MLB has now decided to eliminate home-plate collisions at home plate

[NJ BIRD FAN]

None of the other things you mentioned are as violent as home-plate collisions. Baseball isn't football-- there's no need to have players violently hurtling themselves at each other for the express purpose of jostling a ball free. Home plate collisions are an unnecessarily violent part of a sport that has no need for it.

Runners don't violently hurl themselves at SS and 2nd basemen?? For the express purpose of preventing an out. We are talking about baseball right? Have you never seen this before? It happens almost every game and often more then once. The difference is that the middle infielder moves. The catcher has that same option. If he chooses not to, it is on him. It is a non issue. It is a total PR move. And by the way, a batted ball hitting a pitcher in the head is considerably more violent then a home plate collision.

[JayThomas]

Clearly this is just part of the 'Keep Pete Rose Out Of The Hall-of-Fame' conspiracy.

[olehippi]

Next they'll have pitcher throwing from behind a BP screen or wearing helmets with face shields.

[FlipTheBird]

Runners don't violently hurl themselves at SS and 2nd basemen?? For the express purpose of preventing an out. We are talking about baseball right? Have you never seen this before? It happens almost every game and often more then once. The difference is that the middle infielder moves. The catcher has that same option. If he chooses not to, it is on him. It is a non issue. It is a total PR move. And by the way, a batted ball hitting a pitcher in the head is considerably more violent then a home plate collision.

Nine times out of ten in home plate collisions the catcher has no opportunity to move - more often than not, they're on the ground, trying to corral the ball when they get hammered by some goon who's got all the momentum. The play at second base is entirely different.

[FlipTheBird]

Next they'll have pitcher throwing from behind a BP screen or wearing helmets with face shields.

Honestly, if it wouldn't hurt their "rep" so much, I'd bet that a pitcher somewhere in the league would have done this voluntarily.

[survivedc]

Nine times out of ten in home plate collisions the catcher has no opportunity to move - more often than not, they're on the ground, trying to corral the ball when they get hammered by some goon who's got all the momentum. The play at second base is entirely different.

This is only slightly true IMO. A lot of catchers don't move because they don't want to. If they didn't want to get hit, they could stand further infront of the plate on sweep tag like wieters does.

[russ snyder]

Runners don't violently hurl themselves at SS and 2nd basemen?? For the express purpose of preventing an out. We are talking about baseball right? Have you never seen this before? It happens almost every game and often more then once. The difference is that the middle infielder moves. The catcher has that same option. If he chooses not to, it is on him. It is a non issue. It is a total PR move. And by the way, a batted ball hitting a pitcher in the head is considerably more violent then a home plate collision.

When the runner slides into second base he must be able to make contact with the base in the umpire's judgement. Otherwise, the umpire can call interference. Most of the time, ( particularly with the shortstop), the fielder is able to move because he sees the baserunner. Quite often, the catcher is not able to move because he does not see the runner when he's receiveing a throw from the right fielder. This is the flaw in your argument IMO.

IMO, the "slide" into home plate is a change for the good. This way, the catcher can be called for obstruction if he is blocking the plate, and the baserunner will be called for interference on a collision with the catcher. You'll still have some collisions, when a throw goes up the third base line, but like your second base example, both players will be able to brace themselves for the contact.

I also disagere with your implication that this is a PR move. LIke CoC pointed out, there is a risk of concussions with these collisions, and the rule change will make thhis play safer. Further, having caught in college, I has on the receiving end of some of these collisions and it's really an unnecessary play IMO.

I agree that line drives thorugh the box are extremely dangerous. Brandon McCarthy almost lost his live. My prediction is that within a couple of years there will be a comfortable insert that pitchers can wear underneath their caps.

[russ snyder]

Clearly this is just part of the 'Keep Pete Rose Out Of The Hall-of-Fame' conspiracy.

I heard Pete is betting 3 to 1 that the player's union will approve the rule change.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Nine times out of ten in home plate collisions the catcher has no opportunity to move - more often than not, they're on the ground, trying to corral the ball when they get hammered by some goon who's got all the momentum. The play at second base is entirely different.

I'm fine with the decision, but this isn't true, or at least is severely exaggerated. Several teams and catchers have already put procedures into place to avoid colllisions, including the Orioles and Wieters.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

When the runner slides into second base he must be able to make contact with the base in the umpire's judgement. Otherwise, the umpire can call interference. Most of the time, ( particularly with the shortstop), the fielder is able to move because he sees the baserunner. Quite often, the catcher is not able to move because he does not see the runner when he's receiveing a throw from the right fielder. This is the flaw in your argument IMO.

IMO, the "slide" into home plate is a change for the good. This way, the catcher can be called for obstruction if he is blocking the plate, and the baserunner will be called for interference on a collision with the catcher. You'll still have some collisions, when a throw goes up the third base line, but like your second base example, both players will be able to brace themselves for the contact.

I also disagere with your implication that this is a PR move. LIke CoC pointed out, there is a risk of concussions with these collisions, and the rule change will make thhis play safer. Further, having caught in college, I has on the receiving end of some of these collisions and it's really an unnecessary play IMO.

I agree that line drives thorugh the box are extremely dangerous. Brandon McCarthy almost lost his live. My prediction is that within a couple of years there will be a comfortable insert that pitchers can wear underneath their caps.

