Should MLB outlaw running into catchers?

[Sports Guy]

What do you guys think? There was talk about this concept this morning.

Some think they shouldn't allow the idea of plowing over the catcher.

The thought being that if you can take away some of the defenseless hits in football, that you can do it in a sport where the hitting isn't part of the game.

[sangar]

Of course not, it's part of the game.

[Spoonless]

I have no problem with them taking it out of the game. Catchers already play one of the toughest positions as far as wear and tear goes; there's no real reason to add in a bunch of collisions too. I guess I just don't understand why collisions aren't allowed at the other bases, but are at home plate. Or are they in fact allowed at the other bases?

[sangar]

I have no problem with them taking it out of the game. Catchers already play one of the toughest positions as far as wear and tear goes; there's no real reason to add in a bunch of collisions too. I guess I just don't understand why collisions aren't allowed at the other bases, but are at home plate. Or are they in fact allowed at the other bases?

Perhaps some change is in order but to eliminate home plate collisions gives the catcher too much power. He could block the plate with impunity and this would cause more problems than it would be solving.

[Stotle]

Perhaps some change is in order but to eliminate home plate collisions gives the catcher too much power. He could block the plate with impunity and this would cause more problems than it would be solving.

He actually can't block home plate without the ball, according to the rules. Right? I guess I think it should be the same as any other base. The fact that he wears shinguards shouldn't make him fair game to get lit up.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Perhaps some change is in order but to eliminate home plate collisions gives the catcher too much power. He could block the plate with impunity and this would cause more problems than it would be solving.

I think it likely would be a dual-headed rule: completely eliminating the ability of the runner to "take out" a fielder on a base or in the base path, and enforcing the interference rule in a much stronger fashion.

What I would like to see is stronger enforcement for interference, with allowances for straddling the plate and blocking it part-way like a fielder can on, say, a steal play. Along with that, I would like to see a rule in place that can disallow the run if it is obvious that a runner didn't attempt to slide into the base when they had the opportunity. That way, if the catcher is in the way they can be bowled over with no penalty to the runner, but one where the runner goes out of the way to take them out the run can be taken away. Basically a weaker version of what I said above.

[Genya]

I don't think any rule changes are necessary. The basic risk/reward is plenty to control the situation, since blocking the plate is optional. If you don't want to get crushed, take a step forward. Otherwise, you bear the risk. Bigger catchers shouldn't be penalized, and runners should absolutely retain the right to truck somebody if they are in his way.

I'm sure that many of catchers have been hurt blocking the plate over the 100+ years (Didn't Pete Rose end someone's career by running over him in an All-Star game?) And now the rule change is being discussed, because a ROY broke a bone and tore a ligament?

I don't like to see guys getting hurt, but it's part of the game. Let it be.

[Gurgi]

I hope they dont change anything. It is perhaps the single most exciting play in baseball. Bang bang plays at the plate in sudden death situations are wonderful.

If they change it it wont be because of the players themselves. It will be because the owners are tired of losing money with guys knocked out making guarenteed contracts.

[OFFNY]

I don't think any rule changes are necessary. The basic risk/reward is plenty to control the situation, since blocking the plate is optional. If you don't want to get crushed, take a step forward. Otherwise, you bear the risk. Bigger catchers shouldn't be penalized, and runners should absolutely retain the right to truck somebody if they are in his way.

I'm sure that many of catchers have been hurt blocking the plate over the 100+ years (Didn't Pete Rose end someone's career by running over him in an All-Star game ?)And now the rule change is being discussed, because a ROY broke a bone and tore a ligament?

I don't like to see guys getting hurt, but it's part of the game. Let it be.

It was Ray Fosse ......... but the collision did not end Fosse's career. That All-Star Game was in 1970, and Fosse continued to play until 1979. The collision caused a shoulder spearation for Fosse, but he came back and played the very next game after that All-Star Game, and played in 42 more games the rest of said season, even winning the Gold Glove Award.

[sangar]

I think it likely would be a dual-headed rule: completely eliminating the ability of the runner to "take out" a fielder on a base or in the base path, and enforcing the interference rule in a much stronger fashion.

What I would like to see is stronger enforcement for interference, with allowances for straddling the plate and blocking it part-way like a fielder can on, say, a steal play. Along with that, I would like to see a rule in place that can disallow the run if it is obvious that a runner didn't attempt to slide into the base when they had the opportunity. That way, if the catcher is in the way they can be bowled over with no penalty to the runner, but one where the runner goes out of the way to take them out the run can be taken away. Basically a weaker version of what I said above.

I like the basic assertion but umpires seem to have adopted their own personal interpretation of the strike zone when it's perimeters are clearly defined in the rule book. If they willingly distort this rule to a personal interpretation what would they do with a rule which requires them to interpret intention on a player's part? I like your premise, I just don't think it's practical.

[Icterus galbula]

it's part of the game.

Does it have to be though? It seems so different from anything else that goes on the field. Baseball doesn't have regular collisons like football, fights like hockey, or in-the paint battles like basketball. I agree with others that it seems odd that home plate is the exception. Is there a good reason to continue with the exception? I'm not sure if its sliver of tradition outweighs the injury concerns and out-of-placeness.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I like the basic assertion but umpires seem to have adopted their own personal interpretation of the strike zone when it's perimeters are clearly defined in the rule book. If they willingly distort this rule to a personal interpretation what would they do with a rule which requires them to interpret intention on a player's part? I like your premise, I just don't think it's practical.

Well, I've stated my opinions on what to do with the umpires many times

[ChaosLex]

Absolutely not.