Should collisions at home plate be banned?

[Hitman23]

Actually, if you are a catcher and want to avoid collisions.....just don't block the plate. There does not need to be a rule change, leave it up to the players.

Collisions at home plate are dictated by the catcher.

you can't ignore the pressures to take one for the team. If a catcher or runner don't do what is expected we as fans get on them for not having enough passion or toughness. Taking it out of their hands completely gets rid of that.

I don't believe it's so black and white.

[Yankee Tripper]

Actually, if you are a catcher and want to avoid collisions.....just don't block the plate. There does not need to be a rule change, leave it up to the players.

Collisions at home plate are dictated by the catcher.

Cousins had a lane to the plate where he did not need to blow up Posey. Your argument is dumb.

[goin for 27]

Cousins had a lane to the plate where he did not need to blow up Posey. Your argument is dumb.

Correct, Posey was not blocking the plate. That said, 99% of collisions at the plate are caused by catchers blocking. In that case? Call the runner out for running out of the baseline to deliberately collide with catcher. For every Posey type play, I can cite 100 where the catcher has caught the ball, and is blocking the plate.

Look at JoPo. He had a few big collisons, no doubt. That said, he could have had hundreds more in his career, but he was not a plate blocker. That's okay, he got the job done. Rather have him sweep tagging and IN the lineup than plate blocking and out. JoPo, the vast majority of the time, refused to block the plate.

[conkermaniac]

The fact that collisions at home plate are allowed is something that didn't make much sense to me when I first started watching the game and still doesn't make much sense 15 years later. Baserunners are not allowed to barrel into other fielders to try to get them to drop the ball -- that would be runner interference. So why should it be different in the case of the catcher?

Just have the rules be the same as everywhere else on the basepaths: if the catcher is in the way of the baserunner without the ball, then it's fielder interference and the baserunner is safe, and if the baserunner runs into the catcher, then it's runner interference and he is out. Unnecessary roughness on the part of either player results in an ejection.

[False1]

The fact that collisions at home plate are allowed is something that didn't make much sense to me when I first started watching the game and still doesn't make much sense 15 years later. Baserunners are not allowed to barrel into other fielders to try to get them to drop the ball -- that would be runner interference. So why should it be different in the case of the catcher?

Just have the rules be the same as everywhere else on the basepaths: if the catcher is in the way of the baserunner without the ball, then it's fielder interference and the baserunner is safe, and if the baserunner runs into the catcher, then it's runner interference and he is out. Unnecessary roughness on the part of either player results in an ejection.

Actually, unless I'm misinterpreting this is incorrect or perhaps an incomplete a bad analogy.

Technically, I think blocking the plate is obstruction on the defense, not interference on the offense. It's never called; I'm guessing because the rules are stretched to say that the catcher is in the process of fielding the ball... but when does that start for example on a throw from right field? When the fielder releases it? When it reaches the infield?

It is treated differently for some reason. If a first baseman parked in front of the first base bag to receive a throw from third, that would be obstruction without question.

I keep going back to... if catchers are allowed to block the plate, there will be collisions and/or different injuries (see Stephen Drew). Really the only way I can see around it is to force catchers to tag without obstructing home plate.

[JL25and3]

Actually, unless I'm misinterpreting this is incorrect or perhaps an incomplete a bad analogy.

Technically, I think blocking the plate is obstruction on the defense, not interference on the offense. It's never called; I'm guessing because the rules are stretched to say that the catcher is in the process of fielding the ball... but when does that start for example on a throw from right field? When the fielder releases it? When it reaches the infield?

It is treated differently for some reason. If a first baseman parked in front of the first base bag to receive a throw from third, that would be obstruction without question.

I keep going back to... if catchers are allowed to block the plate, there will be collisions and/or different injuries (see Stephen Drew). Really the only way I can see around it is to force catchers to tag without obstructing home plate.

According to the rules, catchers really aren't treated differently from any other fielders - with one rarely-enforced exception which actually limits catchers a little more. Here are the various relevant rules, at least what I've been able to find:

Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball.

