MLB Rule Committee Votes to Impose Rule Eliminating Home Plate Collisions VIDEO ADDED

stokelydokely · Dec 12, 2013

I don't like the rule change, simply because it seems to me that catchers have always had the option to not place themselves directly in the path of the base runner. I understand that as a catcher, that's where you would put yourself to have the best chance to prevent the run; I can also imagine that a lot of catchers would be trashed by fans and maybe other players if they were obviously shying away from contact.

Having said that - these are adults, and it's every individual's decision to block the plate and risk injury.

I'm interested to see how this is implemented on a day-to-day basis. If a catcher receives the ball and manages to get eight feet up the line toward third base, will the runner be forced to slide into home from ten feet away? And what about when a defensive player is running toward home with the ball (because of a wayward cutoff throw or whatever) - will the runner be expected to anticipate the other player's arrival time and slide accordingly?

It's good for everyone that these situations, laden with potential for injury, will be greatly reduced or eliminated. I don't disagree with anyone about the benefits of this rule change. But darn it, as a fan I'm allowed to get excited by the occasional runner-vs-catcher play at the plate!

George_Calfas · Dec 12, 2013

Catchers places themselves in the base path due to the need to tag a runner based upon the continuous linear path allowed when crossing home plate. The base runner is forced out at first, so no big whoop, the runner should not over run second or third base due to the potential of a tag out. Since runners have to stop at Second or Third, when the ball is present or incoming, the forward momentum is smaller when compared to racing home. Since the player is allowed to blow through home plate there is not reason to slow down, thus the runner's momentum is at a maximum at this point. Standing away from home and tagging would be an option if the runner had to come to a stop at home, but this unlike the plays at second and third, so a swooping tag is less likely to achieve the out.

maxe0213 · Dec 12, 2013

It seems like a lot of these collisions are on the catcher. The catchers were normally in between the plate and third base and left most of the runners no choice. Granted there are a few that look like the runner is aiming right at the catcher but I think the majority of these collisions are on the catcher for where they are placing each other.

rsmath · Dec 12, 2013

U L Washington Rookie said:
Funny how in one paragraph you suggest that the catcher will now be totally favored, then in the next you note how nobody even knows yet the final rule. The second kind of shows that the first is a bit of a jump to conclusion.

what? My reply was based on the story link in the first post. It's obvious from that story that the rule change as reported in that story will favor the catcher over the runner. I then comment about another piece of the article to note it's absurd to vote to approve a rule change that isn't complete because as there will be a major messup in implementing the new rule to make sure it is fair to both runner and catcher rather than just catcher. What should be done is owners negotiate with the MLBPA the rule change, finalize rule change when both sides are fine with it, and then owners and MLBPA can formally vote and approve the agreed rule change so there won't be any issues in implementation.

elmalo · Dec 12, 2013

BiggioBrooks755 said:
Very true Yes some are unnecessary...But thats what the catcher has PROTECTIVE gear on for...You get more concessions from being hit in the mask with a foul ball than you do being run over

The catchers do not have pads on for collisions at home plate. The catchers have pads on for protection against the baseball. And btw, with the hockey style masks you dont even feel foul balls anymore. The old style masks were horrible for foul balls because they collapsed inward on your face and you felt the full impact of the ball. The new masks, the way they are shaped deflect the ball away from the face/head. It took me years too finally use one of those new masks and I will never get behind the plate again with a taditional mask.

ASTROBURN · Dec 12, 2013

George_Calfas said:
Ouch on these

@mansgame checkout minute 2:48

its like he had stopped and waited for him to get close enough to lay him out. Boom!

U L Washington Rookie · Dec 13, 2013

rsmath said:
what? My reply was based on the story link in the first post. It's obvious from that story that the rule change as reported in that story will favor the catcher over the runner. I then comment about another piece of the article to note it's absurd to vote to approve a rule change that isn't complete because as there will be a major messup in implementing the new rule to make sure it is fair to both runner and catcher rather than just catcher. What should be done is owners negotiate with the MLBPA the rule change, finalize rule change when both sides are fine with it, and then owners and MLBPA can formally vote and approve the agreed rule change so there won't be any issues in implementation.

If you don't know the final wording of the rule, one can't logically conclude who is 'favored' by the rule.

mlbsalltimegreats · Dec 13, 2013

After watching the Video im against the rule change. What would be better in the playoffs in a tie game for it to end with a plate collision where the catcher drops the ball and your team comes out the victor or vise versa. It would be talked about for years. If you take the collision out in the same situation then its just another playoff win.

Benson · Dec 15, 2013

I know the teams want to protect their investments in catcher's (Posey, Yadier type money), but they also are looking out for numero uno, their own pocket book. I am shocked some former players have yet to sue MLB over concussions, in fact I would guess Ryan Freel's family would at some point.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...agnosed-chronic-traumatic-202553277--mlb.html
Now whether they have a case is yet to be determined.

It will never come out, but I'm sure the liability issue is one of the reasons the owner's wanted to eliminate home plate collisions.

The collision is an exciting play to watch, but I'm not the one getting trucked.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

MLB Rule Committee Votes to Impose Rule Eliminating Home Plate Collisions VIDEO ADDED

stokelydokely

Member

George_Calfas

Well-known member

maxe0213

New member

rsmath

Active member

elmalo

New member

ASTROBURN

Active member

U L Washington Rookie

Active member

mlbsalltimegreats

New member

Benson

Member

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

MLB Rule Committee Votes to Impose Rule Eliminating Home Plate Collisions ***VIDEO ADDED***

Member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Member

Similar threads

Log in

MLB Rule Committee Votes to Impose Rule Eliminating Home Plate Collisions VIDEO ADDED