Blocking the plate?

[jpperez14]

http://www.milb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=263509683&width=400&height=224&property=milb'

This is interesting especially when you don't have IR. What do you think? Correct? Incorrect? Discussion! Ready, Set, Go!

Edited July 29, 2015 by jpperez14

[ElkOil]

Welp, here goes...

I'm calling an out, MC on the runner and ejecting him for trucking the catcher.

[maven]

Welp, here goes...

I'm calling an out, MC on the runner and ejecting him for trucking the catcher.

If the question concerns amateur baseball, that's fine. Me too.

The video is from a pro game, and there's no MC rule in OBR. The OP seems to be asking whether the ruling in the video was correct, not how we should call it in amateur baseball.

The PU in the video correctly applied 6.01(i)(2)/7.13(2), which is the "Collisions at Home Plate" rule. F2 blocked the plate without the ball. Safe. Pretty clear mechanic, too.

[DVA7130]

BS "rule" leads to BS. MLB umpires aren't calling this. It is a shame and the MiLB level they feel compelled to protecting their advancement. BS "rule".

[basejester]

7.13 Collisions at Home Plate

. . .

(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway
of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the
catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire
shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered
a violation of this Rule 7.13(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner
in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory
or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates
from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In addition, a catcher without possession of
the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 7.13(2) if the runner could have
avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.
Rule 7.13(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 7.13(2) unless he
has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the
throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall
not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the
umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.
In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a
runner attempting to slide. Catchers who routinely make unnecessary and forcible contact with a runner
attempting to slide (e.g., by initiating contact using a knee, shin guard, elbow or forearm) may be
subject to discipline by the League President.
This Rule 7.13(2) shall not apply to force plays at home plate.

[umpstu]

BS "rule" leads to BS. MLB umpires aren't calling this. It is a shame and the MiLB level they feel compelled to protecting their advancement. BS "rule".

Quite a few are calling this and  I have seen a few managers challenge catchers blocking the plate without the ball.  Have no idea how I changed the font.

[DVA7130]

Quite a few are calling this and  I have seen a few managers challenge catchers blocking the plate without the ball.  Have no idea how I changed the font.

Link a MLB video of an umpire making this call  on the field not a review. (and yes reviews are BS on their own right).

[umpstu]

BS "rule" leads to BS. MLB umpires aren't calling this. It is a shame and the MiLB level they feel compelled to protecting their advancement. BS "rule".

Why is it a BS rule.  Should they be able to block the path to the plate?  Should the runner be able to barrel over the catcher?  Nobody needs to get hurt and the old school excuse is BS.  That's that player's living.  It was about time they started protecting the catcher.  I have dumba%%&s in MSBL take out middle infielders.  Idiots.

[umpstu]

Link a MLB video of an umpire making this call  on the field not a review. (and yes reviews are BS on their own right).

I won't argue about the review comment.  I hate them and I hate that they used a computer to do the plate in a game last night.  

[Richvee]

Here's  my issue on this play. Yes, F2 catches the ball while blocking the plate but R3 isn't there yet, so doesn't this apply?

Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he
has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the
throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall
not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the
umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.

     It looks to me like we've got R3 initiating contact "deviating from the pathway to the plate" as per 6.01(i)(1)Comment

The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner lowering his shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows, or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from his pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i)

I've got an out here, and for sure an EJ in FED.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Richvee

[BillKen]

BS "rule" leads to BS. MLB umpires aren't calling this. It is a shame and the MiLB level they feel compelled to protecting their advancement. BS "rule".

The ONLY reason they don't call it in MLB is because they have IR to back them up.  They agree that its a bs rule, but they make the choice to force the manager to challenge it.  I'm sure that they will entertain a request for a CC review late in a game if the manager doesn't have a challenge, but they are not going to let that cat get out of the bag for calling it on the field.  NY is making that call and thats how it is.  The MiLB guys dont have that luxury...so they enforce the rule as written.  If you don't like the "Dead Ball Fed Balk Rule" you still do it because that is what the book says to do.  They are in the same boat.  Early in my career, a guy told me, you'll really never be wrong if you enforce rules that are in the book.

[Kevin_K]

Here's  my issue on this play. Yes, F2 catches the ball while blocking the plate but R3 isn't there yet, so doesn't this apply?

Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 7.13(2) unless he
has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the
throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall
not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the
umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.

