http://www.mercuryne...&nclick_check=1

 

That article lowers the respect I have for posey. He called for a little press conference to push this issue of a rule change. Honeslty...man up. People have been hit harder. Crazier sh*t has happened. Worse injuries. Baseball is old as f***. Stop trying to change rules because something happened to you.

 

 

He's a 'Nole....so I had limited respect for him in the first place.

Buster olney is gay. You heard me nba. I think your commercials are gay too.

 

 

Dude, they're going to hear you!

http://www.mercuryne...&nclick_check=1

 

That article lowers the respect I have for posey. He called for a little press conference to push this issue of a rule change. Honeslty...man up. People have been hit harder. Crazier sh*t has happened. Worse injuries. Baseball is old as f***. Stop trying to change rules because something happened to you.

 

 

Yea, he sounds like a dick in that article. He understands how Cousins must be feeling, but he's indifferent about returning a message to him. I mean, I get he's a victim in all of this but that doesn't make him right in everything he does and doesn't do. And saying that Cousins had another lane is a lame thing to say, because he's assuming Cousins saw the lane and that he didn't want to knock the ball out of his glove. Maybe Posey shouldn't be a catcher; maybe he should request a trade to the AL and become a DH with a moral obligation to not slide at 2nd or at home.

Maybe he should've been a good CATCHER and CAUGHT the ball in the first place.

 

Ah well, I like the guy...I watched him play everyday my freshman year at FSU. We were really good that year, he was awesome.

 

About the poll...i'd say just a yes or no question. I only demand one because i love casting votes. i love polls! what can I say? I'm american...revolving door elections n all.. =)

Not saying how i feel one way or the other about this rule because i really am not sure, but saying that something has been a rule for a long time is not really a good argument for that or any rule's validity.

 

If you feel it's the right thing to do, you should not shy away from changing a rule simply because it has been a rule for a long time. God didn't dictate the rules of baseball to anyone; they aren't inalterable.

 

If you think the rule is fine, that's one thing. It's a rule that clearly puts players in danger. If you feel that's acceptable, that is fine. But it shouldn't be because it's been a rule for a long time. It should be because you think it makes for a better game. Not because in 1886 it was an acceptable practice.

 

Pitcher's mounds were only 50 feet from home plate in the 19th century, the same time this rule came about. If it was ok to change that rule for the good of the game, this one isn't off limits either.

 

(Sorry for the rant, I just hate orthodox baseball fans. It's a game, rules should be established that make the game more competiive or entertaining. Longevity shouldn't matter.)

Not saying how i feel one way or the other about this rule because i really am not sure, but saying that something has been a rule for a long time is not really a good argument for that or any rule's validity.

 

If you feel it's the right thing to do, you should not shy away from changing a rule simply because it has been a rule for a long time. God didn't dictate the rules of baseball to anyone; they aren't inalterable.

 

If you think the rule is fine, that's one thing. It's a rule that clearly puts players in danger. If you feel that's acceptable, that is fine. But it shouldn't be because it's been a rule for a long time. It should be because you think it makes for a better game. Not because in 1886 it was an acceptable practice.

 

Pitcher's mounds were only 50 feet from home plate in the 19th century, the same time this rule came about. If it was ok to change that rule for the good of the game, this one isn't off limits either.

 

(Sorry for the rant, I just hate orthodox baseball fans. It's a game, rules should be established that make the game more competiive or entertaining. Longevity shouldn't matter.)

 

Can we make bases 94 feet? I mean I know it's been 90 feet forever but can we change it since longevity shouldn't matter? I want to see someone win a batting title with an average of .232

The Catcher is, by far, the most blue-collar position in the whole game and the fact that you take a beating out there is alluring to some. It takes a certain kind of player to be a catcher, so maybe Posey shouldn't work towards changing the rule but rather changing his position because not returning a call to Cousins or saying he had a different lane probably isn't something the kind of person who should catch would do.

look at this clip: Andres Blanco trying to reach 3rd and Wigginton basically blocks the bag. Is Blanco permitted to steamroll him at 3rd then?

 

play at 3b

 

 

poptart is kinda where I'm at.

