MLB likely to ban plate collisions

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Of course it isn't a courthouse but you should still be able to support your positions with facts.

If you can't the whole level of discourse goes down.

Bless me father for I have sinned. Recently I did not have enough support of an obvious fact for a comment I made on a message board. I will take my penance, amen.

[PaulFolk]

Bless me father for I have sinned. Recently I did not have enough support of an obvious fact for a comment I made on a message board. I will take my penance, amen.

What obvious fact? How do we know there are a higher rate of injuries at second base than at home plate? That's the whole issue here. You're stating something as a fact that might not actually be true at all, which significantly changes the argument.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

What obvious fact? How do we know there are a higher rate of injuries at second base than at home plate? That's the whole issue here. You're stating something as a fact that might not actually be true at all, which significantly changes the argument.

There is no argument if we both agree to something. COC was simply looking to argue, as are you. He went on to say that he wasn't making an assertion that there were more injuries at home plate then at 2nd. If you disagree and feel that there are more injuries at home then 2nd, then we have an argument. But if you happen to agree and are just asking for proof to be snarky, then you have a different agenda and are avoiding the issue.

[osfan83]

I don't know about injuries....but common sense has to tell you that their are more plays to break up the DP then there are close plays at the plate. The point is they are talking about a rule change for something that is relatively rare to begin with. Why? If MLB answers with; "to make the game safer", then the follow-up must be "why focus on the rare collision at the plate, before you focus on 1. Breaking up DP's, 2. Comebackers, 3. HBP, 4. Shattered bats...all of which often happen multiple times a game, while you may go a week without a close play at the plate.

[Can_of_corn]

There is no argument if we both agree to something. COC was simply looking to argue, as are you. He went on to say that he wasn't making an assertion that there were more injuries at home plate then at 2nd. If you disagree and feel that there are more injuries at home then 2nd, then we have an argument. But if you happen to agree and are just asking for proof to be snarky, then you have a different agenda and are avoiding the issue.

Right I am not making an assertion because I do not know. I have no idea which group of collisions are more likely to cause injury. I am certainly not going to just declare it to be one or the other. You might be right, I would like to know.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't know about injuries....but common sense has to tell you that their are more plays to break up the DP then there are close plays at the plate. The point is they are talking about a rule change for something that is relatively rare to begin with. Why? If MLB answers with; "to make the game safer", then the follow-up must be "why focus on the rare collision at the plate, before you focus on 1. Breaking up DP's, 2. Comebackers, 3. HBP, 4. Shattered bats...all of which often happen multiple times a game, while you may go a week without a close play at the plate.

To me it is simple.

Brain trauma is a bigger deal then the other types of injury you are talking about and it is my belief (see how easy that was) that the type of impact seen at home plate is more likely to cause brain trauma.

It is also a lot easier to "fix" home plate collisions then it is Comebackers and shattered bars (They have made progress on the bat issue btw).

[osfan83]

To me it is simple.

Brain trauma is a bigger deal then the other types of injury you are talking about and it is my belief (see how easy that was) that the type of impact seen at home plate is more likely to cause brain trauma.

It is also a lot easier to "fix" home plate collisions then it is Comebackers and shattered bars (They have made progress on the bat issue btw).

Thanks for the "my belief". You are right neither us of us know.....IMO if brain trauma is the issue, then we should take head first slides out as well.

[DrungoHazewood]

You are not allowed to have a collision at any other base, so why should home plate be any different. Its a good rule that is long overdue.

Right. Around 110 years ago they cleaned up the rules and interpretation of the rules so that there were essentially no collisions at the other bases. But for some reason, probably because the catcher has gear that makes him a little more protected, home plate was never enforced the same way (although the rules pretty explicitly say it should be).

#2 would set up a special case for a rule governing a catch at home. Currently, a catch isn't a catch unless the fielder controls the ball to the point when he begins to remove it from his glove. That's why Casilla's catch wasn't a catch after he banged into Nick's thigh. The ball was in his glove plenty long enough, but not up to the point when he removed it.

Regardless, it needs to be done.

I think it would be pretty simple and straightforward to say that if a fielder has clear possession of the ball then the moment the tag is applied the runner is out. You'd probably still have to do something about cases where the ball and runner arrive at the same time, or nearly. But I think it's really as simple as treating home plate as just another base. No other base routinely has collisions like at home, you NEVER see a runner lower his shoulder into the second or third baseman.

How is this relevant to the topic? Are you saying if they ban home plate collisions, that the game will explode in popularity?

No, of course not. But it is a point countering those who think baseball would no longer be as popular.

You know a lot of the best athletes would be more willing to be running backs if they knew they couldn't be tackled.

Yes, I'm sure there are athletes who choose being an outfielder over a running back knowing that they will probably be able to walk and carry on a conversation and not take 26 painkillers a day when they're 45.

Changing this rule would create another umpires judgment nightmare. What if the throw is up the line a little and the catcher has to move to actually make the catch, his right hip is slightly blocking the plate. The runner is called safe, because in the umpires judgment, the catcher was slightly blocking the plate. This would be another useless rule.

It would require the umpire to do his job, yes. And it would allow for good players to play baseball instead of nursing concussions and fractures. I doubt the catchers would find it useless.

Maybe we could have a new league for folks who like full-contact Base Ball. You could eliminate all the silly rules they've enacted over the years like those disallowing collisions at other bases, suspending people for fights, go back to one ump so less stuff gets caught, getting rid of sissified batting helmets and other padding, dump the shinguards, maybe get rid of the DH... You could call it the XMLB and have Mean Gene Okerlund be the commish.

Pretty sure those in favor of this kind of change would be in favor of helmet laws too.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the good ol' days. Obviously in any facet of life helmets are just another step towards the decline and fall of western civilization.

