Blocking the plate.

[El Gordo]

I don't know what "front of the batter's box" refers to, it could mean a number of different positions, but if the baseline were extended all the way through the batter's box to the plate, the Cub's catcher's foot would be squarely on top of it. This IMO constitutes not giving the runner a clear path as the baseline goes to the back of the plate not the middle.

[AdamK]

There was a video angle on the Cubs broadcast that showed, from the time the throw reached the border of the infield to the time the ball reached home plate, the catcher's left leg was exactly where it is in the picture that Adam posted. The Cubs catcher rotated a bit on that pivot leg to catch the baseball, but that leg was planted right there while the ball was coming in.

You seem to remember the play as the catcher moving from a different point A to point B in the photo... but it's on video. That's what I don't get.

When the catcher is finally in the frame you can see his positioning in relation to the plate. Imagine you are Davis running down the line, the part of the plate you can see that is not obstructed by the catcher's feet is the point at the backside. That sliver of daylight of the plate he can see probably equates to less than 6 inches of actual plate. Is 6 inches a lane? Or is it understood by all parties that his lane has a sharp curve at the end?

[El Gordo]

Listening to an umpire talk about these plays on XM, he said they are happy to go to replay. They are only concentrated on the tag, they can't be expected to see the lane, the catchers positioning prior, the runners distance from home plate when the ball is received, etc.

[ledzepp8]

Very well crafted reply, and totally appropriate considering my question, so full of venom.

If you have the time today, please explain which lane Davis should have used here? I'll pm you with any other things I can't grasp so as not to give myself away to the rest of the board.

And is it the same "lane" that Holliday was given here?

Or this one? Where the runner can come straight in, and the catcher has given him a clear shot at the plate?

Oh, heck, how about another?

One of these plays does not look like the others. Seems to me, while I am dense so perhaps this makes anything I now say irrelevant, showing the entire plate will avoid gray area. It will also mean that guys like JJ Hardy don't need to take a week off because guys like A J Pierzynski are apparently denser than I am.

"Lane" means different things to different teams.

Agreed with this. With most of these examples (including the Davis one) an argument can be made that the plate was blocked, at least partially, and that there was "enough" of a lane for the runner. That's the issue. Either the catcher can't block the plate at all or he can only block some of it...it can't be both, which is how it seems to be.

[ledzepp8]

And please don't PM me I'll just delete it with out reading it, it's not worth my time.

Wow. Do you get off on being a cantankerous jerk?

[mdbdotcom]

When the catcher is finally in the frame you can see his positioning in relation to the plate. Imagine you are Davis running down the line, the part of the plate you can see that is not obstructed by the catcher's feet is the point at the backside. That sliver of daylight of the plate he can see probably equates to less than 6 inches of actual plate. Is 6 inches a lane? Or is it understood by all parties that his lane has a sharp curve at the end?

That sounds great, but Davis took such a wide turn around 3B he was never anywhere near the line. At the time he changed direction, it was to avoid the tag. The catcher was just going after him to tag him.

[AdamK]

That sounds great, but Davis took such a wide turn around 3B he was never anywhere near the line. At the time he changed direction, it was to avoid the tag. The catcher was just going after him to tag him.

If he doesn't change direction is there a collision?

[El Gordo]

Wow. Do you get off on being a cantankerous jerk?

Isn't there a rule about name calling? I wouldn't worry about it here, for as long as I am the one being called a name it will never be noticed. But be careful with others.

[ledzepp8]

Isn't there a rule about name calling? I wouldn't worry about it here, for as long as I am the one being called a name it will never be noticed. But be careful with others.

Am I name calling or describing how you're being? If you don't want to be called names, perhaps you could act like a decent person...

[mdbdotcom]

If he doesn't change direction is there a collision?

No, he'd just slide right into the tag. The entire back half of the plate was open to him and the catcher was inside the baseline until Davis changed directions. At that point the catcher went after him.

[El Gordo]

Agreed with this. With most of these examples (including the Davis one) an argument can be made that the plate was blocked, at least partially, and that there was "enough" of a lane for the runner. That's the issue. Either the catcher can't block the plate at all or he can only block some of it...it can't be both, which is how it seems to be.

Don't know what you are looking at but in only the Pierzynski and Davis examples are the plates being blocked. Where I come from 2 of 5 isn't most.

[callahan09]

This is one of the most exciting plays of the Showalter era:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hqMyOQMBm10

The new rule is stupid.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Am I name calling or describing how you're being? If you don't want to be called names, perhaps you could act like a decent person...

Amazing how he whines about name calling when he he dishes it out so easily himself and is easily the rudest person on the board.

[ledzepp8]

Amazing how he wines about name calling when he he dishes it out so easily himself and is easily the rudest person on the board.

Pretty much.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't know what "front of the batter's box" refers to, it could mean a number of different positions, but if the baseline were extended all the way through the batter's box to the plate, the Cub's catcher's foot would be squarely on top of it. This IMO constitutes not giving the runner a clear path as the baseline goes to the back of the plate not the middle.

Should have stated "front part of the batters box". His left foot is on front of the plate. There is a lane. A full lane? Enough of a lane? Certainly debatable.