Rule 7.06(b)...NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

A runner's allowed to run into a fielder at any base as long as he's trying to get to the base and the fielder's not trying to field a batted ball.) And any fielder can block a bag as long as he has the ball or is in the act of fielding it.

What makes a catcher different from other infielders isn't that he can block the base, it's that he does. Other infielders try to avoid straight-on collisions as much as possible; catchers don't. I can't say for sure why that's the case, but I have some ideas:

1. There's a much greater incentive to prevent the runner from getting to home plate than to any other base.

2. The catcher's wearing armor, so he has less to fear from a high-spikes slide than other fielders (while the runner has more to fear).

3. The catcher has far less mobility than other fielders because of his armor (and, well, because he's a catcher). Catching the ball in front of the baseline and then trying to dive back to make the play is rarely effective, as Jorge Posada demonstrated.

4. Other infielders can hold the ball securely in their glove to make a sweep tag. The catcher needs two hands to hold the ball securely, so he has far less range for making the tag; standing in front of the runner is practically his only choice.

There are probably other reasons - macho expectations? - which others may suggest.

There is the note to 7.06(b) that specifically precludes the catcher from blocking the basepath unless he has or is fielding the ball. But I would say that he's not "blocking" the basepath until the runner approaches, so this note is just a restatement of the obstruction rule. In fact, home-plate collisions rarely if ever happen because a catcher's blocking the plate without the ball; in almost every case he either has the ball or is legitimately in position to catch a throw.

I think it would be wise to teach catchers ways to avoid collisions, just as they teach middle infielders how to protect themselves while making the pivot. But I think the rules are OK.

[skyblue17]

Interesting article by Tom Verducci on this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb...#ixzz2Pzd3wDw8

He's very pro-banning the collisions. The majority of people reacting to him, both on the article and on Facebook, disagree with him. I can see why some people would be against this for various reasons but the fervor with which people are in favor of this particular play staying in tact is pretty fascinating to me.

[awy]

muh tradition

[dabomb2045]

I think its time to ban them. We have learned so much about concussions in the past several years...awareness is as high as its ever been. We've seen other sports to take measures to attempt to cut down on violence. Its time baseball does.

[Hitman23]

I think its time to ban them. We have learned so much about concussions in the past several years...awareness is as high as its ever been. We've seen other sports to take measures to attempt to cut down on violence. Its time baseball does.

Completely agreed.

[kan_t]

What funny is that even Cobb didn't run into the catcher. He slid into home. He probably was smart enough to know that he put himself in danger by making a collision.

[skyblue17]

It seems a common reaction to the possible banning of these plays is that trying to break up double plays should also be banned, but how often is that a guy running full throttle toward second base and plowing into the infielder instead of sliding? Even when that play is dirty, it's not the same as a 220lb man plowing into a guy who's standing straight up AND still with the intention of knocking him to the ground with enough force that he loses control of his grip.

[kan_t]

It seems a common reaction to the possible banning of these plays is that trying to break up double plays should also be banned, but how often is that a guy running full throttle toward second base and plowing into the infielder instead of sliding? Even when that play is dirty, it's not the same as a 220lb man plowing into a guy who's standing straight up AND still with the intention of knocking him to the ground with enough force that he loses control of his grip.

That reaction is laughable. I really couldn't remember any runner ran into the infielder in order to break up the DP. And I'm sure if the runner did, he would get retaliated.

[35Knucklecurve]

I think its time to ban them. We have learned so much about concussions in the past several years...awareness is as high as its ever been. We've seen other sports to take measures to attempt to cut down on violence. Its time baseball does.

Yes and what makes it even more irresponsible is that football is by nature a high impact sport, with everybody moving and moving fast. The chances that a player will at some point sustain a concussion is a lot higher, even with better helmet protection and changing the rules. Baseball has the opportunity to cut down on that chance in a situation while the play is developing. You can almost predict a collision at home plate by watching the runner, the ball and the catcher.

[skyblue17]

That reaction is laughable. I really couldn't remember any runner ran into the infielder in order to break up the DP. And I'm sure if the runner did, he would get retaliated.

I mean, they're saying it sarcastically. Like "why not ban THIS play while you're at it!," not that they actually want the double play breakup banned. I just don't find them comparable.