MLB to ban home-plate collisions

[Ken Krause]

Then there's this play, which happened to my 5'10", 200 lb. catcher this summer. Play at the plate, running coming home. Ball gets to my catcher first, she drops into position to block the plate and apply the tag. Runner pulls up just short, stops, and when my catcher goes to apply the tag the runner leaps over her. Cleared her by a lot too. Darndest thing I'd ever seen.

Sucked that we gave up the run, but even our side of the field had to admire that runner's athleticism. Our catcher was mad, but I told her "Hey, whatcha gonna do?"

 

[MTR]

Then there's this play, which happened to my 5'10", 200 lb. catcher this summer. Play at the plate, running coming home. Ball gets to my catcher first, she drops into position to block the plate and apply the tag. Runner pulls up just short, stops, and when my catcher goes to apply the tag the runner leaps over her. Cleared her by a lot too. Darndest thing I'd ever seen.

Sucked that we gave up the run, but even our side of the field had to admire that runner's athleticism. Our catcher was mad, but I told her "Hey, whatcha gonna do?"

But see, there you had a player which just out maneuvered the opponent who made a play. The defense was more successful in performing as intended. The offense didn't quite do as well, but outwitted them.

When a fielder has the ball and the sole intent of the runner is to knock that ball loose through physical assault, that is not softball, or baseball for that matter.

To put it in the vernacular of today's parents, I compare it to bullying. It is taking away something the defense earned within the scope of the game through intimidation and physical force.

If Pete Rose, great player, questionable human being, is so interested in winning, maybe he should do a better job of getting around the bases without the defense putting him out.

 

[wichita]

Yes, I get that.

What I want is when there is a close play at the plate, AND the catcher does not have the ball in hand or glove, AND my runner would have been safe had the plate not been obstructed, that Blue call OBS. I've had that scenario several times the past few years and not once have I had that call go my way.

We actually had this called on us last year .... called the runner safe and our catcher had the ball and was only blocking the front of the plate the runner had plenty of room to touch the plate and he still called obstruction.

Remember just because it's a rule doesn't mean it will be enforced and umpires always put there own spin on what the rules/rules mean to them instead of applying the rule the way it is written .... look at balls and strikes....

 

[T Red]

What I want is when there is a close play at the plate, AND the catcher does not have the ball in hand or glove, AND my runner would have been safe had the plate not been obstructed, that Blue call OBS. I've had that scenario several times the past few years and not once have I had that call go my way.

I agree with this, some of the worst calls I've ever seen were at home. Umps will not make that call for some reason.

 

[MTR]

We actually had this called on us last year .... called the runner safe and our catcher had the ball and was only blocking the front of the plate the runner had plenty of room to touch the plate and he still called obstruction.

Maybe it was OBS. "Allowing" the runner part of the plate is a joke. The runner owns the field including every bit of every base. If the runner had to change course or adjust in any way due to the fielder's presence prior to the fielder gaining possession of the ball. Don't know, wasn't there.

Remember just because it's a rule doesn't mean it will be enforced and umpires always put there own spin on what the rules/rules mean to them instead of applying the rule the way it is written .... look at balls and strikes....

I see umpires make these calls and apply the rule properly. Must be the dynamic training. I feel bad that you have umpires that either don't know how or choose not to do their job.

 

[alexander58]

I hope they adopt a rule similar to the obstruction in fastpitch. Just because " it has always been that way" really doesn't justify it. I don't see the current rule adding to the game.

 

[cmustangsfp]

If you have to try to jar the ball loose then you are already out, otherwise there would be no reason to try to separate the ball from the catcher. Eliminating the collisions would be a great thing. Even with all that protection on, the catcher is usually an object at rest while the runner is an object in motion.

 

[CoogansBluff]

If you have to try to jar the ball loose then you are already out, otherwise there would be no reason to try to separate the ball from the catcher.

Not sure if this is what you're getting at, but why not have the runner be out at the moment of contact with the glove, even if the ball is jarred loose? It would be the same rule as in football regarding ''ground can't cause a fumble.'' As soon as the runner makes contact with glove or ball, it's an out. Then the runner would have no reason to forcefully run into/over a fielder.

 

[RetiredCoach]

I like this idea a lot! Problem solved!!!

 

[Indiana]

Sounds like a good idea. With the new use of instant replay, it should be easy enough to determine if the catcher had the ball at the time of contact.