[DrungoHazewood]

Thanks for the "my belief". You are right neither us of us know.....IMO if brain trauma is the issue, then we should take head first slides out as well.

We should let the information guide us. If there are significant numbers of concussions from head-first slides we can consider it.

As for home plate, I don't think the issue is dependent on brain trauma. That certainly give the issue weight, but really it's a case of allowing a type of play at home plate you don't allow anywhere else on the field. It's pretty much the only play on a baseball diamond where you're allowed to violently initiate contact with someone and I think it's reasonable to ask why.

[JeffReboulet]

To me it comes down to the catcher not coming up the line. Make the catcher stay at the plate and out of the line and you'll have dramatically less collisions. If the throw pulls the catcher up the line and there is contact then the runner should be safe.

One of the craziest things that happened to me when I was playing was a collision at the plate. I was running from third on contact and the pitcher was able to snag the ground ball. He throws a bad throw up the 3rd base line. So Im headed home and the catcher is coming towards me to receive the throw. By the time he actually has the ball hes 8 feet or so up the line and Im pretty much on top of him. I can a) slide and be 10 feet short of the plate b) stop and give myself up c) try to go around him and risk being called out for going out of the base line or d) lower my shoulder and put him on his ass.

Needless to say I took d and put him on the ground, knocking the ball out in the process. I ended up getting called out, ejected and suspended for the next 2 games for "malicious contact" (which is complete bs btw because the rule book says nothing about that and the ump made that up on the spot).

Anyways HS baseball grudges aside, I think there will be too many judgement call plays if you do anything but treat the line leading to home plate any different than the other lines. If a first or third baseman is in the line and causes a collision the runner is safe because the fielder is in the way. The same should apply to the catcher. If he is blocking the plate, or coming up the line to get a throw the runner should be allowed to have access to the plate. Its the catchers job to get out of the runners way and not vice versa. With that said if he is at the plate, with the ball and the runner still decks him than I think the runner should be called out.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Right. Around 110 years ago they cleaned up the rules and interpretation of the rules so that there were essentially no collisions at the other bases. But for some reason, probably because the catcher has gear that makes him a little more protected, home plate was never enforced the same way (although the rules pretty explicitly say it should be).

I think it would be pretty simple and straightforward to say that if a fielder has clear possession of the ball then the moment the tag is applied the runner is out. You'd probably still have to do something about cases where the ball and runner arrive at the same time, or nearly. But I think it's really as simple as treating home plate as just another base. No other base routinely has collisions like at home, you NEVER see a runner lower his shoulder into the second or third baseman.

No, of course not. But it is a point countering those who think baseball would no longer be as popular.

Yes, I'm sure there are athletes who choose being an outfielder over a running back knowing that they will probably be able to walk and carry on a conversation and not take 26 painkillers a day when they're 45.

It would require the umpire to do his job, yes. And it would allow for good players to play baseball instead of nursing concussions and fractures. I doubt the catchers would find it useless.

Maybe we could have a new league for folks who like full-contact Base Ball. You could eliminate all the silly rules they've enacted over the years like those disallowing collisions at other bases, suspending people for fights, go back to one ump so less stuff gets caught, getting rid of sissified batting helmets and other padding, dump the shinguards, maybe get rid of the DH... You could call it the XMLB and have Mean Gene Okerlund be the commish.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the good ol' days. Obviously in any facet of life helmets are just another step towards the decline and fall of western civilization.

It is very simple. If you do not want to get run over. M-O-V-E. Why is that such a hard concept to understand? No rule is needed.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

We should let the information guide us. If there are significant numbers of concussions from head-first slides we can consider it.

As for home plate, I don't think the issue is dependent on brain trauma. That certainly give the issue weight, but really it's a case of allowing a type of play at home plate you don't allow anywhere else on the field. It's pretty much the only play on a baseball diamond where you're allowed to violently initiate contact with someone and I think it's reasonable to ask why.

This is simply false. Tell that to the middle infielders that get hammered on a nightly basis at 2nd. It is actually worse, as these runners are already out and are violently taking out these fielders.

[DrungoHazewood]

[/b]

This is simply false. Tell that to the middle infielders that get hammered on a nightly basis at 2nd. It is actually worse, as these runners are already out and are violently taking out these fielders.

When is the last time you saw a second baseman try to tag a runner and instead finds himself in left field with a concussion?

In any case, if second basemen and shortstops are digging in 8' off the bag and obstructing runners, while runners are lowering shoulders and trying to dislodge the ball... then, yes, by all means, let's fix that, too.

[DrungoHazewood]

It is very simple. If you do not want to get run over. M-O-V-E. Why is that such a hard concept to understand? No rule is needed.

Why should there be a different set of rules for home plate? I agree that no new rule is needed for much of this - it's already clearly spelled out that blocking access to the plate when not in possession of the ball is totally illegal and should be called obstruction with the runner being safe. The only change I'm advocating is that the runner should be called out automatically if the catcher has possession of the ball and he tries to dislodge it.

A related question: Should fielders at other bases be allowed to block access if they don't mind getting R-U-N-O-V-E-R?

[NJ BIRD FAN]

When is the last time you saw a second baseman try to tag a runner and instead finds himself in left field with a concussion?

In any case, if second basemen and shortstops are digging in 8' off the bag and obstructing runners, while runners are lowering shoulders and trying to dislodge the ball... then, yes, by all means, let's fix that, too.

I have seen many an infielder do nothing but come in the vicinity of 2nd base and be violently spiked, upended ect. Not even trying to tag anyone, just stepping on the bag. Listen, I am all for it. You are the one that claims nothing violent happens anywhere else. That is simply not true, it happens daily.