Baseball Banning Home Plate Collisions

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Now they have decided to do so. In the first step to formally eradicating a thrilling but dangerous staple of the game — and an emphatic response to the concussion crisis that has gripped other sports — Major League Baseball’s rules committee voted Wednesday to eliminate home-plate collisions.

Quote:

Some former catchers, like Oakland Athletics Manager Bob Melvin and Detroit Tigers Manager Brad Ausmus, wondered how ingrained instincts could be removed from the game. Base runners strive to score, and catchers strive to prevent them from scoring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/sp...ome-plate.html

First dodge ball banned in gym class...then...

Baseball is becoming a Nanny Sport...like football.

[6miths]

What's next? Fighting in hockey? Now that would be crazy!

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths What's next? Fighting in hockey? Now that would be crazy!

+1

[Texas Proud]

I never liked the person running at full speed, lowering their shoulder and just launching themselves into the catcher.... it just did not seem like part of the game considering that if they did that at any other base they would be ejected....


I am in favor of the ban.... to me it does not take anything away from the game...

[steelyman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I never liked the person running at full speed, lowering their shoulder and just launching themselves into the catcher.... it just did not seem like part of the game considering that if they did that at any other base they would be ejected.... I am in favor of the ban.... to me it does not take anything away from the game...

I agree.

I don't go to a baseball game to see blood or broken bones. I like the skill of the pitcher/batter, a shortstop starting a double play, a great catch in the outfield.

Or a home run, which makes a collision unnecessary.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I never liked the person running at full speed, lowering their shoulder and just launching themselves into the catcher.... it just did not seem like part of the game considering that if they did that at any other base they would be ejected.... I am in favor of the ban.... to me it does not take anything away from the game...

But think of all the fun we'll miss:

CHC@CWS: Benches clear after play at the plate - YouTube

[ERhoosier]

As an ex-umpire (thru HS level), I've never had a problem with incidental collisions when the catcher was blocking the plate. But IMHO there should be an immediate ejection for "unnecessary roughness" (to use football term). No action should be tolerated not DIRECTLY related to touching the plate (e.g. throwing elbows, shoulders, leading with the batting helmet, etc.). It will be interesting to see how MLB works through implementation of this new rule in Spring training.

[easysurfer]

I do understand about rules disallowing a runner trying the take the catcher out (Pete Rose/Ray Fosse). But to ban collisions altogether...that'll make such a crucial play boring.

I kinda like that "can't hit above the shoulders" thought in the article. But on a bang bang play, the runner should have just as much right to the plate as a catcher blocking the plate.

[harley]

As long as the catcher isn't allowed in the base path anymore, there shouldn't be any collisions. The base path belongs to the runner. Any runner who swerved out of the base path to try to knock the ball out of a catcher's hand would have been called out and probably thrown out of the game. It's always been that way. I wonder what they'll call now when a catcher gets too enthusiastic and blocks the path, and the runner slams into him. Automatic run scored?

[easysurfer]

My interpretation is the rules would favor more the catcher. That the runner is expected to let up and not barrel into the catcher. Kind of like in football..the DBs are expected to let up and not hit a defenseless receiver.

[ziggy29]

I've never understood why blocking home plate was a legal and accepted part of a catcher's job when it's not allowed at any other base. Yes, I know the catcher has more padding and "protection", but still, it seems odd -- that padding is to protect from pitches and foul balls, not primarily to act as "armor" when facing a runner launching himself like a missile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer My interpretation is the rules would favor more the catcher. That the runner is expected to let up and not barrel into the catcher. Kind of like in football..the DBs are expected to let up and not hit a defenseless receiver.

Possibly. But at the same time, perhaps a runner should be automatically declared safe if, in the umpire's discretion, the catcher was illegally blocking the plate. And perhaps doing it a second time in a single game would be grounds for ejection.

[utrecht]

I agree with Ziggy. Why is the catcher allowed to stand 3 feet up the baseline and block the runners path? That's the only reason the runner ever collides with the catcher and the only reason you don't see collisions at other bases. How is the runner supposed to touch the plate if he physically cant get there without knocking the catcher out of the way?

[scrinch]

I (former catcher) think the catcher has as much right to block the plate as the first baseman has to block the runner running down the first base line. Ninety five percent of collisions I've seen or been involved in were caused by the catcher planting himself in front of the plate. He doesn't need to block the plate to make a tag any more than the second or third basemen. I say either let all the infielders block their bases, or don't let any of them. Actually I don't think any fielder should be allowed to impede a runner...even to the extent of putting a foot in front of the bag.

(Yes, I understand that it doesn't make sense for a first baseman to block his base when it's always a force play...I'm just using s little exaggeration. Can you imagine racing down to first and facing Prince Fielder blocking you off the base?)

[ziggy29]

As I think on this more, this would seem to significantly increase the odds of a successful suicide squeeze.

[Dawg52]

The NFL will follow with no tackling before too long. A defensive player will have to gently lower the ball carrier to the ground. Sounds crazy but that's where its headed.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I've never understood why blocking home plate was a legal and accepted part of a catcher's job when it's not allowed at any other base.

MAD Magazine introduced a version of "Basebrawl" in the mid-70's to make the game more interesting to watch. They had some novel ideas. When the third out was made in an inning, all the runners left on base got to stay at that base and defend it from any runners from the opposing team during the next inning. And rather than drop it at home plate, hitters got to keep and use the bat to clear the way as they ran the bases. Along with other changes (the pitcher comes from the team at bat, a steel ball, etc) it would have edged the national pastime a little closer to "Thunderdome."

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg52 The NFL will follow with no tackling before too long. A defensive player will have to gently lower the ball carrier to the ground. Sounds crazy but that's where its headed.

Could be the NFL's days are numbered and it will be replaced by the NFFL. (No, the other F stands for "flag"....)

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg52 The NFL will follow with no tackling before too long. A defensive player will have to gently lower the ball carrier to the ground. Sounds crazy but that's where its headed.

Tackling isn't really the problem. The problem in the NFL is the *lack* of classic form tackling. Defenders (especially DBs) rarely get low, wrap the arms around the ball carrier and pull them down. These days they launch themselves, all too often head-first but sometimes shoulders-first, like projectiles into ball carriers and hope to knock them down instead of tackle. That is leading to many more head and knee injuries than the classic forms of tackling.

[Chuckanut]

Sounds like the result will be higher scoring games as defending the goal posts will be more difficult. Compare this to soccer where scoring a goal is getting rarer and rarer.

[kombat]

I think there's more than enough energy, excitement, action, and speed in all the other trilling aspects of baseball that it can sustain the loss of this one little thing.[/sarcasm]

Maybe I'm just a naive Canuck, but I honestly don't see the appeal of a "sport" with approximately 9 minutes of actual action in a 3 hour game.

I can't think of a sport with LESS athletic "athletes" than Baseball. Old, flabby, no cardio ... who gets excited to spend 3 hours watching these guys ride a bench or kick dirt in an outfield?

And don't get me started on the designated runner rule. As if that could happen in any other sport. Imagine if a short white guy could make a lucky intercept in basketball, run the ball back to the net, then call a timeout and swap in Shaq. Or if the rookie defenseman in hockey intercepted the puck and made a breakaway to the opposing net, then called a timeout so Sidney Crosby could jump in and take the actual shot. It's ridiculous! Yet no one bats an eye in baseball. Between that, the steroids, the stubborn and inexplicable resistance to using instant replays, now this .. how does baseball have any credibility at all as a sport?