Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs

From MinnCentric


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 Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,743 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

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
  • 1,012 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

    jamshots, blue darters, and humpback singles

  • Members
  • 1,215 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

    The Southern Dandy

  • Members
  • 389 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

    jamshots, blue darters, and humpback singles

  • Members
  • 1,215 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

    jamshots, blue darters, and humpback singles

  • Members
  • 1,215 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
  • 2,982 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
  • 6,122 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.
Lighten up Francis....

#12 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,091 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
  • 1,121 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
  • 1,012 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
  • 1,121 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
  • 469 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
  • 206 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
  • 12 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.

#21 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    jamshots, blue darters, and humpback singles

  • Members
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 05:06 PM

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.


Confusion------I think I meant "play at the plate" as the most exciting, many of which you listed. Not the collision. Which tends to make people's heart drop the moment before it happens. I'll take a good play at the plate (out or safe) over most dingers. Also good mention on Aggie's at bat in Game 3 (line out to center?) which was definitely a dramatic moment. Game 7 was full of exciting moments, none which involved a collision at the plate.

#22 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,012 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 05:19 PM

Confusion------I think I meant "play at the plate" as the most exciting, many of which you listed. Not the collision. Which tends to make people's heart drop the moment before it happens. I'll take a good play at the plate (out or safe) over most dingers. Also good mention on Aggie's at bat in Game 3 (line out to center?) which was definitely a dramatic moment. Game 7 was full of exciting moments, none which involved a collision at the plate.


Yes, everything in Game 7 is more exciting due to the context. A pop up to Pagliarulo had us all holding our breath. That wouldn't happen on June 4th.

I love collisions. The bang-bang nature of the play combined with a brutal hit makes it exciting for me. If we are going to eliminate anything that could cause an injury, please eliminate throwing, sliding, running, swinging. Most of the concussions that take place are on foul tips not collisions at home plate.

#23 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,012 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 05:20 PM

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.


Players should also only be out if they get Dibbled.

#24 Hosken Bombo Disco

Hosken Bombo Disco

    jamshots, blue darters, and humpback singles

  • Members
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:08 PM

Yes, everything in Game 7 is more exciting due to the context. A pop up to Pagliarulo had us all holding our breath. That wouldn't happen on June 4th.

I love collisions. The bang-bang nature of the play combined with a brutal hit makes it exciting for me. If we are going to eliminate anything that could cause an injury, please eliminate throwing, sliding, running, swinging. Most of the concussions that take place are on foul tips not collisions at home plate.


Hmm.. not me, not so much. I think usually when a ball gets to the plate early enough, and a collision is coming, that a catcher can quick drop into a solid defensive posture and protect himself, and as long as he holds the ball the ump should give him the benefit of the doubt. But on those closer plays the catcher is still in motion fielding the ball or whatever, and not prepared to take that hit, which was the case in the Buster Posey play. (which should have been a swipe slide). The home plate collision is very much a desperation and instinct move on the runners part, who usually knows he's going to be out unless he can jar the ball free.

To this point collisions have been "part of the game" which is what most players will say in an interview afterward. If MLB wants to reduce their occurrences to near zero, then hopefully they will present some specific rules and suggestions, instead of just agreeing to some vague "ban" against it. And you will still see foul tips and collisions between teammates in the field, so yeah.

#25 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,743 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:29 PM

I love collisions. The bang-bang nature of the play combined with a brutal hit


Thank you for summarizing my opposition to the play.

#26 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:39 PM

Put me in the column that says home plate collisions were the dumbest play in the game. Exciting? I suppose, but stupid. At every other base, it's runners' interference except home? The most exciting play in the NFL used to be the free shot a CB could take on a defenseless receiver. The smartest thing the NFL did was ban that.

And I can say the Twins suffered as much as any franchise in this. Morneau's career was seriously disrupted by two such collisions. I wonder what might have been. In addition to the two HP collisions, the big one happened at second. But his head was already not right from the worst collision of his career, which caused a concussion and a bruised lung. The Twins lost their opportunity to have Thome moments in his only postseason with the team because of a stupid one. I could go on and on.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#27 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,091 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:46 PM

Put me in the column that says home plate collisions were the dumbest play in the game. Exciting? I suppose, but stupid. At every other base, it's runners' interference except home? The most exciting play in the NFL used to be the free shot a CB could take on a defenseless receiver. The smartest thing the NFL did was ban that.

And I can say the Twins suffered as much as any franchise in this. Morneau's career was seriously disrupted by two such collisions. I wonder what might have been. In addition to the two HP collisions, the big one happened at second. But his head was already not right from the worst collision of his career, which caused a concussion and a bruised lung. The Twins lost their opportunity to have Thome moments in his only postseason with the team because of a stupid one. I could go on and on.


The two bolded statements are highly contradictory. If plays like Morneau's at second are somehow "banned", the game as we know it, is over.

#28 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 07:17 PM

The two bolded statements are highly contradictory. If plays like Morneau's at second are somehow "banned", the game as we know it, is over.


There's a big difference between a hard slide at second and a home plate collision. A runner cannot go out of his way to "hit" the guy turning the double play. He can slide late as long as he can still touch the bag after the slide. If not, it's technically interference. Though perhaps it is not called as often as it should be. Also, unlike a catcher, the middle infielder can throw the ball and hit the runner if he doesn't get out of the way, and it's runners' interference. All the catcher can do is hold on to the ball for dear life.

In Torii's infamous collision on Jamie Burke, he was three feet away from the plate when he crushed him. He had to get up and go over to the plate after Burke dropped the ball. It was a legal play.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#29 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,053 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 07:53 PM

My issue is how the rule is written, because I'm having trouble imagining how this gets written tht isn't awful and causes problems.

#30 h2oface

h2oface

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 393 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 08:30 PM

If you can't do it at any other base, you shouldn't be able to do it at home. I was disappointed that the "neighborhood" force out at second will not be reviewable. I have always hated it. Part of baseball is the inches and split seconds. If you can't get the foot on the base in time, that is part of the play. Baseball was never supposed to be football.