     It looks to me like we've got R3 initiating contact "deviating from the pathway to the plate" as per 6.01(i)(1)Comment

The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner lowering his shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows, or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from his pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i)

I've got an out here, and for sure an EJ in FED.

Comment on 6.01(i)1, in a what seems to be a contradiction, reads "....If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1) (Rule 7.13(1))."

This comment does not give any further clarification on whether or not the catcher has possession or otherwise.

That said, I probably would have an out in real time. In every league I work - even summer college/men's league-, there are modifications banning collisions of this nature, so I do not think I will ever need to make this kind of decision in a split second.

[Richvee]

Comment on 6.01(i)1, in a what seems to be a contradiction, reads "....If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1) (Rule 7.13(1))."

This comment does not give any further clarification on whether or not the catcher has possession or otherwise.

That said, I probably would have an out in real time. In every league I work - even summer college/men's league-, there are modifications banning collisions of this nature, so I do not think I will ever need to make this kind of decision in a split second.

That's the line that throws a monkey wrench into the whole 6.01(i) rule, IMO.

[basejester]

It is my considered opinion that this rule has too many words in it.

I think philosophically what they're going for is, "We don't want these guys to crash, so we'll discourage the behaviors that cause crashes with outs and safes as necessary."  It seems to me that either of these players could have avoided the collision: the catcher by setting up in front of the plate and the runner by sliding on either side of the catcher's leg.  Just intuitively, I look at this play and assess that the runner is more guilty and want to get the out.

I think the amateur leagues have done a better job with this.

 

[alan2703]

I would have to go with an out and EJ of runner, from what I see there is a path between the catchers legs to plate and I have the runners arms coming up into the catcher. Of course no matter which way it is called someone will be upset and most likely mgr ejected as well

[Mizzou2016]

In HS you can have MC and and out, but not in MiLB. This play would still be OBS in HS but the MC penalty supersedes the OBS.

This is OBS in MiLB because the catcher was set up to take the throw while blocking the plate - the throw did not bring him into the path of the runner. The safe call is the right call, and a ballsy one.

[maven]

This is OBS in MiLB because the catcher was set up to take the throw while blocking the plate - the throw did not bring him into the path of the runner. The safe call is the right call, and a ballsy one.

Technically, that's not correct: it's not OBS because it qualifies for the exception to OBS in OBR.

It's simply a violation of the "Collisions at Home Plate" rule. The difference matters because type A OBS makes the ball dead, but a "Collision Rule" violation leaves the ball live.

The collision rule is written oddly, but it puts burdens on both F2 and runners. F2 may not block the "runner's path," and the runner may not deviate to truck F2. If F2 blocks the plate and gets trucked, then F2 is at fault, and the runner is to be ruled safe when he touches the plate. That's what I see in the video.

[scrounge]

BS "rule" leads to BS. MLB umpires aren't calling this. It is a shame and the MiLB level they feel compelled to protecting their advancement. BS "rule".

I think it's a perfectly fine rule - though it shouldn't be subject to review, any more than any other OBS/INT judgement call is. I think they could simplify it a little by streamlining the language on when hitting the catcher is ok - just call the OBS.

In this case, though, I think the ball got there in time such that there is no OBS because there was no hindrance. An out to me, and an EJ at any level not collecting a paycheck.

[Mizzou2016]

Technically, that's not correct: it's not OBS because it qualifies for the exception to OBS in OBR.

It's simply a violation of the "Collisions at Home Plate" rule.

Thanks - that is right. It definitely would not be type A OBS

 

[catsbackr]

In HS you can have MC and and out, but not in MiLB. This play would still be OBS in HS but the MC penalty supersedes the OBS.

This is OBS in MiLB because the catcher was set up to take the throw while blocking the plate - the throw did not bring him into the path of the runner. The safe call is the right call, and a ballsy one.

Why is this OBS in HS?  Runner has a clear path between catcher's legs.

[DVA7130]

The ONLY reason they don't call it in MLB is because they have IR to back them up.  They agree that its a bs rule, but they make the choice to force the manager to challenge it.  I'm sure that they will entertain a request for a CC review late in a game if the manager doesn't have a challenge, but they are not going to let that cat get out of the bag for calling it on the field.  NY is making that call and thats how it is.  The MiLB guys dont have that luxury...so they enforce the rule as written.  If you don't like the "Dead Ball Fed Balk Rule" you still do it because that is what the book says to do.  They are in the same boat.  Early in my career, a guy told me, you'll really never be wrong if you enforce rules that are in the book.

I agree with the FED balk analogy.