Blocking the plate.

[Morgan423]

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.

Exactly this. And that's exactly what happened on that play today.

[Satyr3206]

My personal opinion is that this rule is idiotic. Catchers have blocked the plate for what, 140 years? It should be called the Buster Posey rule because ESPN showed it so many times.

[ExileAngelos]

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.

I wasn't referring to the play at the plate today. I agree he should have been called safe based on the stupid rule.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Yeah we disagree. The plate is actually long as far as I know. The catcher is actually in front of the plate with his left foot on the front edge of the batter box line, still in front of the plate at the moment he caught the ball. There was a lane at that moment. There is a reason that play took 2 seconds to decide.

I have seen a number of replays were the out was overturned because the C had his foot on the line.

You have not. There is no such rule. You are wrong. It depends if the lane was determined to have been blocked or not ..... the line is not a determining factor. if the catcher catches the ball at the front end of the line with his left foot on the line he is not blocking the lane.

But hey, have the last word.

[Morgan423]

Yeah we disagree. The plate is actually long as far as I know. The catcher is actually in front of the plate with his left foot on the front edge of the batter box line, still in front of the plate at the moment he caught the ball. There was a lane at that moment. There is a reason that play took 2 seconds to decide.

But hey, have the last word.

Is that what you are basing your perception of this play on? Because there were several camera angles showing that if the third base line extended through the batter's box all the way to the plate, he would have been standing right on it the last two seconds or so before he caught the ball. Kind of important because it's what Gordo and I are talking about on our side of this discussion.

[Outlander]

I wasn't referring to the play at the plate today. I agree he should have been called safe based on the stupid rule.

Just so were on the same page, I, and I'm pretty sure ca oriole, believe he was out. Based on the application of the rule.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Is that what you are basing your perception of this play on? Because there were several camera angles showing that if the third base line extended through the batter's box all the way to the plate, he would have been standing right on it the last two seconds or so before he caught the ball. Kind of important because it's what Gordo and I are talking about on our side of this discussion.

If his left foot is at the front inside edge the batters box when he is set up to receive the ball, I don't see how he can be blocking the plate. No matter what angle you have, there has to be a path for the runner at that moment. We can get into a lot of nuance about the "exact moment he caught the ball or had possession" but either way we lose on this. Even if you wanted to say he hadn't actually caught the ball or had possession of it, it's still going to be determined that the throw and natural action of making the tag is what brought him into fully blocking the plate. In any event, we lose on this one.

[Morgan423]

If his left foot is at the front inside edge the batters box when he is set up to receive the ball, I don't see how he can be blocking the plate. We can get into a lot of nuance about the "exact moment he caught the ball or had possession" but either way we lose on this. Even if you wanted to say he hadn't actually caught the ball or had possession of it, it's still going to be determined that the throw and natural action of making the tag is what brought him into fully blocking the plate. In any event, we lose on this one.

I just don't think we're seeing the play as it occurred the same way. I wish I had the program on my computer to make gifs out of video, I could highlight what I'm talking about. Ah well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one (the play and that's there's inconsistency on enforcing this rule in general).

[UpstateNYfan]

Any rule that is ambiguous or open to interpretation is a bad rule, both in sports and law. IMO opinion if Davis or any palyer had to change his path to the plate before the ball reaches the catcher, then he is safe. It appears he did. Bang, bang. I don't know why a catcher can't straddle the plate, like infielders do on tag plays and players must slide as all do at 2nd and 3rd bases. It is a sport, should it be safe? Absolutely, as much as possible. There are going to be injuries. The employee knows the risk and is paid accordingly (at least at the ML level)

[CA-ORIOLE]

I just don't think we're seeing the play as it occurred the same way. I wish I had the program on my computer to make gifs out of video, I could highlight what I'm talking about. Ah well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one (the play and that's there's inconsistency on enforcing this rule in general).

Yeah, that does present a problem. Anyways, enjoyed the discussion.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Any rule that is ambiguous or open to interpretation is a bad rule, both in sports and law. IMO opinion if Davis has to change his path to the plate before the ball reaches the catcher, then he is safe. It appears he did. Bang, bang. I don't know why a catcher can't straddle the plate, like infielders do on tag plays and players must slide as all do at 2nd and 3rd bases. It is a sport, should it be safe? Absolutely, as much as possible. There are going to be injuries. The employee knows the risk and is paid accordingly (at least at the ML level)

As far as I know, they can straddle the plate. I think we were doing it earlier in the year with Wieters. Probably more difficult to apply with longer throws from the oufielders than it is with catchers/infielders.

[scottbbfm]

The thing that irritated me the most was how quick the review was. It was almost like they were reviewing whether or not the catcher tagged him or not. That's how quick it was. I think everyone can agree the play was not cut and dry.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The thing that irritated me the most was how quick the review was. It was almost like they were reviewing whether or not the catcher tagged him or not. That's how quick it was. I think everyone can agree the play was not cut and dry.

The manager (Buck in this case) has to make a decision on what to review. He can choose to review the tag or blocking the plate, but not both. i can almost guarantee you that he did not choose to review the tag.

[El Gordo]

Any rule that is ambiguous or open to interpretation is a bad rule, both in sports and law. IMO opinion if Davis or any palyer had to change his path to the plate before the ball reaches the catcher, then he is safe. It appears he did. Bang, bang. I don't know why a catcher can't straddle the plate, like infielders do on tag plays and players must slide as all do at 2nd and 3rd bases. It is a sport, should it be safe? Absolutely, as much as possible. There are going to be injuries. The employee knows the risk and is paid accordingly (at least at the ML level)

If they changed the wording to say the catcher must stay to one side of the baseline or the other or straddle the plate, there shouldn't be as much confusion.

[Satyr3206]

If they went back to the old rule it would be much simpler...................good luck with that.