Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

MLB votes to ban home plate collisions

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 08:33 PM

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...8&vkey=news_mlb

Saw this today - not surprised. Won't solve all the issues but given the growing body of research on concussions it was probably inevitable. I know some will say it changes the game, and I'm sympathetic to those concerns. That said, I think this is a good step.

#2 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Fan

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,328 posts
  • LocationIt's complicated.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:12 PM

It'll all depend on how the new regulations are written up. If it's clear where the runner is supposed to be and where the catcher is supposed to be, it has a chance. If there's a gray area, there will just be endless rhubarbs.

#3 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,213 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:19 PM

Not surprising that they would take away the most exciting play in the sport. Way to try and be like the NFL.

#4 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Toledo Mud Hens

  • Members
  • 2,576 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:29 PM

Not surprising that they would take away the most exciting play in the sport. Way to try and be like the NFL.


My thoughts exactly!.. But at least we have instant replay now, so coaches can throw the challenge flag on any controversial slide play unless of course the play happens after the eighth inning when, by rule, all replay reviews come from the booth. [cue MNF theme]

#5 Twins Daily Admin

Twins Daily Admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 202 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 10:57 PM

I'll admit - I didn't think this would happen this soon. Good for them. It sounds like it's not official yet, but everyone thinks it will pass the rules committee now, provided they can get criteria that everyone agrees with. It should be in place by Opening Day.

#6 Pius Jefferson

Pius Jefferson

    Master of the Obvious

  • Members
  • 564 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 11:45 PM

Not surprising that they would take away the most exciting play in the sport. Way to try and be like the NFL.


It's not even close to being the most exciting play? More times than not its a dick move by the runner who doesn't even need to make contact with the catcher.

#7 AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:22 AM

lame.

#8 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Toledo Mud Hens

  • Members
  • 2,576 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:42 AM

It's not even close to being the most exciting play


Your list?

#9 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    Toledo Mud Hens

  • Members
  • 2,576 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 02:34 AM

Just for the record: I am not pro collision. I don't care to go back and watch the bad ones.

Did some further reading and I'm actually in favor of what they're proposing, basically a rule for moving the catcher away from home plate (blocking plate would be obstruction and award the run) and heavy penalty against a base runner for intentionally ramming a catcher. Enforcement of the rule might be when a home plate umpire steps forward into the play and waves time out if the catcher is blocking the plate and/or a collision seems likely to happen. Makes sense to me. So mea culpa for not being up to speed on where people and the league stand on this.

Personally I wish the MLB would frame this more as a rule change than a "ban" on behavior, which is where my snark and the knee jerk for it / against it reaction comes from.

#10 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 4,251 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 12 December 2013 - 08:27 AM

"The fact of the matter is we still have [to receive approval from the MLBPA and umpires union], so there is really nothing that is in stone at this point in time,"


I'm having a hard time imagining why either of those groups would be in favor. Esp. umpires.

#11 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 9,536 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 08:55 AM

Great move. Now enforce the rule you have to actually try to touch 2B when breaking up a double play, and the game is much better in one year, imo. I'd rather watch great players be healthy, than a random take out play that causes someone to miss time any day.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#12 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 9,605 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 09:23 AM

It's not even close to being the most exciting play? More times than not its a dick move by the runner who doesn't even need to make contact with the catcher.


I'd have to ask you to show your math on that claim-

#13 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Hydraulic Choppers

  • Members
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 10:52 AM

I don't agree with a lot of the rule changes that MLB has in the works, but I support this one. I'm thinking of the 2008 game 163 where Griffey Jr. gunned down Cuddyer at the plate by a mile, and Cuddy still leveled AJ anyways.

Not that I think Cuddyer is a dirty player, as this rule wasn't in effect, but there's no reason for that kind of collision.

