2011 MLB Thread

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Posey was entering the base path as he swept for the tag and was out in front of the plate. The runner did what any runner ought to do in that situation.

Catcher's don't put their body in the base line, there's no collision, "problem" solved.

It's the same reason field players aren't taught to stand in the baseline to make a tag. Change the way it's taught, and it won't happen.

[Ksyrup]

You're permitted to block the base if you have the ball. I don't see what's so wrong about requiring the runner to make a legit attempt to score, as opposed to trying to knock the ball out of the fielder's hand. I don't have a problem with a collision where the collision is caused by a player sliding into the base to try to score and the catcher is trying to tag. That's not the case where the runner is aiming for the fielder and not the base.

[Easy Mac]

and 99 times out of 100, the catcher doesn't have the ball, but they're in the baseline any way. Posey didn't have the ball, but he very clearly moved himself in front of the plate right as the runner got there.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

It's the same reason field players aren't taught to stand in the baseline to make a tag. Change the way it's taught, and it won't happen.

The problem with this is it wouldn't stop runners from going for the collision, which is the root of the problem. Even of the catcher straddles home like second base, if the runner's beat to the plate by the ball, the only reasonable chance the runner has of being safe is to dislodge the ball. And that requires a collision.

[lungs]

What other levels allow the plowing over of the catcher? Does NCAA? I know any league I've ever played in, it's an instant ejection.

I remember this pipsqueak pinch runner baring down on me in high school. I gave him room to slide and I saw him coming at me with no intention of sliding so I pretty much leveled the motherfucker and the best part was he got ejected.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

and 99 times out of 100, the catcher doesn't have the ball, but they're in the baseline any way. Posey didn't have the ball, but he very clearly moved himself in front of the plate right as the runner got there.

The ball clearly beat the runner to the plate and as Posey turned to make the tag, he lost control of the ball. That's not going to be an illegal play under the rules. If he was camping out, then yes. But in the split-second he thought he made the catch and instanteously moved to make the tag, he dropped the ball, and you can't seriously expect him to be able to reverse momentum and get out of the way.

I'd also suggest that if you look at where Posey is - at the front of the plate - he isn't even blocking 3/4 of the plate (and honestly, that's being generous - it doesn't even look like he's blocking ANY of the plate) as he turns, yet the runner aims straight for him and completely ignores any attempt to score by trying to touch the plate. That should be illegal, IMO.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by lungs

What other levels allow the plowing over of the catcher? Does NCAA? I know any league I've ever played in, it's an instant ejection.

I remember this pipsqueak pinch runner baring down on me in high school. I gave him room to slide and I saw him coming at me with no intention of sliding so I pretty much leveled the motherfucker and the best part was he got ejected.

I don't know what the rules are for all the different leagues, but I clearly remember being in a rundown between third and catcher as a 10 year old (or thereabouts) and knocking the ball out of the third baseman's glove, then plowing over the catcher as he waited to catch the throw from the third baseman, and scoring. And no one said a thing other than the catcher's mom, who was upset because he ended up at the back of the fence.

I can tell you that in softball - I know these rules better simply because my daughter plays and I help coach - the rules are impossibly legalized and never enforced correctly. I believe one of the major governing organizations allows blocking the plate if the catcher has the ball, but only a "majority" of the plate and must allow 25% of the plate to be open. I mean, c'mon. I've NEVER seen that called where the catcher blocks the entire plate. It's either out or safe based on the tag.

[Ksyrup]

This is the Note to MLB Rule 7.06:

" The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. "

IMO, Posey was fielding the ball and had a right to be in the baseline.

[Ksyrup]

I still come back to the fact that in the Posey incident, the runner appears to hit him up at the front of the plate - he ignores any attempt to score for an opportunity to hit the catcher. That's my main beef with this play (and plays like it) and the "unnecessary roughness," if you will, that they should legislate out of the game. It's basically the same concept as the rule at second base of taking out the pivotman on the double play - once you are making no attempt to reach the bag and are simply going for the fielder, it's an automatic out. Same thing is going on here.

