to protect. The reasons for change far outweigh the reasons for keeping the status quo.

 

[tzill]

I think a 95 mph fastball at the temple is significantly more life-threatening than a collision at home plate, but I get what you mean. Different eras. More money to protect. The reasons for change far outweigh the reasons for keeping the status quo.

BAM!!

Post...of...the...day.

 

[tzill]

Yes, the rule is really straightforward.

Bump for GP.

 

[gp956]

Bump for GP.

I think we all agree that no one should be allowed to block a base path without the ball, and there is a specific rule against that. That should take care of a lot of the home plate collisions, but not the one between Molina and Harrison last night.

Marco stated there was a rule against "taking a defender" out, but the specifics of that assertion is still being vetted

 

[Heathbar012]

I think we all agree that no one should be allowed to block a base path without the ball, and there is a specific rule against that. That should take care of a lot of the home plate collisions, but not the one between Molina and Harrison last night.

Marco stated there was a rule against "taking a defender" out, but the specifics of that assertion is still being vetted

The sad part is that it has just been completely ignored by MLB for, at best, 14 months, and worst 50 years.

 

[gp956]

The sad part is that it has just been completely ignored by MLB for, at best, 14 months, and worst 50 years.

The fact that you have to sometimes get into the runners lane to make a play on the ball makes enforcing the rule problematic, at any base. Add the unique circumstance that a runners only has to touch home plate without staying on it, and now you have all the necessary conditions for a collision.

 

[Heathbar012]

The fact that you have to sometimes get into the runners lane to make a play on the ball makes enforcing the rule problematic, at any base. Add the unique circumstance that a runners only has to touch home plate without staying on it, and now you have all the necessary conditions for a collision.

Do you think it's best to leave it ambiguous, but suggest that the umpires make their own interpretation of the rule book or hammer out all plausible scenarios and dictate rulings?

 

[gp956]

Do you think it's best to leave it ambiguous, but suggest that the umpires make their own interpretation of the rule book or hammer out all plausible scenarios and dictate rulings?

I think I'd make a rule change. Simply requiring players to stay on home plate for a second would take care of the most violent collisions. Eliminating the loophole of a defender being allowed to be in the baseline while making a play on the ball would take care of it as well.