Blocking the plate rule: suggestion

[Thegrin]

Purpose: To prevent runners from taking advantage of the current blocking rule when they are clearly not going to be safe at the plate.

 

If a throw from a fielder is caught by the catcher before the runner is within1 stride of the catcher, the runner is automatically called out (like the infield fly rule.) The runner (if he continues) is obligated NOT to collide with the catcher even if the catcher is blocking the pathway by taking the throw.

 

If the runner reverses and tries to reach 3rd base, normal rundown rules will apply.

 

What do you think ?

[Willihammer]

Is there a specific play that prompted your idea? I thought plays at the plate were pretty much going off without a hitch.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Are you referring to this? 

 

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article/cin/obstruction-rule-leads-to-overturn-reds-tying-run-in-win-over-marlins?ymd=20140731&content_id=87347952&vkey=news_cin

[Thegrin]

Yes. This was a travesty of rules over common sense

 

http://cincinnati.re...2&vkey=news_cin

[Willihammer]

If Mathis had followed the rule, and stayed out of the runner's lane until he caught the ball, then he would have been able to tag out the runner in plenty of time.

[ScrapTheNickname]

What if all plays at the plate are ruled force outs, the way it is at first base, rather than any other base?

 

What unintended consequences would result from that? Ha ha.

[Thegrin]

The problem is that in all circumstances, the runner has the advantage. They can dodge out of the baseline, slide, fake giving up, then dash and slide. The catcher always is at risk of dropping the ball when the runner makes a sudden action. 

If the intent of the rule is to prevent collisions, there should be some instances where the runner should be out, regardless of where the catcher is standing.

 

The force-out might be the solution and would be the method unless the runner reverses and heads back to 3rd base. That would work in most conceivable instances.

[Willihammer]

If the intent of the rule is to prevent collisions, there should be some instances where the runner should be out, regardless of where the catcher is standing.

That is the intent of the rule, and so far it has a 100% success rate. I see no reason to change it because of this one mis-play.

 

Actually by Redmond's reaction, you'd almost think he objects to the rule in the first place. Maybe he didn't even coach his catchers to follow it? In any case, Cozart scoring is 100% on the Marlins, its not a failure of the rule.

 

If there were cases where everyone follows the rules and there's still a collision, then you might have a reason to amend it, but that isn't what happened here.

[mnfireman]

Seems to me high school and little league umpires do a pretty good job with the no collision rule at home plate. Oh yeah, in those age groups the runner is required to slide if the play is going to be close. Maybe MLB should adapt that rule also. Close play at the plate, slide or you're out.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Glad to hear younger athletes are learning a new, safer way to handle this play in a game situation.

 

It was a correct call, but there's still something really unsatisfying about seeing a runner who was out by 10-15 feet being called safe.

 

Here's what gets me: the replay review took longer than one of the rain delays during the Twins game Sunday.

[FattCrapps]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2102213-umpire-reverses-call-at-home-after-ruling-russell-martin-blocked-plate-vs-reds

 

Willihammer, I think they need to go a step further.  If the runner has rounded 3rd base before the catcher has the ball, he should just be ruled safe.  More goals...er, runs will bring more fans to the game, right?

[Willihammer]

 

Since it was a force out, many fans took exception to the call, considering Martin had few other choices in order to ensure Mesoraco would be out.

There actually was a small collision on that play and the reason is because Martin was in the runner's lane, because he had the right foot touching home instead of the left. If he had put his left foot on home and given the pitcher an infield-side target, but the throw forced him across the baserunner's path, that would have been a different story. But that's not what Martin did - he setup in the runner's lane and remained there to catch the throw.