[larrymcg421]

The thing I never understood about home plate collisions is why does it matter that the ball gets knocked out of the catcher's glove. The catcher has the ball in his glove and makes contact with the base runner. Shouldn't he be out right then and there? Why does it matter that the catcher holds on to the ball all the way through?

[Ksyrup]

Because you have to possess the ball to be able to tag someone out (or record an out at a base or on a fly ball, etc.), so if you don't demonstrate possession, you never possessed it. It's like the glove/hand exchange at second base - a guy can drop the ball, but if in the ump's judgment he didn't drop "the catch" but the transfer, the runner is still out. At teh plate, if Posey holds onto the ball, makes the tag, then drops the ball while writhing in pain and not as a result of the collision, the out would stand.

It's consistent with all other requirements of possession to record an out.

[gstelmack]

From the replay above, Posey is not blocking the plate, he's turning to make the tag, and the runner goes for him instead of the plate. I'm with the "runner should be ejected" crew for a case like this.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The thing I never understood about home plate collisions is why does it matter that the ball gets knocked out of the catcher's glove. The catcher has the ball in his glove and makes contact with the base runner. Shouldn't he be out right then and there? Why does it matter that the catcher holds on to the ball all the way through?

Just like any other "out" in baseball, you have to demonstrate "control" or "possession" of the ball before an out can be made.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The ball clearly beat the runner to the plate and as Posey turned to make the tag, he lost control of the ball. That's not going to be an illegal play under the rules. If he was camping out, then yes. But in the split-second he thought he made the catch and instanteously moved to make the tag, he dropped the ball, and you can't seriously expect him to be able to reverse momentum and get out of the way.

I'd also suggest that if you look at where Posey is - at the front of the plate - he isn't even blocking 3/4 of the plate (and honestly, that's being generous - it doesn't even look like he's blocking ANY of the plate) as he turns, yet the runner aims straight for him and completely ignores any attempt to score by trying to touch the plate. That should be illegal, IMO.

The runner clearly touches the plate. Posey is very clearly attempting to get in the baseline. It doesn't matter if the ball beat the tag, he doesn't have the ball, so he has no right to the bag.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Just like any other "out" in baseball, you have to demonstrate "control" or "possession" of the ball before an out can be made.

Right, but in my scenario the catcher has the ball and has maintained possession, then the base runner makes contact and knocks it out.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

From the replay above, Posey is not blocking the plate, he's turning to make the tag, and the runner goes for him instead of the plate. I'm with the "runner should be ejected" crew for a case like this.

The runner's feet are on the baseline as he makes contact with Posey. Tough to argue that he went "out of his way" to run over the catcher looking at that replay.

Could he have slid to the other side of the plate to try and beat the tag? Sure. And he may or may not have been safe. Instead he chose what he thought was a "safer" play (for him, at least) and tried to dislodge the ball from the catcher, who was trying to make a play on the runner.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The runner clearly touches the plate. Posey is very clearly attempting to get in the baseline. It doesn't matter if the ball beat the tag, he doesn't have the ball, so he has no right to the bag.

Actually, it looks like the runner only touches the plate because the collision knocks him into it. Either way, he is clearly aiming for the catcher and not the plate. Posey isn't even touching the plate. He's looking straight ahead and then turns to make the tag once he has the ball.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Right, but in my scenario the catcher has the ball and has maintained possession, then the base runner makes contact and knocks it out.

The catcher needs to tag the runner and maintain possession AFTERWARDS for the out to count. Just like a runner trying to steal, the infielder has to show the umpire the ball AFTER making the tag.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

The catcher needs to tag the runner and maintain possession AFTERWARDS for the out to count. Just like a runner trying to steal, the infielder has to show the umpire the ball AFTER making the tag.