 

 

he wouldn't need to, but why not

 

if he runs without sliding to towards the bag and a player puts his body in the path, then that's on the player

 

in this instance, a good hard feet first slide would keep wiggington from wanting to drop his leg in front of the bag again - that would be way more effective than just running to the bag

Wigginton almost blocked that bag like a catcher, which basically makes the runner have to reach over the guy's leg to touch the base. If you stand in front of the bag to block the runner, the runner should be able to reach the bag. Had Blanco slid feet first, he probably would've injured Wigginton, and that's entirely on Wigginton.

I don't think that people are really suggesting that the rules cannot be changed due to tradition. However, there is something to say for the fact that catchers have been blocking the plate for over a hundred years, and while there have been some notorious boo-boos, there really hasn't been a severe enough problem to warrant changing the rules.

 

It just seems like people are getting up in arms over the fact that is the darling franchise catcher of the defending World champions getting hurt and calling for rule changes based on that fact alone. If you look at the video of the Hayes incident, anyone would say that hit seems, much, much more offensive. Hayes was just standing there catching the ball when he got steamrolled. Morgan would have been safe if he slid in that case.

 

People just need to accept the fact that catching is a strenuous job. Most fans respect this and regard it as the most demanding position in the game. Maybe teams should think twice about keeping one of their best offensive talents behind the plate, unless they want to instruct their catchers to set up differently when they known there will be a play at the plate to minimize injury. In other words, there are things that catchers can do differently to avoid this that do not require rule changes.

Wigginton almost blocked that bag like a catcher, which basically makes the runner have to reach over the guy's leg to touch the base. If you stand in front of the bag to block the runner, the runner should be able to reach the bag. Had Blanco slid feet first, he probably would've injured Wigginton, and that's entirely on Wigginton.

 

I think that the runner has the right to the bag when it's not a force out. If the infielder wants to risk bodily injury by physically blocking the base, that should be his call.

Not saying how i feel one way or the other about this rule because i really am not sure, but saying that something has been a rule for a long time is not really a good argument for that or any rule's validity.

 

If you feel it's the right thing to do, you should not shy away from changing a rule simply because it has been a rule for a long time. God didn't dictate the rules of baseball to anyone; they aren't inalterable.

 

If you think the rule is fine, that's one thing. It's a rule that clearly puts players in danger. If you feel that's acceptable, that is fine. But it shouldn't be because it's been a rule for a long time. It should be because you think it makes for a better game. Not because in 1886 it was an acceptable practice.

 

Pitcher's mounds were only 50 feet from home plate in the 19th century, the same time this rule came about. If it was ok to change that rule for the good of the game, this one isn't off limits either.

 

(Sorry for the rant, I just hate orthodox baseball fans. It's a game, rules should be established that make the game more competiive or entertaining. Longevity shouldn't matter.)

 

Can we make bases 94 feet? I mean I know it's been 90 feet forever but can we change it since longevity shouldn't matter? I want to see someone win a batting title with an average of .232

Baseball games are too long. Lets change it to 6 innings, ban timeouts and visits to the mound. Everyone must run when trying to move anywhere on the field. Also, baseballs should be smaller.

 

Oh yeah, I forget there's no room for nuance and subtlety on the internet.

I don't think that people are really suggesting that the rules cannot be changed due to tradition. However, there is something to say for the fact that catchers have been blocking the plate for over a hundred years, and while there have been some notorious boo-boos, there really hasn't been a severe enough problem to warrant changing the rules.

 

I'm not sure how severe a problem would need to be to convince some people. It will always just be chalked up to "Part of the game."

 

My point is that just because the game has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean we can't improve upon it. Up until the 1960's, mound heights were very loosely regulated. The league saw an area to improve the game, and took action. I'm sure people thought it wasn't necessary at the time, but it was ultimately to create a better product.

 

Right now, the super thin bat handles and brittle maple wood bats have led to a rash of broken bat related injuries. Broken bats have always been a part of the game, but that doesn't mean the league shouldn't take steps to regulate this issue.

 

And sometimes it takes a high profile case to initiate change. Changing the rules solely because of Posey's injury would be silly, but high profile cases have a tendency to bring problems to the surface.

Sounds like you are arguing just to argue.

 

Again, the point isn't that baseball rules are written in stone. In this case, blocking the plate has been around forever, but the point is that over that long history, it hasn't been a problem worth addressing through rule change.

 

As an aside, some of your "examples" are bad. Broken bats have been around since forever, but maple bats (the core of the problem) have only really been used to any meaningful degree for 10-15 years. These are microscale rule changes that even the most hardcore baseball traditionalists would likely take little issue with.

