Blocking the plate.

[ledzepp8]

Again today Davis avoided the catcher blocking the plate like they had the plague. Just hit the dude and take your chances...

I really think the players don't know they can collide with the catcher after the ball has been caught and they are blocking the plate.

[ExileAngelos]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11465187/home-plate-collision-rule-potential-postseason-disaster

[Aristotelian]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11465187/home-plate-collision-rule-potential-postseason-disaster

I don't understand...the author seems to be saying that in all of the mentioned plays the catcher was in fact blocking the plate. Seems cut and dried to me, the runner is safe. The message is DO NOT BLOCK THE PLATE. Of course the umpires are not going to make judgments about the intent of the runner, that is an even worse recipe for a controversial play.

[El Gordo]

I don't understand...the author seems to be saying that in all of the mentioned plays the catcher was in fact blocking the plate. Seems cut and dried to me, the runner is safe. The message is DO NOT BLOCK THE PLATE. Of course the umpires are not going to make judgments about the intent of the runner, that is an even worse recipe for a controversial play.

IMO it shouldn't matter where the catcher is standing before he receives the ball, if the runner is less than halfway to the plate from 3B. Once the runner is within sliding distance, if the catcher isn't providing a lane before he receives the ball the runner is safe. I would just say the catcher can't block the plate with or without the ball, unless the throw takes him there.

[Morgan423]

I don't understand...the author seems to be saying that in all of the mentioned plays the catcher was in fact blocking the plate. Seems cut and dried to me, the runner is safe. The message is DO NOT BLOCK THE PLATE. Of course the umpires are not going to make judgments about the intent of the runner, that is an even worse recipe for a controversial play.

And I get the point of view that if the ball beat the runner by such a long interval that you need a calendar to time it, this rule shouldn't even apply.

But there again... more subjectivity. What constitutes that window where you consider the runner beat by a mile? Is not defined, and it has never had to be defined before... the word they used to use 100% of the time in that situation was "out"; it never mattered by how much.

[DrungoHazewood]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11465187/home-plate-collision-rule-potential-postseason-disaster

There was always the potential for a disaster, since for 50? 75? years catchers were allowed to block the plate without possession of the ball desipte the fact that the rules clearly stated that was illegal. Some day an ump might have actually started following the rules as written and all hell would have broken loose.

[DrungoHazewood]

And I get the point of view that if the ball beat the runner by such a long interval that you need a calendar to time it, this rule shouldn't even apply.

They'll probably issue a clarification that basically says that, in the offseason. That's what sensible organizations do - they change the rules when they need changing, and tweak them as necessary when unintended situations occur. I guess we'll see if MLB is sensible.

[Number5]

And I get the point of view that if the ball beat the runner by such a long interval that you need a calendar to time it, this rule shouldn't even apply.

But there again... more subjectivity. What constitutes that window where you consider the runner beat by a mile? Is not defined, and it has never had to be defined before... the word they used to use 100% of the time in that situation was "out"; it never mattered by how much.

If the runner has to pull up to avoid a possible collision because the catcher is blocking the plate without the ball, that should be called as obstruction.

[DrungoHazewood]

But there again... more subjectivity. What constitutes that window where you consider the runner beat by a mile? Is not defined, and it has never had to be defined before... the word they used to use 100% of the time in that situation was "out"; it never mattered by how much.

Draw a little 12" commit line somewhere up the 3rd base line. If you're not past that line then it doesn't matter.

[El Gordo]

Draw a little 12" commit line somewhere up the 3rd base line. If you're not past that line then it doesn't matter.

Sliding distance. What is that 10-12 feet?"

[Morgan423]

Draw a little 12" commit line somewhere up the 3rd base line. If you're not past that line then it doesn't matter.

Good idea. Would be the first new field marking in baseball in quite a while, will take little time to get used to seeing. But it's clear and decisive. I like it.

[mdbdotcom]

Good idea. Would be the first new field marking in baseball in quite a while, will take little time to get used to seeing. But it's clear and decisive. I like it.

Plus, they can sell sponsorship of the line. Add a little logo that will be seen in all the close plays. Go for it!

[Aristotelian]

I don't know why you would make it legal to block the plate just because the runner is further away. A line would help with the ambiguity, but the part of the existing rule stating that the catcher has to have the ball first solves this problem. You catch the ball, then you can block the plate. If a runner is that far away from the plate, you should have time to catch the ball first. If you just sit there, I don't have a problem calling the runner safe regardless of how badly the ball beats him.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't know why you would make it legal to block the plate just because the runner is further away. A line would help with the ambiguity, but the part of the existing rule stating that the catcher has to have the ball first solves this problem. You catch the ball, then you can block the plate. If a runner is that far away from the plate, you should have time to catch the ball first. If you just sit there, I don't have a problem calling the runner safe regardless of how badly the ball beats him.

My thought was just that if the catcher is technically not giving a lane to the plate (without the ball) with the runner still 25' up the line (or wherever it's decided) it wouldn't count as blocking the plate. If he stays there and the runner arrives before the ball then he's in violation. Just trying to make the rule make sense, and not have replays that give frankly nonsensical results based on strict interpretations of the rule.

And/or you could use the commit line as a warning and guide to the baserunner: If you're here and the ball's already in the catcher's glove, you're out. No collisions, no spending 10 minutes with the replay arguing he was blocking the plate before the ball arrived... just a simple you're automatically out if you haven't gotten to the mark and the catcher has the ball.

[BohKnowsBmore]

My thought was just that if the catcher is technically not giving a lane to the plate (without the ball) with the runner still 25' up the line (or wherever it's decided) it wouldn't count as blocking the plate. If he stays there and the runner arrives before the ball then he's in violation. Just trying to make the rule make sense, and not have replays that give frankly nonsensical results based on strict interpretations of the rule.

And/or you could use the commit line as a warning and guide to the baserunner: If you're here and the ball's already in the catcher's glove, you're out. No collisions, no spending 10 minutes with the replay arguing he was blocking the plate before the ball arrived... just a simple you're automatically out if you haven't gotten to the mark and the catcher has the ball.

Not of fan of that personally.