But you don't let the runner stealing run over the guy in a prone position to try and dislodge the ball do you? Having never played or been involved in baseball at any level my opinion isn't worth much, but allowing the hit at the plate just seems like an artificial and dangerous way to generate some excitement IMO. I see no reason it has anything to do with the rest of the game.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

But you don't let the runner stealing run over the guy in a prone position to try and dislodge the ball do you? Having never played or been involved in baseball at any level my opinion isn't worth much, but allowing the hit at the plate just seems like an artificial and dangerous way to generate some excitement IMO. I see no reason it has anything to do with the rest of the game.

True enough, home plate is a whole different ball of wax compared to the rest of the field. With that said, a runner sliding into any base is well within his rights to slide as hard as he likes with the intention of knocking the ball out of the other player's glove. That's why fielders are taught to tag a runner in front of the bag with a sweeping motion and not by laying your glove at the front of the bag, essentially giving the runner a target with which to focus his steal cleats on.

[Logan]

If a runner is stealing second, and the fielder receives the throw from the catcher, lays his glove in front of the base, and the runner slides into his glove and dislodges the ball, the runner is safe, correct?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The runner clearly touches the plate. Posey is very clearly attempting to get in the baseline. It doesn't matter if the ball beat the tag, he doesn't have the ball, so he has no right to the bag.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I notice you say the runner touches the plate, which is interesting phrasing because he does indeed touch the plate, but it's not because he was aiming for the plate. He touches the plate, but only because the collision knocked him to the right and onto the plate. He made no attempt to touch the plate.

The baseline is actually not in line with the plate, but the BATTER'S BOX, which has been wiped out. So it doesn't matter to me that he's touching the baseline, since if you ran directly down the baseline, you'd pass home plate without touching it. His right shoulder clearly hits the outer side of Posey's right shoulder, which is a good foot in front of the plate.

To me, this isn't a "should the catcher be allowed to block the plate" issue, so much as a "should a runner be permitted to contact the catcher as a primary means of scoring a run by attempting to knock the ball out of his possession" issue. He very clealry makes no attempt to score - if he did, he could have easily slid to the right and avoided the tag altogether. Instead, he actually moves to the left of the plate to run head-on into the catcher. There was very clearly no attempt to avoid a tag on this play.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Logan

If a runner is stealing second, and the fielder receives the throw from the catcher, lays his glove in front of the base, and the runner slides into his glove and dislodges the ball, the runner is safe, correct?

Correct.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Logan

If a runner is stealing second, and the fielder receives the throw from the catcher, lays his glove in front of the base, and the runner slides into his glove and dislodges the ball, the runner is safe, correct?

Correct.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

From the replay above, Posey is not blocking the plate, he's turning to make the tag, and the runner goes for him instead of the plate. I'm with the "runner should be ejected" crew for a case like this.

Agreed. He wasn't even blocking 25% of the plate. The runner could have easily evaded the tag if he tried, but he deliberately hit him. That was un-called for.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The baseline is actually not in line with the plate, but the BATTER'S BOX, which has been wiped out. So it doesn't matter to me that he's touching the baseline, since if you ran directly down the baseline, you'd pass home plate without touching it. His right shoulder clearly hits the outer side of Posey's right shoulder, which is a good foot in front of the plate.

The baselines intersect at the bottom of home plate so at some point the runner has to enter the field of play to touch the plate, or any bag for that matter. Did he "leave" the baseline by unacceptable distance before making contact with Posey? Not even close, IMHO.

If the runner had continued running on his original path he likely ends up kneeing Posey in the face or upper body because Posey is coming across the plate trying to make a play on the runner. The results are probably exactly same...Posey laying in a heap and the runner being safe.

The result obviously sucks, but under the current rules, it was a legal play.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

The baselines intersect at the bottom of home plate so at some point the runner has to enter the field of play to touch the plate, or any bag for that matter. Did he "leave" the baseline by unacceptable distance before making contact with Posey? Not even close, IMHO.

