Matheny: Eliminate home plate collisions in MLB...

[scrounge]

Matheny: MLB should do away with home-plate collisions

FORT MYERS, Fla.ʉۢ Cardinals manager Mike Matheny,

who earned a hard-nosed reputation for his play behind the plate during a

Gold Glove career at catcher, said that he no longer believes

collisions at home plate have a place in baseball.

He believes the danger is too great and the rule book should change so that head-hunting culture does, too.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/matheny-mlb-should-do-away-with-home-plate-collisions/article_09be35e9-626a-54b7-840f-81e208d1d4ba.html

 

 

[Terry Francona disagrees]

 

Home-plate collisions prompt debate for Terry Francona, Cardinals' Mike Matheny: Cleveland Indians Insider

By Paul Hoynes, Plain Dealer

February 27, 2013

 

GOODYEAR, Ariz. -- Terry Francona respects St. Louis manager Mike Matheny, but doesn't agree that home-plate collisions should be removed from the game.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2013/02/home-plate_collisions_prompt_d.html

[Jocko]

I smell a poll (cat)

[BT_Blue]

There is something to be said for the HS and NCAA malicious contact rules.

[mjr_2013]

No thanks. Baseball is already the least physical sport, I think that SOME contact can be good for the sport.

 

That Ivan Rodriguez v. JT Snow moment to win the NLDS in 2003 was a great moment. Seeing Pudge hold up the ball during the dogpile and all that. Good stuff.

 

With that said, I don't like seeing head hunters and those with a true intent to injure. If the F2 is five feet up the baseline, he is all but asking to be plowed. If they are standing where they shoud be though, and the runner goes out of his way to attack, that should be stopped... I also like the intensity moment (i.e. the Pudge v. Snow collision)

 

Here are some examples of my opinion. Please note I did not take whether the collision worked to dislodge into my opinion at all.

 

GOOD Collision #1: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24420479&c_id=mlb&topic_id=vtp_blackberry

 

F2 is standing where there is no access to the plate whatsoever. The collision is needed to get to the plate and should be allowed at the MLB level.

 

GOOD Collision #2: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24994113&c_id=mlb

 

This collision prevents a walk off. It's intense and should be kept.

 

BAD Collision #1: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23604875&c_id=mlb&topic_id=vtp_must_c

 

This collision is not only head first to the F2s chest protector, making it very dangerous to BOTH players, it is done unnecessarily, as there is a very clear available path for a hook slide.

 

BAD Collision #2: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15201733&c_id=mlb

 

I hate to use the overblown, freak out play that started all of this as an example, but I didn't like it. Cousins came into the diamond to initiate contact when he had no reason to. A head first or feet first slide scores him anyway.

 

For what it's worth, it was much harder to find collisions I didn't like. Just my

[JaxRolo]

Mjr I disagree. Most collisions are not just "some contact". Too (to?) much potential for major injury.

It's got to go!

Don't get me wrong- I love the collisions! But not at risk of career ending injuries.

[scrounge]

The game is not better off having Buster Posey gone for a season for the sake of a relatively rare and IMO unnecessary play. I'd be perfectly fine seeing this go the way of the bouncing strike.

[BT_Blue]

So Mjr, you want to make it conditional? Put it on the umpires to decide if based on the situation whether it is a "legal" hit? I think that is an awful idea! Their job is hard enough and then you tack that on. Could you imagine if LL, Fed, NCAA, etc. decided to do the same with us? It would be a mad house! Better to either make it legal (who's side I used to be on) or illegal (who's side I am now on). But never both.

[Richvee]

With all the evidence and understanding now about concussions and their effects, you would think it wouldn't take much longer for MLB to outlaw collisions. Geez, there's people suing the NFL because they say the NFL didn't do enough to warn, educate, protect players from serious head injuries.  It's just the way things are today. I'd be surprised if we don't see them outlawed sooner rather than later. 

[mjr_2013]

So Mjr, you want to make it conditional? Put it on the umpires to decide if based on the situation whether it is a "legal" hit? I think that is an awful idea! Their job is hard enough and then you tack that on. Could you imagine if LL, Fed, NCAA, etc. decided to do the same with us? It would be a mad house! Better to either make it legal (who's side I used to be on) or illegal (who's side I am now on). But never both.

 

Not neccesarily on the situation, but to judge the intent, similar to bean balls (minus any warning of course)... If there is an intent to injure, eject... If there is an intent to dislodge, play on...

 

A spear when you're going to be out by 10 feet, eject. A big collision in the bottom of the 12th of a tie game, play on. Now, not many ejections would result, but I think putting it in the book would make a difference.

 

And there is no way in hell Little League, Federation, or NCAA would follow this. It would allow collisions, and kids playing the game for fun, without the intensity of world championships, and millions upon millions of dollars, don't need it added on... I am talking MLB only.

 

To be clear again, this is what I think they SHOULD do, and wish they would do... In all probability, they will probably ban collisions within five years out of fear of lawsuit more than anything.

