Do you support rules limiting defensive shifts?

[Number5]

If you want to increase offense, while also speeding up the game, and don't mind radical rules changes, just go ahead and reduce the number of balls for a base on balls from four to three.  That one change would accomplish both supposed goals.  Personally, I don't see a need to change the rules, but if your going to do it, just change one rule, not seventeen.

[Can_of_corn]

29 minutes ago, weams said:

I'd love an electronic strike zone, three throws to a base during an at bat, three mound visits without a pitching change or injury. I love a pitch clock and, since Ortiz is gone, ejection for stepping out without permission. 

Electronic strike zone, called strikes for stepping out, called balls for lollygagging on the mound.  Kill the balk, save and win.  Maybe resume games suspended by rain.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

If you want to increase offense, while also speeding up the game, and don't mind radical rules changes, just go ahead and reduce the number of balls for a base on balls from four to three.  That one change would accomplish both supposed goals.  Personally, I don't see a need to change the rules, but if your going to do it, just change one rule, not seventeen.

I'm not sure that would speed up the game.  Pace tends to drop with runners on base.

[weams]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not sure that would speed up the game.  Pace tends to drop with runners on base.

Or Yankee and Red Sox games. 

[Number5]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not sure that would speed up the game.  Pace tends to drop with runners on base.

Major league pitchers throw more strikes than balls.  They would nibble less if three balls were a walk.  Little doubt in my mind that the games would have a reduced average game-time with such a change.  You might have the occasional  game where the pitcher is wild, but even then, it takes him less time to pitch three balls than four.  Hey, I don't want any change to the rules myself, but I really dislike the constant tinkering with rules.  Go ahead and make this one big change if you must, and let that be the end of it.

[Roll Tide]

55 minutes ago, SteveA said:

So if there is a violation, is the play negated after the fact?   Pitch is thrown as an infielder is moving towards the line, a judgement call is that he went over the line or not.

Because even if infielders aren't allowed to be on the other side of 2nd base before the play, they certainly will be moving in that direction if that is where they should optimally be.

Is the result of the play negated only if the ball is put in play?  Can't just do that as a blanket rule, what if the hitting team likes the result?

Or does the hitting team have the right to decide whether they want the result of the play to stand?    So a manager has to decide if a flyout to RF with a runner advancing to 3rd is a good enough result to let stand or he asks that hte batter go back to the plate.   Down 3 in the 9th he might even negate a sac fly  and take the run off the board so the batter gets another chance to get on and bring the tie run to the plate.

If the ball isn't put in play what happens?  Automatic ball?  Or does it only matter if the pitch was put in play?

You say it's simple, I just don't think it's that simple.

So the violation would be for more than 2 infielders on either side of second when pitcher starts his motion. And ends when the ball is contacted or the ball passes the hitter.

I would suggest something similar to an automatic walk. The hitter is awarded first and forces any batter necessary 1 bag forward.

No team has any options..... the encroachment causes a dead ball situation.

they could draw a line from the second base bag in yellow to the outfield grass 

 

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

So the violation would be for more than 2 infielders on either side of second when pitcher starts his motion. And ends when the ball is contacted or the ball passes the hitter.

I would suggest something similar to an automatic walk. The hitter is awarded first and forces any batter necessary 1 bag forward.

No team has any options..... the encroachment causes a dead ball situation.

they could draw a line from the second base bag in yellow to the outfield grass 

 

So a moving infielder cross the line just before the pitch is thrown.   The ump now has a whistle so he can "blow the play dead"?   The pitch is hit for a base hit or even a home run, but it doesn't count?

Because if Chris Davis is batting, even if y9u make me play my shortstop on the 3rd base side of the bag, I'm sure as heck going to make sure he's in motion towards the other side as quick as legally allowed.   

[Number5]

6 hours ago, SteveA said:

So a moving infielder cross the line just before the pitch is thrown.   The ump now has a whistle so he can "blow the play dead"?   The pitch is hit for a base hit or even a home run, but it doesn't count?

Because if Chris Davis is batting, even if y9u make me play my shortstop on the 3rd base side of the bag, I'm sure as heck going to make sure he's in motion towards the other side as quick as legally allowed.   

Don't worry.  Won't happen.  It's not logical to relocate the umpire and expect the umpire to be looking at the middle infielder's feet and a line on the ground.  If he's looking there, he can't possibly see when the pitch is thrown.  He needs to be in position to be doing his job and observing the pitcher.  Criminy, we would have umpires not knowing where the ball has been hit and unable to employ proper mechanics to make a call or worse, getting hit by line drives

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

Don't worry.  Won't happen.  It's not logical to relocate the umpire and expect the umpire to be looking at the middle infielder's feet and a line on the ground.  If he's looking there, he can't possibly see when the pitch is thrown.  He needs in position to be doing his job and observing the pitcher.  Criminy, we would have umpires not knowing where the ball has been hit and unable to employ proper mechanics to make a call or worse, getting hit by line drives

They could put shock collars on infielders like they do on dogs, and they would deliver an electric shock when the player crosses the line.   Completely takes it out of the umpire's hands.

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

They could put shock collars on infielders like they do on dogs, and they would deliver an electric shock when the player crosses the line.   Completely takes it out of the umpire's hands.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Number5 said:

Major league pitchers throw more strikes than balls.  They would nibble less if three balls were a walk.  Little doubt in my mind that the games would have a reduced average game-time with such a change.  You might have the occasional  game where the pitcher is wild, but even then, it takes him less time to pitch three balls than four.  Hey, I don't want any change to the rules myself, but I really dislike the constant tinkering with rules.  Go ahead and make this one big change if you must, and let that be the end of it.

I’d actually love to see an experiment with that.

[BarclaySouthway]

7 hours ago, SteveA said:

They could put shock collars on infielders like they do on dogs, and they would deliver an electric shock when the player crosses the line.   Completely takes it out of the umpire's hands.

Yeah, but then at Fenway, they'll cut the electricity a half-second slower when the visitors are in the field.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, BarclaySouthway said:

Yeah, but then at Fenway, they'll cut the electricity a half-second slower when the visitors are in the field.

That's just the faulty wiring.

[$Greatness$]

No.

Hit better.

Simple.

[Fan4Life]

On 12/6/2018 at 6:03 PM, Frobby said:

MLB is considering adopting rules limiting defensive shifts.    What say you?

Absolutely not for MLB changing the rules.