If the runner had continued running on his original path he likely ends up kneeing Posey in the face or upper body because Posey is coming across the plate trying to make a play on the runner. The results are probably exactly same...Posey laying in a heap and the runner being safe.

The result obviously sucks, but under the current rules, it was a legal play.

I don't think we're arguing whether the call was legal or not under current rules. I think the issue is what should be allowable, and I'm arguing that instead of this being the catcher's fault for blocking the plate illegally or improperly, that the question here should be what right the runner has to decide not to slide to try to tag the base and instead turn his sole attention to trying to run the catcher over to knock the ball out, and then touch the base when he can (either after the collision, or as a result of the collision). I don't think it would be too hard to argue this kind of play is more the fault of the runner, and could/should be legislated against.

He made no attempt to touch the base - if he did, he would have attempted to move his body away from the tag, not directly into Posey's outside shoulder. I think that's the issue everyone should be focused on, because Posey did not block the plate here at all.

[AENeuman]

Damn, it is so hard to be objective on this...but I think this play shows how a rule change is needed.
For one, this is more or less that same as the old breaking up double plays slides, way off the bag and only targeting the guy with the ball. game seems to be fine with that fairly significant change.
second, i think the rule will change when instead of breaking a leg the catcher gets a serious concussion. mlb does not want to go down the nfl path on this.

[JediKooter]

Ouch. Posey possibly out for the season with a fracture and possible ligament damage.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

For one, this is more or less that same as the old breaking up double plays slides, way off the bag and only targeting the guy with the ball. game seems to be fine with that fairly significant change.

Yep. Same thing I pointed out. It's a bit different in that the catcher is never going to be that far off the bag, but the purpose is different - at 2B, the intent is to disrupt the throw. At the plate, the intent is to knock the ball loose as a means of scoring, since a typical slide would almost always result in an out. But they are basically the same thing - an attempt to target the fielder instead of the base.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Damn, it is so hard to be objective on this...but I think this play shows how a rule change is needed.
For one, this is more or less that same as the old breaking up double plays slides, way off the bag and only targeting the guy with the ball. game seems to be fine with that fairly significant change.
second, i think the rule will change when instead of breaking a leg the catcher gets a serious concussion. mlb does not want to go down the nfl path on this.

This is the bottom line, is it worth one of the best young players in the game to be out for the season and possibly even have a question over the rest of his career (Kendrys Morales says hi!) just for what this rule adds to the game? I'm pretty obviously in the no category but I don't understand the subtleties of the game. I'd get rid of it in a heartbeat.

[Ksyrup]

It's an outgrowth of a natural play that occurs, when a runner is trying to score at home and the catcheris trying to make the tag. On one side, catchers have been given wide lattitude to block the plate and the umps never call them for interference, even under the letter of the law. On the other side, when a runner is a dead duck, he knows that the possession rule could be the only way he is safe, so that encourages him to hit the catcher to see if he can knock the ball out. These have existed for years with a bit of grumbling from observers, but maybe now this is something that will make the league look into changing the rules to get back to what was originally intended, a clean slide into the plate and tag by the catcher, and whoever gets there first, wins.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

That's Miguel. Maybe he's batting like 1-for-2 off Cliff Lee.

That's .500!

Cairo with 2 doubles and 2 runs scored, and Jay Bruce continues to play out of his mind.

Phils on the verge of retaking the lead though, as the Reds futility continues.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

This is the bottom line, is it worth one of the best young players in the game to be out for the season and possibly even have a question over the rest of his career (Kendrys Morales says hi!) just for what this rule adds to the game? I'm pretty obviously in the no category but I don't understand the subtleties of the game. I'd get rid of it in a heartbeat.

Bingo. There's no reason for this kind of play. As Ksyrup notes, there are legitimate bang-bang plays where the ball arrives about the same time as the runner, and a collision results from the baserunner trying to get to home plate and the catcher trying to tag him out.

Then there are situations like this one, where the baserunner makes a conscious attempt to initiate hard contact with the catcher - that should be barred. There's no good reason for it - this isn't football.