[BT_Blue]

I agree. This play will go the way of the head slap and leading with the helmet in football. I was all for the collision at the plate until the Cousins-Posey play two years ago (and yes I am a Giants fan). At first I thought it was a clean play and part of the game. That was until I saw that Cousins threw a cross body block into Posey for almost no reason.

[SnareDrum]

I think the day is coming when it will be outlawed, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the MLBPA leading the way. I really hope that the impetus behind making this illegal isn't a rash of major injuries, or a catastrophic one.

 

There doesn't have to be "intent to injure" involved at all. Having seasons or careers ended (especially for a prospect in MiLB) for the sake of tradition, especially in this new age of "safety first" just makes less sense every year. 

[Guest]

Posey got hurt because he was crawling around on his knees. If he remains on his feet, he topples over backwards and walks away.

 

Collisions at the plate should not be outlawed, however, whenever a collision at the plate occurs, it should automatically be reviewed by the commissioner's office and any hit where the runner's principle point of contact with the catcher is F2's head, an automatic suspension of 10-15 games shall be assessed, 20-25 games if the catcher is not wearing their face mask. Blindside hits should also be subject to automatic discipline. To be clear, the umpires are not to be responsible for this call as A) there is already too much to watch and B) it will occur so rarely that the likelihood of missed calls, I think anyway, will skyrocket.

 

This leaves collisions in the game while taking steps to protect the heads of catchers. Because if you take collisions at the plate away, the take out slide at 2B won't be far behind, and at that point, you may as well exchange uniform pants for skirts.

 

Malicious contact rules shall remain in place for all amateur minor and scholastic baseball.

[clawdad]

This story was on MLB Network's Hot Stove the other day.  I thought it would wind up here to let us discuss it.

 

A few things I thought of just for the sake of discussion:

 

1. If the runner coming home knocks the ball out of F2's glove with his hand (like the A-Rod play at 1B a couple years ago), what's the call?  If the runner coming home lowers the boom and knocks the ball out of F2's glove, what's the call?  Why is it different?  The intent and result of both is the same - knocking the ball loose.

 

2.  I know one is a play at the plate, but why not allow the runner to plow over the fielder making a play at the bases?  You can't score a run if you don't safely reach or touch each base so why not let them bowl over F3 to try and reach 1B?

 

3.  They could start calling obstruction or interference on those type of plays.  It's already defined under OBR (I'm not going to quote it, I think we all know what it says). To an extent, we already have to make a judgement call on OBS or INT, and MC under FED, so why can't they make a judgement on this type play?

 

Again, these are just for discussion's sake.  I do lean to the side of removing the collisions at the plate, though. 

[cyclonehokiece]

Contact at the plate or anywhere will always be there, moreso when they are being paid to play.  However, some of these collisions are just wrong and should be outlawed, like many have said, if I swat at the glove that is illegal, but if I just plow a catcher that is a great play.  I like ump_24's idea of an immediate solution of reviewing and suspending obvious headhunters and those just going for unnecessary crashes (much like the NHL's Brenden Shannahan's (sp?) office), however I believe there will be some sort of "malicious contact" rule in OBR in 5-10 years, not only because the players want it, but also because owners want to protect their investment.

[BalkHawk]

That video of Posey is awful. I'm sure it qualifies as malicious contact in NCAA, extending the arms and all. Plus, others have already pointed out, the rule here is very inconsistent.

 

Still, I'll be damned if the play at the plate ain't one of the most intense, exciting plays in baseball. I SAY KEEP IT. Amend the constitution so MLB can't do away with it. I think the spirit of the rule here is "let 'em play!" 

 

Instead of doing away with it, the league should levy steep fines against the players who are head hunting.

[scrounge]

Contact at the plate or anywhere will always be there, moreso when they are being paid to play.  However, some of these collisions are just wrong and should be outlawed, like many have said, if I swat at the glove that is illegal, but if I just plow a catcher that is a great play.  I like ump_24's idea of an immediate solution of reviewing and suspending obvious headhunters and those just going for unnecessary crashes (much like the NHL's Brenden Shannahan's (sp?) office), however I believe there will be some sort of "malicious contact" rule in OBR in 5-10 years, not only because the players want it, but also because owners want to protect their investment.

Contact at the plate or anywhere will always be there, moreso when they are being paid to play.  However, some of these collisions are just wrong and should be outlawed, like many have said, if I swat at the glove that is illegal, but if I just plow a catcher that is a great play.  I like ump_24's idea of an immediate solution of reviewing and suspending obvious headhunters and those just going for unnecessary crashes (much like the NHL's Brenden Shannahan's (sp?) office), however I believe there will be some sort of "malicious contact" rule in OBR in 5-10 years, not only because the players want it, but also because owners want to protect their investment.

