Blocking the plate.

[russ snyder]

If the runner has possession of the ball and is blocking the plate (which he can do once he has the ball), the runner can collide with him as long as the runner does not change direction in order to initiate the collision.

For those who haven't read it, here's the rule.

Thanks for posting the rule. The way I see it, MLB is trying to eliminate the runner targeting the catcher and dislodging the ball by the methods listed. We have all seen base runners target the catcher even if he was not blocking the plate. For the longest time this is what base runners have been taught to do. Overall, I think that this is a step in the right direction. Targeting the catcher in this manner puts both players at risk when this occurred. I'm sure that avoiding concussions is the primary reason for the rule change. Further, I'm not surprised at the number of challenges that we've seen this year. It's a new rule, and the umpires want to make sure that the rule is interpreted correctly and that no one is taking advantage of the rule. I think that it is working because I really have not seen a serious collision at the plate this year.

[ExileAngelos]

What a joke this rule is. Joseph had textbook form for this dumb rule and Maddon still goes out and challenges the call. And it took them almost 5 minutes to determine he wasn't blocking the plate.

Getting rid of this abomination of a rule should be the FIRST THING the new commissioner does when he takes over. This rule is going to bite MLB in the a@$ in the playoffs mark my words.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What a joke this rule is. Joseph had textbook form for this dumb rule and Maddon still goes out and challenges the call. And it took them almost 5 minutes to determine he wasn't blocking the plate.

Getting rid of this abomination of a rule should be the FIRST THING the new commissioner does when he takes over. This rule is going to bite MLB in the a@$ in the playoffs mark my words.

I think the time spent on that one was the tag and I think it was also an umpire review not a managerial challenge. I think it's a good point there was no blocking there and Maddon should have been required to expend a challenge there.

[ExileAngelos]

I think the time spent on that one was the tag and I think it was also an umpire review not a managerial challenge. I think it's a good point there was no blocking there and Maddon should have been required to expend a challenge there.

Well that is another issue. If it takes 5 minutes to determine the correct call then you have no business overturning it. Should be a 30 second process honestly.

[AdamK]

Caleb's tag in the second tonight is text book "new rule."

[CA-ORIOLE]

Well that is another issue. If it takes 5 minutes to determine the correct call then you have no business overturning it. Should be a 30 second process honestly.

It was really close. Takes more than 30 seconds to look at all the angles on that and they didn't overturn it. Also, I doubt it took 5 minutes.

[DrungoHazewood]

What a joke this rule is. Joseph had textbook form for this dumb rule and Maddon still goes out and challenges the call. And it took them almost 5 minutes to determine he wasn't blocking the plate.

Getting rid of this abomination of a rule should be the FIRST THING the new commissioner does when he takes over. This rule is going to bite MLB in the a@$ in the playoffs mark my words.

Just set aside $1B for the concussion and injury fund to pay off the lawsuits, put it in an interest-bearing account, and hopefully we'll be all good.

[Morgan423]

Caleb's tag in the second tonight is text book "new rule."

Exactly. Save that play, that's what the new rule condones.

Earlier in this thread several of us were talking about the play in the second game of the Cubs series where the Cubs catcher blocked Chris Davis from the plate but the play was ruled during the game as okay.

Look at Joseph and his positioning behind and then solely in front of the plate, even when shifting to receive the throw. Compare to the Cubs catcher waiting for the throw to arrive whilst standing with his foot on the third base line, making Chris Davis change his path to the plate.

Honestly, if this rule stays in place going forward, MLB should put umpires through a clinic where those plays are used as the yes and no textbook examples... they're perfect.

[El Gordo]

The catcher must provide a lane with or without the ball, by the time the runner is within sliding distance. The runner may not intentionally collide with the catcher. That should do it.

[AdamK]

The catcher must provide a lane with or without the ball, by the time the runner is within sliding distance. The runner may not intentionally collide with the catcher. That should do it.

define "lane".

Might as well just say that no part of the plate can be blocked by the catcher.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Exactly. Save that play, that's what the new rule condones.

Earlier in this thread several of us were talking about the play in the second game of the Cubs series where the Cubs catcher blocked Chris Davis from the plate but the play was ruled during the game as okay.

Look at Joseph and his positioning behind and then solely in front of the plate, even when shifting to receive the throw. Compare to the Cubs catcher waiting for the throw to arrive whilst standing with his foot on the third base line, making Chris Davis change his path to the plate.

Honestly, if this rule stays in place going forward, MLB should put umpires through a clinic where those plays are used as the yes and no textbook examples... they're perfect.

Again, this is simply not true. The Cubs catcher is in front of the plate when he sets up to receive the ball with his left foot on the top edge of the batters box line (inside line). There is a lane when he is set up and even at the moment he catches the ball. The catcher can in fact block the plate AFTER receiving he ball or even in the natural process of catching the ball as the rule is written.

[El Gordo]

define "lane".

Might as well just say that no part of the plate can be blocked by the catcher.

The rule already uses the term lane and no one seems to have a problem understanding what that is except you.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I understand the point of wanting to change the rule to make it less subjective. From my understanding the rule was such a nightmare to negotiate that it's just not going to be the easy fix that the transfer rule was. Gonna have to happen in the offseason.

[El Gordo]

I understand the point of wanting to change the rule to make it less subjective. From my understanding the rule was such a nightmare to negotiate that it's just not going to be the easy fix that the transfer rule was. Gonna have to happen in the offseason.

It's easy to fix. Use he college rule, apply the same rules as they do to other basses, or do something like my suggestion. There are two issues. Avoiding collisions and not putting either the runner or the catcher at an unfair disadvantage. The way Caleb and the O's deal with it is just fine IMO.

[AdamK]

Exactly. Save that play, that's what the new rule condones.

Earlier in this thread several of us were talking about the play in the second game of the Cubs series where the Cubs catcher blocked Chris Davis from the plate but the play was ruled during the game as okay.

Look at Joseph and his positioning behind and then solely in front of the plate, even when shifting to receive the throw. Compare to the Cubs catcher waiting for the throw to arrive whilst standing with his foot on the third base line, making Chris Davis change his path to the plate.

Honestly, if this rule stays in place going forward, MLB should put umpires through a clinic where those plays are used as the yes and no textbook examples... they're perfect.

Back in spring training, the Orioles worked on their approach to plays at the plate and initially decided to use the same one that Hardy does for plays at 2nd (Buck cited Hardy, but its pretty standard infield practice). So Wieters was going to hang back rather than in front of the plate on the infield, so he could let the play come to him rather than swipe tag. The plan was to straddle the plate with it in front/underneath of you so the incoming runner could slide through you without it bei8ng blocked - allowing the catcher to apply tags similar to a SS covering a stolen base attempt at 2nd.

They actually did it one, and it worked. BUT I believe MLB probably told them to not do this, since the catcher is still in the basepath and opens them up for contact as the runner goes through the plate. Also, you aren't stopping at home like you stop at 2nd.

Interestingly enough, here is an article from February with Wieters' and Buck's take.