#14 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,213 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 11:19 AM

I don't agree with a lot of the rule changes that MLB has in the works, but I support this one. I'm thinking of the 2008 game 163 where Griffey Jr. gunned down Cuddyer at the plate by a mile, and Cuddy still leveled AJ anyways.

Not that I think Cuddyer is a dirty player, as this rule wasn't in effect, but there's no reason for that kind of collision.


There is an obvious reason- to try and knock the ball away so you can score. Torii was on mlbn having a near meltdown about it (of course we all remember him leveling Burke). I absolutely hate the pussification of football and I hate how it's trending that way in baseball too.

#15 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Hydraulic Choppers

  • Members
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:07 PM

There is an obvious reason- to try and knock the ball away so you can score. Torii was on mlbn having a near meltdown about it (of course we all remember him leveling Burke). I absolutely hate the pussification of football and I hate how it's trending that way in baseball too.


Any change that improves player safety I think is a good one. And I wouldn't use the term that you do.

It's been trending that way forever, BTW. If you think that the game is too soft, maybe we should take away the batting helmets, catchers' gear, and the barriers in front of the dugout.

#16 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:15 PM

I understand the passions on both sides of this issue. I do wonder, though, for those who feel additional player protection is unnecessary, either in football or in baseball, what will happen to these sports if they don't evolve to reflect modern medical understanding. Already you are hearing ex-NFL players say they wouldn't let their children play the sport, knowing now what they didn't know then. Back in the 1900s Teddy Roosevelt pushed for changes in the game of football, not to take away the physical nature of the game, but to control it and reduce the casualty rate and prevent the game from disappearing. Some major colleges had dropped the game due to the death rate. The rules were rewritten to restrain the worst of the violence and the game was saved.

Is this the start of a similar push here - not the emasculate the game we love but to save it for the future?

#17 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 619 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:28 PM

I personally have never been a big fan of the home plate collision. It doesn't really make the game better in my opinion. The ball rarely comes out of the catchers glove anyway. It has always seemed like a cheese ball cheap shot play to me. Yeah I get that it shows a never die never give up attitude but if it has the potential to ruin careers then getting rid of it is a good thing in my opinion. I won't miss it one bit as there will still be plenty of plays at the plate minus the injuries.

#18 iastfan112

iastfan112

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 02:39 PM

Comparing baseball to football in this respect seems pretty asinine to me its a contact sport vs primarily non contact sport. There are deliberate rules already in place about obstructing a runner at the other places on the field, why the discrepancy here?

#19 Sssuperdave

Sssuperdave

    Member

  • Members
  • 80 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 02:58 PM

It's not even close to being the most exciting play


Your list?


This wasn't directed at me, but here's a list off the top of my head:

Plays I think are more exciting than bowling over the catcher:

  • Suicide Squeeze
  • Triple Plays
  • Stealing Home
  • Grand Slams
  • Robbing Home Runs
  • Diving catches in the outfield
  • Gunning a runner down at the plate on a fly-out, even if the catcher doesn't get plowed into
  • Walkoff Home Runs

Every pitch of these other baseball situations (not exactly plays) are more exciting to me than bowling over the catcher:

  • No-Hitters after the 7th inning
  • Bottom of the ninth down by 1 with a runner in scoring position
  • Game 7 of the world series

Think of the 91 world series. Puckett's catch and home run in game 6, and every pitch of game 7 were more exciting that Harper getting plowed into. I don't even remember for sure who did the plowing - was it Lonnie Smith? Heck, I even liked the Kent Hrbek/Ron Gant controversy better. Oh, and Rick Aguilera pinch-hitting in game 3.

I could go on, but I think it's obvious where I stand.

#20 Jon Marthaler

Jon Marthaler

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:05 PM

I like the following:
A) Fewer guys missing time with injuries
B) More guys that don't have concussions.

I think this rule helps on both fronts.

If there needs to be a replacement, allow me to suggest more bench-clearing brawls, which seldom lead to injuries or concussions but are so, so much fun.