On what home plate collision can the runner not contact home plate? That is the purpose of knocking him over. You say you have played ball, but I wonder. Middle infielders are not always prepared for the on coming runner and in fact are air born sometimes. To me that situation happens more more and is even more unnecessary, as the runner is almost always already out. By the way by CURRENT rule, the catcher cannot block the plate without the ball, therefore, when he has the ball, he would be prepared when he moved to block it. The problem is that catchers block the plate without the ball and by rule shouldn't.

Sorry to hear you were on the receiving end of so many collisions. Why didn't you move out of the way?

Watch how many injuries there are with guys sliding into the pads.

So this is how it is going to go.....I am coming home hard. The catcher is blocking the plate..I have to pull up and walk to the dugout or take a risk of injuring myself by sliding into his pads?

It is a total PR move. It makes little sense. They are addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The catchers can provide their own safety. They chose not to.

[PaulFolk]

Runners don't violently hurl themselves at SS and 2nd basemen?? For the express purpose of preventing an out. We are talking about baseball right? Have you never seen this before? It happens almost every game and often more then once. The difference is that the middle infielder moves. The catcher has that same option. If he chooses not to, it is on him. It is a non issue. It is a total PR move.

Have you ever seen a runner come barreling into a shortstop's head or chest while standing up? I haven't. But I've seen that plenty of times with home-plate collisions. That's what makes home-plate collisions more dangerous than collisions at second.

At second base, all you're going to see is a takeout slide. And yes, that can cause an occasional injury, but not on the level of when a runner comes flying chest-first into a catcher for a full-on collision, trying to dislodge a ball.

And by the way, a batted ball hitting a pitcher in the head is considerably more violent then a home plate collision.

True. Getting hit in the head by a batted ball could end a pitcher's career or threaten their life. So -- circling back to your original point -- would you consider it "wussification" if pitchers started wearing helmets? If so, why?

[russ snyder]

On what home plate collision can the runner not contact home plate? That is the purpose of knocking him over. You say you have played ball, but I wonder. Middle infielders are not always prepared for the on coming runner and in fact are air born sometimes. To me that situation happens more more and is even more unnecessary, as the runner is almost always already out. By the way by CURRENT rule, the catcher cannot block the plate without the ball, therefore, when he has the ball, he would be prepared when he moved to block it. The problem is that catchers block the plate without the ball and by rule shouldn't.

Sorry to hear you were on the receiving end of so many collisions. Why didn't you move out of the way?

Watch how many injuries there are with guys sliding into the pads.

So this is how it is going to go.....I am coming home hard. The catcher is blocking the plate..I have to pull up and walk to the dugout or take a risk of injuring myself by sliding into his pads?

It is a total PR move. It makes little sense. They are addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The catchers can provide their own safety. They chose not to.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I've seen runners go out of their way to run over the catcher so that he is either unable to catch the ball or to make him drop the throw. That's the main reason that runners are taught to run over the catcher. Further, I agree the catcher should not be allowed to block the plate without the ball. That is obstruction, but you never see it called. On a couple of of collisions, I blocked the plate without the ball, and a was also tageted a couple of times because I was set up in front of the plate. Unlike a middkle infielder, a catcher can't get out of the way because he may be blindsided, plus he usually can't leap out of the way because he is not moving torwards third base.

I'm not complaining, I know that it's part of the game. FWIW, as a base runner, I would slide if the catcher gave me an area where I could reach the plate. if he was in the baseline, he was fair game. So I dished out a bit of punishment too. I think calling obstruction on the catcher, and having the baserunner slide will cut down on head injuries.

As long as the guys are sliding feet first, I doubt that we'll see a significant increase in injuries. Further, if catcher is blocking the basepath in this scenario, he should get called for obstruction. ( I think that this is how it's going to go.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree a bit. I agree that some catcher's have put themselves in harm's way, however, if the rule change makes umpires call both interference and obstruction, you'll see less catchers blocking the plate and less violent contact plays.

Good stuff.

[Odenton O]

It's a two-fold rule change. A prohibition on both running into the catcher and on blocking home plate (by calling or strengthening the rules already in place). The reason we had collisions at home were because catchers were allowed to block home plate, even though the rules said otherwise. Because they were allowed to block the plate, runners were allowed to run into them. This changes things for both sides. Catchers will have to be setting up to put the tag on the baserunner, but now they won't be waiting to get blindsided while they do it. And they won't feel compelled to block the plate as part of their best strategy for stopping the runner.

As someone else said, allowing the runner to plow into the catcher at the plate is something found almost nowhere else in the game. It's a game of skill, not violence. We all made fun of A-Rod for slapping the ball out of the pitcher's glove, but we praise the baserunner who comes down the baseline, realizes the catcher has him dead to rights with the ball at the plate, then lowers his shoulder and blows up the catcher like Ray Lewis hitting Dustin Keller. It doesn't make any sense. And it's dangerous. The game will be better off without it.

[Why Not?]

Yeah, what a bunch of sissies! Always whining about how they want to "avoid concussions" and "not suffer long-term brain damage" and "not have parts of their body get torn in half."

Real men just walk around getting constantly injured! Health is for babies!

Bunch of sissies. I remember baseball when infielders had pistols and there were live bears scattered around the field.

[Why Not?]

HAHA. Big sissies Murica is. Just have a ginormous military budget. But we're soft. I hate how people in baseball always point back to how an era of how baseball should be played but yet in that same era anybody not white couldn't play. You really don't see this in any other sport. I don't get why baseball is so resistant to change.

Right on. This is an obvious and easy adjustment. It's already a functional rule in other levels of the sport.

Some people are just going to complain.