I laugh at the people that think "this is how baseball has always been, you're a pussy for wanting this kind of play to be against the rules" - I'm guessing they would have been the same ones complaining about rules in football mandating helmets, banning clothesline tackles or chop blocks, or running starts on offense, etc.

Give the umpire discretion to judge whether a runner is going out of his way to initiate contact at the plate (and thus ruled out, and perhaps tossed from the game if the contact is egregious enough), and demand they enforce the rules against catchers blocking the basepath prior to having the ball.

[molson]

It's hard to tell (and those kinds of angles can be deceiving), but it looks like if the runner had continued straight, he would have just hit Posey's head/left shoulder instead of his right shoulder. And I'm not sure it'd be reasonable/beneficial to require a runner to slide and try to avoid physical contact with a catcher who puts himself out there. So to me the biggest issue is the runner initiating that contact maybe outside the baseline. That'd be the only issue I'd have with it.

And it is different than football in that the frequency/severity of serious head injuries isn't as high with these types of plays as it is in football. Sucks for Posey, but a fractured bone in the leg doesn't threaten the future of the sport like threatened head/neck injuries does football.

[Ksyrup]

But the main point is, he wasn't trying to score by touching the base before he was tagged. He was assuming a tag and basically gave up trying to avoid it in order to initiate the collision to be safe by knocking the ball out of Posey's glove. Since Posey was so far in front of the plate, if he was really trying to score and the collision was just a natural part of the play, he would have - well, first, he would have slid instead of emulated a LB - moved to the other side of the plate, away from the tag. He went directly into the tag, and made no attempt to slide or touch the base.

I don't think that's illegal, but maybe it should be.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But the main point is, he wasn't trying to score by touching the base before he was tagged. He was assuming a tag and basically gave up trying to avoid it in order to initiate the collision to be safe by knocking the ball out of Posey's glove. Since Posey was so far in front of the plate, if he was really trying to score and the collision was just a natural part of the play, he would have - well, first, he would have slid instead of emulated a LB - moved to the other side of the plate, away from the tag. He went directly into the tag, and made no attempt to slide or touch the base.

I don't think that's illegal, but maybe it should be.

So you would require a slide in certain situations - a runner would have to actively try to avoid a catcher in the basepath (and maybe even have to slide to a certain angle depending on where the catcher is)? A runner wouldn't have the right to simply continue running forward if the catcher happened to be there? I don't have strong feelings either way, that would just be a big change I think. I personally don't have a problem with a batter running straight ahead and running over a catcher, incidentally attempting to step on home plate as he passes (even if he lowers his shoulder to brace for the collision). Sliding isn't the only legal way to score at home. But this one (again, depending on the angle), where a runner initiates a collision outside the basepath is much more problematic. I think the runner should have just gone straight, and impacted the part of Posey that was directly in the basepath (head and left shoulder, from the look of it). At least then the catcher knows where the impact is going to come from - that's probably we had an injury here, Posey wasn't expecting to be hit where he was.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

So you would require a slide in certain situations - a runner would have to actively try to avoid a catcher in the basepath (and maybe even have to slide to a certain angle depending on where the catcher is)? A runner wouldn't have the right to simply continue running forward if the catcher happened to be there? I don't have strong feelings either way, that would just be a big change I think. I personally don't have a problem with a batter running straight ahead and running over a catcher, attempting to step on home plate as he passes. But this one (again, depending on the angle), where a runner initiates a collision outside the basepath is much more problematic.

I think:

1) The catcher (or any fielder) should not be allowed to block the basepath.
2) The runner should not be allowed to plow over the catcher (or any fielder) who is not on the basepath.
3) If the catcher (or any fielder) is blocking the basepath, the runner is automatically safe. If a collision occurs, the catcher or fielder is ejected.
4) If the runner leaves the basepath, they are automatically out. If a collision occurs, the runner is ejected.

