Blocking the plate.

[Outlander]

Yes...agreed.

It's kind of crazy to see all the managers, and ex players, and ppl not see the difference between plays. Ppl see a bang bang play and cry foul. I mean,mi do understand because it's bang bang, but once you shovel through the minutiae, the rule reveals itself as pretty consistent.

[El Gordo]

I don't think the rule is as bad as ppl say. I thnk it's been pretty clear. First Davis could have plowed him because the Cather had the ball. Davis wouldn't have to deviate from his path to plow him. Second, you are allowed to have that left foot kind of in front of home, but on the infield side of the baseline until the ball either leads you wherever, or, you have the ball, in which case you can block the plate. So he had the ball at the very end, thus Davis could have plowed him. I think it was the right call.

I disagree The C had his foot on the line as he was waithing to receive the ball. That was blocking the plate. The foot has to be to one side of the line or the other. Then the throw caused him to shift his weight and step across the line, further blocking the plate with the ball. The NY reviewers probably thought that the throw took him into the runner's lane, or that he had the ball when he bloced the plate, but they would be wrong. He was blocking the plate prior to catching the ball.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I disagree The C had his foot on the line as he was waithing to receive the ball. That was blocking the plate. The foot has to be to one side of the line or the other. Then the throw caused him to shift his weight and step across the line, further blocking the plate with the ball. The NY reviewers probably thought that the throw took him into the runner's lane, or that he had the ball when he bloced the plate, but they would be wrong. He was blocking the plate prior to catching the ball.

There is no such rule. Maybe Harold Reynolds is lobbying for such a rule, but as it currently stands there is not. There only has has to be evidence/interpetation of a path for the runner prior to the catch ....which there was.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's kind of crazy to see all the managers, and ex players, and ppl not see the difference between plays. Ppl see a bang bang play and cry foul. I mean,mi do understand because it's bang bang, but once you shovel through the minutiae, the rule reveals itself as pretty consistent.

I basically agree with you, but I still hate the rule.

[ledzepp8]

It's a stupid unnecessary rule, that makes no sense to catchers or base runners. A rule that changes the way baseball has been played for hundreds of years because of the rare instance of a catcher getting hurt.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I did watch the play again. Yes, the Cubs catcher is straddling home plate, but the issue is that he has his entire left leg in the base path (cutting it off from Chris Davis) for at least 2 - 3 seconds before the throw arrives. If the chalk line went all the way to the corner of the plate, he would have been standing on it. He could have awaited that throw 6 inches to a foot closer to the infield, not blocking the base path while giving Crush a path to the bag.

Disagree. The catcher is at the top front of the plate. His left foot is a bit below the front inside corner of the batters box as he makes the catch. There was a lane just prior to him making the catch.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's a stupid unnecessary rule, that makes no sense to catchers or base runners. A rule that changes the way baseball has been played for hundreds of years because of the rare instance of a catcher getting hurt.

This is where I'm at. Not saying stuff hasn't happened in the past but a rule basically made up for one guy.

[ledzepp8]

Yes...agreed.

If this is accurate...I definitely don't think the players understand it to be. I've yet to see a collision this year.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If this is accurate...I definitely don't think the players understand it to be. I've yet to see a collision this year.

They are probably scared of being fined imo, but as far as I know there is no rule against colliding with the catcher if he's in the lane. Also, I think the play just happens so fast that it's not really something you can plan on doing.

[incubus]

Chris Davis should've plowed him over to drive home the point.

Agreed, he has a right to the base path.

[El Gordo]

There is no such rule. Maybe Harold Reynolds is lobbying for such a rule, but as it currently stands there is not. There only has has to be evidence/interpetation of a path for the runner prior to the catch ....which there was.

If the foot is on the line there is no path.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If the foot is on the line there is no path.

Disagree and there certainly is no such rule. There was a path. If he's on the line in the middle of the batters then it'd be a different story.

[ExileAngelos]

I don't think the rule is as bad as ppl say. I thnk it's been pretty clear. First Davis could have plowed him because the Cather had the ball. Davis wouldn't have to deviate from his path to plow him. Second, you are allowed to have that left foot kind of in front of home, but on the infield side of the baseline until the ball either leads you wherever, or, you have the ball, in which case you can block the plate. So he had the ball at the very end, thus Davis could have plowed him. I think it was the right call.

The rule is awful. It's not baseball. Any catcher will naturally "block" the plate when he sets up to receive an incoming throw. The rule needs to be gone ASAP. It is an embarrassment to the game frankly.

[El Gordo]

Disagree and there certainly is no such rule. There was a path. If he's on the line in the middle of the batters then it'd be a different story.

You should work the guys in the NY replay center you'd fit right in. The rule is he has to leave a lane. I have seen a number of replays were the out was overturned because the C had his foot on the line. and that was considered not leaving a lane. The problem is it hasn't been consistently called that way. If the catcher's foot is on the line the runner has to slide around his foot in order to tag the plate. That is not leaving a lane.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The rule is awful. It's not baseball. Any catcher will naturally "block" the plate when he sets up to receive an incoming throw. The rule needs to be gone ASAP. It is an embarrassment to the game frankly.

Look, I hate the rule too, but outlander is right. If the catcher is "naturally" or unnaturally blocking the plate and leaving no lane prior to catching the ball then he is going to be called for blocking the plate. That was not the case here. It's fast, but if you break it down, you can see the difference.