johnnyg08 Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-passes-two-rules-changes-for-2025-season-one-on-shifts-and-one-on-replay-per-report/#:~:text=Tightening the shift rule&text=Teams must not have more,heavy-pull lefties are over. MLB passes two rules changes for 2025 season, one on shifts and one on replay, per report The changes are minor tweaks to rules previously on the books By Matt Snyder 17 hrs ago•2 min read Getty Images Major League Baseball passed two new rules changes unanimously through the competition committee on Tuesday, reports The Athletic. The changes are more like minor tweaks, however, and the on-field product won't really look different in 2025 compared to 2024 as a result. Let's take a look. Tightening the shift rule As most baseball fans know by now, the extreme shifts we were seeing a few years ago are now banned. Teams must not have more than two infielders on either side of second base when the pitch is thrown. Teams will go as far as they can when scouting calls for it, but the days of stacking three infielders on the right side against heavy-pull lefties are over. If a player was deemed to have violated the rule -- it would be a second baseman or shortstop crossing second too early -- the penalty in the past was either accepting the result of the play or getting an automatic ball for the batter. The new rule is much tougher on the defense. The rule change now says that a team violating the shift rule will see the batter granted first base for free and any baserunners will move up a base. The fielder would be charged an error while the batter doesn't get a plate appearance. Obviously, this is quite the deterrent. Purposely over-running a base The next change is to combat a play that had been employed by a few teams in 2024, notably the Yankees. The scenario here to consider when there are runners on first and third with two outs and there's a groundball that causes the defense to grab the force play at second to end the inning. If there's to be a close play at second, teams were teaching runners to not slow down and just keep running past the base as if it were first. The theory was that if the player beat the throw at second and was ruled safe, the runner on third base would then score a run before the third out. Inevitably the runner going through the bag at second would then be ruled out of the baseline and the third out, but the run would still count. The rule tweak here gives the replay official the ability to rule whether or not the runner heading through second base in this scenario has abandoned the baseline before the runner scores. If so, the run would not count. Again, it's a small tweak, but it eliminates the ability for teams to try and game the system here and sneak a run across the board. Instead of just sprinting through the bag like it's first base, the runners will need to go back and treat the play like they normally would at second and either hold the bag or round it and head toward the next base. 1 Quote
Velho Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 30 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: If a player was deemed to have violated the rule -- it would be a second baseman or shortstop crossing second too early -- the penalty in the past was either accepting the result of the play or getting an automatic ball for the batter. How often was this called? I remember maybe once? 31 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: The rule tweak here gives the replay official the ability to rule whether or not the runner heading through second base in this scenario has abandoned the baseline before the runner scores. If so, the run would not count. Again, it's a small tweak, "small tweak" huh, famous last words. It's not hard to see attempted extrapolation. It's a small ledge to grab onto and pull oneself up by on what was essentially a smooth surface previously since abandonment has rarely called historically. 1 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted January 24 Author Report Posted January 24 3 minutes ago, Velho said: How often was this called? I remember maybe once? "small tweak" huh, famous last words. It's not hard to see attempted extrapolation. It's a small ledge to grab onto and pull oneself up by on what was essentially a smooth surface previously since abandonment has rarely called historically. Well...and in a way it changes the definition too...isn't part of the abandonment definition "stops running the bases believing they were out" Quote
Richvee Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 42 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: The rule tweak here gives the replay official the ability to rule whether or not the runner heading through second base in this scenario has abandoned the baseline before the runner scores. If so, the run would not count. So teach your runner to veer towards 3B and not run straight into the OF. That's what I've seen more often than not on these plays anyway. Quote
Velho Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 5 minutes ago, Richvee said: So teach your runner to veer towards 3B and not run straight into the OF. "No, no, no, Mr. umpire. He wasn't doing that horseSH*# run through trick. He's just got a wide turning radius. Look at him!" 2 Quote
Velho Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 13 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: Well...and in a way it changes the definition too...isn't part of the abandonment definition "stops running the bases believing they were out" Yep. "abandoning his effort to touch the next base" is the root of the rule. The run through, it could be argued, wasn't abandoning the effort to touch 3B but simply prioritizing getting to 2B itself over getting from 2B to 3B efficiently. 2 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted January 24 Author Report Posted January 24 3 minutes ago, Velho said: Yep. "abandoning his effort to touch the next base" is the root of the rule. The run through, it could be argued, wasn't abandoning the effort to touch 3B but simply prioritizing getting to 2B itself over getting from 2B to 3B efficiently. Agree. Quote
The Man in Blue Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 "Could be argued" and "is correct" are very different things. Did the wording in the article bother anybody else? "[R]uled out of the baseline" and "abandoned the baseline"? Quote
Velho Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 14 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said: "Could be argued" and "is correct" are very different things. 16 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said: Did the wording in the article bother anybody else? "[R]uled out of the baseline" and "abandoned the baseline"? Quote
dumbdumb Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 so, what is the exact point that 'abandonment occurs' so the replay official can determine the basic timing of events, just like other time or timing plays. naturally not mentioned, or will that exact point become judgment with absolutely no help with case book plays on what that judgment should look like or what that judgment should be. i think some level uses the grass cutout point for batter-runner giving up on going to first in several instances. so what help will be given for this new MLB rule. and oh yeh, what happens in baseball if the batter just hovers his foot in the air over the grass in the cutout without actually touching the grass just to play ff(muck muck with the rule) just like an out of bounds call/no call in basketball. Quote
Velho Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 On 1/25/2025 at 7:10 AM, dumbdumb said: so, what is the exact point that 'abandonment occurs' so the replay official Great point. Did this get added to the replay purview? Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 5 Author Report Posted February 5 2 minutes ago, Velho said: Great point. Did this get added to the replay purview? Let me look into this a bit. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.