Honestly, I always thought #1 & #2 were rules already, they just never seem to want to enforce #1.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Having never played or been involved in baseball at any level my opinion isn't worth much, but allowing the hit at the plate just seems like an artificial and dangerous way to generate some excitement IMO. I see no reason it has anything to do with the rest of the game.

I've been on the receiving end of that same play at 2nd as an 8 year old & ended up closer to shortstop than to the bag. I got knocked cold by our eventual HS fullback around age 12 when I stepped into the base path trying to catch an errant throw at first. Both were clean baseball then, it was clean baseball this week.

The fact that Posey is a big-time talent & seems to be a likable guy doesn't change that for me.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think:

1) The catcher (or any fielder) should not be allowed to block the basepath.
2) The runner should not be allowed to plow over the catcher (or any fielder) who is not on the basepath.
3) If the catcher (or any fielder) is blocking the basepath, the runner is automatically safe. If a collision occurs, the catcher or fielder is ejected.
4) If the runner leaves the basepath, they are automatically out. If a collision occurs, the runner is ejected.

Honestly, I always thought #1 & #2 were rules already, they just never seem to want to enforce #1.

Wait, are you talking both with and without a ball?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

So you would require a slide in certain situations - a runner would have to actively try to avoid a catcher in the basepath (and maybe even have to slide to a certain angle depending on where the catcher is)? A runner wouldn't have the right to simply continue running forward if the catcher happened to be there? I don't have strong feelings either way, that would just be a big change I think. I personally don't have a problem with a batter running straight ahead and running over a catcher, incidentally attempting to step on home plate as he passes (even if he lowers his shoulder to brace for the collision). Sliding isn't the only legal way to score at home. But this one (again, depending on the angle), where a runner initiates a collision outside the basepath is much more problematic. I think the runner should have just gone straight, and impacted the part of Posey that was directly in the basepath (head and left shoulder, from the look of it). At least then the catcher knows where the impact is going to come from - that's probably we had an injury here, Posey wasn't expecting to be hit where he was.

I would be for a rule that doesn't allow an impact where the intent is to knock the ball loose with the shoulder/body, as opposed to attempting to score by evading the catcher or sliding to reach the plate and incidentally knocking the ball out.

Where the runner is going to remain upright, he either has to still attempt to avoid the tag or score without initiating a collision (if he's trying to score standing up and the catcher jumps in his way, that's not his fault). I just think the purpose of the runner should be to score by reaching the base, not to knock the fielder out and hope the ball comes loose. To me, that's really no different than the rule at 2B about going after the fielder to break up the DP - he's not attempting to slide to the bag, but at the fielder. That's what's going on with these kinds of collisions.

So I wouldn't necessarily outlaw scoring standing up (of course), but put the onus on the runner to have to be trying to reach the plate by evading the catcher as opposed to making a football move designed to knock the ball out. I know it's been allowed, but I just don't see why.

And of course, all of this presupposes that the catcher either has the ball or is in the process of receiving it - if he's in the way without the ball, the runner is safe. In the Posey play, I'd consider him in the process of receiving the ball - but then again, I don't really think he ever blocked the plate.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I would be for a rule that doesn't allow an impact where the intent is to knock the ball loose with the shoulder/body, as opposed to attempting to score by evading the catcher or sliding to reach the plate and incidentally knocking the ball out.

That's the trickiest part because how can you judge intent when a guy's doing both? (hitting the catcher and also stepping on home plate as he passes?) Maybe the runner thinks he can beat the throw in by stepping on home. I've seen plenty of players run straight through home, stepping on the base, and maybe just grazing the catcher who is just in front of home, receiving or about to receive a throw. If a catcher is one step over, that's a collision.

[Ksyrup]

There's a pretty big difference between running through home plate and the catcher being on one side of the plate and the runner lowering his shoulder and bracing for a hit when nearly the entire plate is wide open to be touched. Like I said, if the plate is open and the catcher is moving to make a tag and their is a collision, I don't see a problem with that - as long as the runner isn't "measuring up" the catcher for a hit and ignoring an easier way to score.

