MLB likely to ban plate collisions

[NJ BIRD FAN]

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?

So he is just out if the ball beats the runner then? What if he sides and kicks the ball out? Is that not dislodging? I think you are opening a huge can of worms for something that can police itself.

[The Wedge]

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.

That's not what he said. He's saying the collisions at home are orders of magnitude more violent for various reasons than any breakup/collision at 2nd, even if they happen more. And that even with them happening much more regularly than home collisions, the injury rate is (when adjusted for frequency deviation) more than likely lower (meaning that if there were an equal number of collisions at both, the injuries at home would be much higher).

[The Wedge]

So he is just out if the ball beats the runner then? What if he sides and kicks the ball out? Is that not dislodging? I think you are opening a huge can of worms for something that can police itself.

Oh, quit it. It's very clear he means intentionally plowing a catcher in order to dislodge the ball. The ball coming out if a player slides (and is therefore trying to be safer in the first place) is a completely different thing, and therefore, no, its not "dislodging."

[NJ BIRD FAN]

That's not what he said. He's saying the collisions at home are orders of magnitude more violent for various reasons than any breakup/collision at 2nd, even if they happen more. And that even with them happening much more regularly than home collisions, the injury rate is (when adjusted for frequency deviation) more than likely lower (meaning that if there were an equal number of collisions at both, the injuries at home would be much higher).

"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."

That is the quote. It is blatantly not true.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Oh, quit it. It's very clear he means intentionally plowing a catcher in order to dislodge the ball. The ball coming out if a player slides (and is therefore trying to be safer in the first place) is a completely different thing, and therefore, no, its not "dislodging."

Again you are wrong. Its a habit. I have seen many an attempt to dislodge a ball with a slide. My point is you would leave that up to the umpire.

[McNulty]

So he is just out if the ball beats the runner then? What if he sides and kicks the ball out? Is that not dislodging? I think you are opening a huge can of worms for something that can police itself.

Once again, this has been the rule in college for YEARS and I've never seen an instance in which it was an issue. Put your can of worms away.

[The Wedge]

"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."

That is the quote. It is blatantly not true.

Myself and Drungo have a much different interpretation of "violently initiate contact." Going in spikes or knees high to second with a slide is WAY less violent to me than trying to shoulder chuck a catcher so hard he flies back to the barriers.

I don't know why I bother. A person who constantly tells people their opinions are wrong like a snide elementary school teacher with a power trip is not fun to debate with in the slightest.

[The Wedge]

Again you are wrong. Its a habit. I have seen many an attempt to dislodge a ball with a slide. My point is you would leave that up to the umpire.

Uh, HOW is that leaving it up to the ump? The player slides, there's no problem. They keep their feet and collide, illegal. That's a pretty easy damn differentiation for an umpire to make. We're not talking a difference of inches.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Myself and Drungo have a much different interpretation of "violently initiate contact." Going in spikes or knees high to second with a slide is WAY less violent to me than trying to shoulder chuck a catcher so hard he flies back to the barriers.

I don't know why I bother. A person who constantly tells people their opinions are wrong like a snide elementary school teacher with a power trip is not fun to debate with in the slightest.

Then know of what you speak. I was not debating you. I was debating him. You chimed in. He was wrong. Violence happens everyday at 2nd base. Personally, Id rather be set and ready to take a hit, then be airborne and have someone take my legs out from under me. You can land on your head and almost any injury is possible.

[The Wedge]

Then know of what you speak. I was not debating you. I was debating him. You chimed in. He was wrong. Violence happens everyday at 2nd base. Personally, Id rather be set and ready to take a hit, then be airborne and have someone take my legs out from under me. You can land on your head and almost any injury is possible.

Oh, I'm sorry, we aren't on a public forum? You know what, you're not worth it. Welcome to the ignore list. Buh bye.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Uh, HOW is that leaving it up to the ump? The player slides, there's no problem. They keep their feet and collide, illegal. That's a pretty easy damn differentiation for an umpire to make. We're not talking a difference of inches.

The problem you are always going to have is that there is no issue with sliding past home. If they are forced to slide, they are going to be coming in very hard, feet high, maybe to the head. Is head first sliding going to be illegal? You can make a head first slide look a lot like running someone over if the catcher is blocking. I think it would be very gray.

[DrungoHazewood]

The problem you are always going to have is that there is no issue with sliding past home. If they are forced to slide, they are going to be coming in very hard, feet high, maybe to the head. Is head first sliding going to be illegal? You can make a head first slide look a lot like running someone over if the catcher is blocking. I think it would be very gray.

Then how does this work in basically every non-professional league in the world almost without incident? Most guys have played 10+ years of baseball before they are ever in a league where it's ok to block the plate without the ball or hit the catcher like a 1980s free safety.

[Why Not?]

The problem you are always going to have is that there is no issue with sliding past home. If they are forced to slide, they are going to be coming in very hard, feet high, maybe to the head. Is head first sliding going to be illegal? You can make a head first slide look a lot like running someone over if the catcher is blocking. I think it would be very gray.

There is no need to deal in hypotheticals here. The vast majority of baseball played on this planet is played with no-contact rules.

[Why Not?]

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.

Because the plate collision scenario is a problem with an easy, proven solution.

[Number5]

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?

Well, there actually are rules differences involved that do make sense.

The take-out at second base is on a force play, with no tag necessary. There is a rule in place that the runner must be able to touch the base, which is meant to protect the infielder from a roll block after he has easily cleared the base. That rule works. The runners that violate the rule cause a double play for the interference, regardless of whether the umpire thinks there was a chance to get the runner at first. Additionally, the runner could be ejected if the play is considered malicious in nature by the umpire.

On non-force plays at both second and third, the runner is in jeopardy to be tagged out if he over-runs or over-slides the base. At home, he need not maintain contact with the base, as the run counts as soon as he safely touches home. For that reason, coming into second or third shoulder first would make no sense, as even if successful in dislodging the ball, the runner is very likely to be tagged out in the aftermath of the collision when he is probably no longer in contact with the base. This is why these particular types of violent collisions are more likely to happen at the plate.

Now, as you have said, it is illegal to block any base without the ball, including home. The problem being discussed really isn't about that, but there are times that a runner crashes into a fielder that is intentionally blocking the base. In High School Federation rules, a runner doing so is out and can be ejected. Rightfully so, as he would have been safe, by rule, without risking injury to the fielder (and himself) with the unnecessary collision.

The issue being looked at is the violent collisions when the fielder (at home, usually the catcher, but on occasion could be the pitcher - as on a wild pitch) actually does have the ball. After all, the whole idea is to dislodge the ball. In high school federation rules, the runner must avoid contact on a tag play at all bases if the fielder is waiting with the ball. This can be done by sliding, attempting to legally avoid the tag, giving yourself up, or stopping and reversing ground (getting in a rundown). Initiating contact results in an out and, if it is considered malicious by the umpire, the runner can be ejected. Most leagues and tournaments that employ major league rules also have a specific league rule which adopts this same no-contact rule. I know of no league, other than MLB, that does not. The only rule change needed is for MLB to adopt the same no-contact rule; and, as I understand it, that is precisely what they are now looking at doing.

There is always the risk of collision at any base, even on legal plays. Sometimes the throw draws the fielder into the runners path on a close play. Sometimes it is just bad luck and/or unavoidable. That is just baseball. We can't legislate all hazards out of the game. We can, however, use both rules and common sense to reduce the risk of injury on plays where contact was avoidable