A Hole in the "No Collisions at Home Plate" Rule ???

[OFFNY]

o

 

I witnessed a play in tonight's game in which I believe that the "No Collisions at Home Plate" rule was exposed for a serious flaw.

On a play at the plate, Trey Mancini's hand was judged to have hit home plate after a review, and that is why he was deemed to be safe ........ but I think that he should have been safe REGARDLESS.

 

The intention of the rule is to protect the catcher from home plate collisions. Hence, the catcher is not allowed to block the plate, UNLESS HE HAS THE BALL. If he has the ball, he can block the plate ........ but what if the catcher drops the ball on the tag AFTER HAVING BLOCKED THE RUNNER from home plate ??? Should the catcher necessarily be rewarded by essentially being in a no-lose situation ???

 

In that particular situation, I believe that you are essentially giving the catcher too much control, and the runner not enough control. The runner should not be disallowed from plowing into the catcher, accept the fact that the catcher CAN block home plate if he has the ball, AND also accept that if the catcher drops the ball while tagging the runner he can still pick the ball up and tag him out ........ and the runner's only resort/hope is to somehow barely sneak his hand in between the catcher (who had legally blocked home plate) and touch the plate in spite of the fact that the catcher blocked it, as Mancini did in that situation.

 

o

[OFFNY]

6 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

I witnessed a play in tonight's game in which I believe that the "No Collisions at Home Plate" rule was exposed for a serious flaw.

On a play at the plate, Trey Mancini's hand was judged to have hit home plate after a review, and that is why he was deemed to be safe ........ but I think that he should have been safe REGARDLESS.

 

The intention of the rule is to protect the catcher from home plate collisions. Hence, the catcher is not allowed to block the plate, UNLESS HE HAS THE BALL. If he has the ball, he can block the plate ........ but what if the catcher drops the ball on the tag AFTER HAVING BLOCKED THE RUNNER from home plate ??? Should the catcher necessarily be rewarded by essentially being in a no-lose situation ???

 

In that particular situation, I believe that you are essentially giving the catcher too much control, and the runner not enough control. The runner should not be disallowed from plowing into the catcher, accept the fact that the catcher CAN block home plate if he has the ball, AND also accept that if the catcher drops the ball while tagging the runner he can still pick the ball up and tag him out ........ and the runner's only resort/hope is to somehow barely sneak his hand in between the catcher (who had legally blocked home plate) and touch the plate in spite of the fact that the catcher blocked it, as Mancini did in that situation.

 

o

o

 

This is the play in question ........

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/c-2493956383?tid=vtp_review

 

o

[Cumberbundy]

If the catcher drops the ball, while blocking home, he should walk off of the field. 

[weams]

33 minutes ago, Cy Bundy said:

If the catcher drops the ball, while blocking home, he should walk off of the field. 

 Gary Sanchez...

[weams]

1 hour ago, weams said:

 Gary Sanchez...

Speaking of which...

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2796015-how-gary-sanchez-collapsed-from-potential-mvp-to-yankees-burden?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

[OFFNY]

5 hours ago, weams said:

 

Gary Sanchez ........

 

 

 

4 hours ago, weams said:

 

Speaking of which ........

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2796015-how-gary-sanchez-collapsed-from-potential-mvp-to-yankees-burden?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

 

o

 

Thanks for that.

Sanchez has gotten a ton of grief up in this neck of the woods this season, particularly for his lack of hustle.

The worst of it was on 2 separate plays in this particular game against the D-Rays (once on offense, and once on defense.)

 

 

 

 

 

o

[sevastras]

He never had possession of the ball so should have been safe for blocking the plate. The replay that was posted doesn’t show a definitive angle of Mancini touching the plate, so I would say he was safe on interference. I miss the days of plowing the catcher over. 

The rules say you can’t change your path to home in order to initiate contact, but I think everyone(players, coaches, umpires) interprets it as you can’t run them over. I think the rule is ambiguous in that language and holding a rule book in front of an umpire during your argument isn’t going to change their mind.