I think the Marlins player assumed a collision was necessary with Posey to score, when in fact, even if Posey caught the ball, he still had an easy route to the plate by sliding away from the play and swiping his hand. I don't see why that shouldn't be the default. If you think you can make it standing up, you better be sure the catcher's not going to be there waiting for you. But no doubt, it would require a judgment call and be a difficult call on some plays.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've been on the receiving end of that same play at 2nd as an 8 year old & ended up closer to shortstop than to the bag. I got knocked cold by our eventual HS fullback around age 12 when I stepped into the base path trying to catch an errant throw at first. Both were clean baseball then, it was clean baseball this week.

The fact that Posey is a big-time talent & seems to be a likable guy doesn't change that for me.

And of course, since it's always been done that way, there's never a reason to revisit the rationale and maybe make a change for safety purposes, right?

This has little to do with Posey and more to do with how obviously egregious the play was - stepping out to hit Posey's right side with his right side, when Posey wasn't even in front of the plate. And I'm not saying the guy had any ill will there - he was doing what he's been taught. But that's the problem. He was playing the fielder and not the plate, when the purpose of his action is (supposed to be) to score a run.

This is a lot like the receiver over the middle hit in football. Sure, it's always been a part of the game, but hitting a guy in the head as he's up in the air as a means of keeping him from catching the ball is unnecessary when there are more basic and safer ways to do that - like playing the ball, or tackling the body. Same thing here.

[JediKooter]

Well, Jon is from the same state as Ty Cobb...just saying.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think the Marlins player assumed a collision was necessary with Posey to score, when in fact, even if Posey caught the ball, he still had an easy route to the plate by sliding away from the play and swiping his hand. I don't see why that shouldn't be the default. If you think you can make it standing up, you better be sure the catcher's not going to be there waiting for you. But no doubt, it would require a judgment call and be a difficult call on some plays.

Sure, it's obvious for us after viewing the replay over and over again but I doubt it's that obvious when you have to decide 10 feet away from the plate with a throw on it's way and a catcher ready to try and make sure you don't score the winning run. Or maybe he had it in his head the entire time, we don't know.

I understand the reasoning behind trying to eliminate that kind of play but at the same time, 9 times out of 10, both the catcher and runner walk away from a play like that. Are those odds not acceptable? I really don't know.

But if we are going to try to eliminate that play, something that doesn't happen all that often, what about guys getting hit with 90+ MPH fastballs and breaking bones or incurring concussions? Sure, the intent is there sometimes to try and plunk somebody, but I would think the majority of the time it happens by accident. So, do we need to start cracking down on how fast or how inside pitchers pitch to prevent injuries?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, Jon is from the same state as Ty Cobb...just saying.

I'm not 100% sure Jon isn't the reincarnation of Ty Cobb.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm not 100% sure Jon isn't the reincarnation of Ty Cobb.

Has he beat up an armless war vet by any chance?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And of course, since it's always been done that way, there's never a reason to revisit the rationale and maybe make a change for safety purposes, right?

At the expense of competition? No, I don't believe there is.

He was playing the fielder and not the plate, when the purpose of his action is (supposed to be) to score a run.

And what he did was the best chance to score that run. There was no intent to injure, there was an intent to score a run.

This is a lot like the receiver over the middle hit in football. Sure, it's always been a part of the game, but hitting a guy in the head as he's up in the air as a means of keeping him from catching the ball is unnecessary when there are more basic and safer ways to do that - like playing the ball, or tackling the body. Same thing here.

I've also consistently opposed restrictions on where a player may be hit during the course of making a tackle. His head, his ankle, whatever you hit in the process of making the tackle is how it should be afaic & rules to the contrary make a mockery of what should be a very basic part of the game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

So, do we need to start cracking down on how fast or how inside pitchers pitch to prevent injuries?

Nah, we'll just swap out the baseballs for tennis balls, that ought to solve most of the "problem".