Invoking Brendan Shanahan's inconsistent, bewildering rulings is EXACTLY why I do not favor some kind of after-the-fact, "I'll know it when I see it", outcome-based review. How do you define head-hunting? Is it based on if F2 gets hurt? Malicious is ok if the runner is 'going for the ball' or whatever criteria but sometimes isn't? Would the Posey hit be head-hunting?

The heck with that, just align with the NCAA code I say. These people, these assets, are simply too valuable, it doesn't add to the game measurably, baseball will go on just fine without it.

[Guest]

Shanahan is a joke.

 

My concept is simple: if you initially make contact to the head of the catcher, or even if its inconclusive, 10-15 games; 20-25 if he isn't wearing a bucket.

[bam]

I agree. This play will go the way of the head slap and leading with the helmet in football. I was all for the collision at the plate until the Cousins-Posey play two years ago (and yes I am a Giants fan). At first I thought it was a clean play and part of the game. That was until I saw that Cousins threw a cross body block into Posey for almost no reason.

 

It was within the rules.  That's reason enough.  Just because you "think" he would have/could have scored without the contact doesn't make that a bad collision. 

 

FWIW I would like to see this play taken out of the game, but that requires a HUGE committment not only on the part of MLB and the players assn, but also for the fundemental training of every participant on the field, including the umpires.  Catchers would no longer be able to "set up" 10 feet up the line, runners would be required to slide or avoid (or some such combination of variables).  And there would STILL be those trainwrecks where everything and everybody arrives at once.   

[bam]

Shanahan is a joke.

 

My concept is simple: if you initially make contact to the head of the catcher, or even if its inconclusive, 10-15 games; 20-25 if he isn't wearing a bucket.

Oh yeah, the players union is going to go along with that. For sure not.

[BT_Blue]

Shanahan is a joke.

My concept is simple: if you initially make contact to the head of the catcher, or even if its inconclusive, 10-15 games; 20-25 if he isn't wearing a bucket.

So if F2 is westing a two piece mask then its only 10-15 games? Thats just silly!

I agree with a previous poster. Go the NCAA rule. And don't give me "it happens at other bases too". When was the last time you saw someone cross-body block a guy at second? Last one I can think of was Albert Bell v. Fernando Vina. And that was, what, a decade or so ago?

Also look who the managers that are for and against this play. Against: Bochy and Mathey, both former catchers. For: Larussa and Francona, both not former catchers.

[basejester]

Get rid of it. The catcher with the ball blocking access to the plate doesn't make the collision good in my book. Sometimes that runner is just going to be out. The catcher successfully eliminating all the non-violent options to score shouldn't be punished by giving the runner a violent option.

Certainly don't half-ass it; keep it or eliminate it.

[scrounge]

I agree. This play will go the way of the head slap and leading with the helmet in football. I was all for the collision at the plate until the Cousins-Posey play two years ago (and yes I am a Giants fan). At first I thought it was a clean play and part of the game. That was until I saw that Cousins threw a cross body block into Posey for almost no reason.

 

It was within the rules.  That's reason enough.  Just because you "think" he would have/could have scored without the contact doesn't make that a bad collision. 

 

FWIW I would like to see this play taken out of the game, but that requires a HUGE committment not only on the part of MLB and the players assn, but also for the fundemental training of every participant on the field, including the umpires.  Catchers would no longer be able to "set up" 10 feet up the line, runners would be required to slide or avoid (or some such combination of variables).  And there would STILL be those trainwrecks where everything and everybody arrives at once.   

 

Would it really be all that big of a change? All these players grew up as kids not being able to do it, they all were in high school and couldn't do it, those that chose to go to college couldn't do it. They'll adjust, and adjust rather quickly.

[BT_Blue]

I have to agree. These kids should all be used to it.

Not only that but people and teams will adjust. Just like everyone did when amatuer ball went from wood to metal. Bats went to BESR and now to BBCOR. And both HS and NCAA went with the FPSR.

Teams will adjust and it will become the norm.

Heck... lets throw in the change in MLB to using the DH, batting helmets, and catchers masks.

Just saying...

[Umpire in Chief]

I do believe sooner or later we will see some sort of malicious contact rule in the pros. There is a fine line b/t playing the game and intentionally hurting someone. I don't think MLB needs the same level of protection HS & college catchers get. Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

[SoCal Lurker]

Shanahan is a joke.

My concept is simple: if you initially make contact to the head of the catcher, or even if its inconclusive, 10-15 games; 20-25 if he isn't wearing a bucket.

So if F2 is westing a two piece mask then its only 10-15 games? Thats just silly!

I agree with a previous poster. Go the NCAA rule. And don't give me "it happens at other bases too". When was the last time you saw someone cross-body block a guy at second? Last one I can think of was Albert Bell v. Fernando Vina. And that was, what, a decade or so ago?

Also look who the managers that are for and against this play. Against: Bochy and Mathey, both former catchers. For: Larussa and Francona, both not former catchers.

 

Scioscia, a former catcher, opposes a change.