Again, the point isn't that baseball rules are written in stone. In this case, blocking the plate has been around forever, but the point is that over that long history, it hasn't been a problem worth addressing through rule change.

 

Or perhaps that's just an example of stubborness and dogmatism getting in the way of rule changes?

 

Over the course of the 140+ years baseball has been played, players have gotten significantly bigger, stronger, and more athletic. Is it not possible that rules that were once permissible to allow contact have become outdated as those plays have become more dangerous?

 

It doesn't mean we have to get rid of contact on these types of plays altogether; rules can be tweaked. Scott Cousins went out of the baseline in order to make a play on Posey. Why not have the rule say that if you angle yourself out of the baseline in order to create contact, you are out? If the catcher is standing right on the plate, that could be a different issue altogether, but in this one, Cousins goes out of the baseline, something that could be deemed illegal. Baserunners have to stay on the baseline anyways. Simply enforcing that rule more strictly when it comes to creating contact at home plate could be a small step that could prevent unnecessary injuries, while still leaving a play that many feel is integral to the game.

Posey didn't even have the ball he should have let the runner in, but he didn't it was an error of a young catcher. I feel bad for the kid...however they didn't change the game for Ray Fosse, no need to change it now

Posey didn't even have the ball he should have let the runner in, but he didn't it was an error of a young catcher. I feel bad for the kid...however they didn't change the game for Ray Fosse, no need to change it now

 

 

He dropped the ball when Cousins was 5 feet from him.

look at this clip: Andres Blanco trying to reach 3rd and Wigginton basically blocks the bag. Is Blanco permitted to steamroll him at 3rd then?

 

play at 3b

 

 

poptart is kinda where I'm at.

 

I don't understand what Wigginton did wrong, he blocked the base better so he could apply the tag.

 

i would make a poll but it's hard to lay it out as a yes or no question... not sure how I'd word it. Not even sure what the question is actually, lol.

 

If the question is "should runners be allowed to take out the catcher regardless?" we'd probably wind up with judgement calls half the time and we're sitting in NFL land where they review every other hit in the secondary to determine how much of a cheap shot it is... nobody wants that.

 

 

Buster Olney is suggesting that MLB just ban catchers from blocking the plate altogether.

 

In the big-picture question of risk/reward, the play of blocking home plate, to save one run, is just not worth it. Not even close … MLB and the Players Association should step in and ban the play of a catcher blocking home. It’s just not worth it, for anyone involved.

 

 

Play the game the right way, what is the biggest difference between Cousins smashing into Posey and Morgan smashing into Hayes, one was necessary to score and one wasn't.

Again, the point isn't that baseball rules are written in stone. In this case, blocking the plate has been around forever, but the point is that over that long history, it hasn't been a problem worth addressing through rule change.

 

Or perhaps that's just an example of stubborness and dogmatism getting in the way of rule changes?

 

Over the course of the 140+ years baseball has been played, players have gotten significantly bigger, stronger, and more athletic. Is it not possible that rules that were once permissible to allow contact have become outdated as those plays have become more dangerous?

 

It doesn't mean we have to get rid of contact on these types of plays altogether; rules can be tweaked. Scott Cousins went out of the baseline in order to make a play on Posey. Why not have the rule say that if you angle yourself out of the baseline in order to create contact, you are out? If the catcher is standing right on the plate, that could be a different issue altogether, but in this one, Cousins goes out of the baseline, something that could be deemed illegal. Baserunners have to stay on the baseline anyways. Simply enforcing that rule more strictly when it comes to creating contact at home plate could be a small step that could prevent unnecessary injuries, while still leaving a play that many feel is integral to the game.

Again, I think you are evoking a straw man to a degree here. It isn't just stubbornness and blind dogmatism. Yes, people care about tradition, but they look at tradition and the Posey incident and do not see a problem severe enough to warrant changing. That's the mindset most seem to have and I'm inclined to agree. I see now problem with wanting to keep things as they are as long as there isn't really a problem that needs to be changed. As I've argued here (and many vocalized agreement), let the catchers decide whether or not to put themselves at risk. You don't need MLB to regulate or ban blocking the plate as Buster Olney suggested.

 

I don't see how the rule is outdated, either, unless you mean in the sense that our current society is perhaps becoming more sensitive to boo-boos of this type. Both baserunners and catchers are presumably becoming more athletic in proportion. The catcher is better protected now than he was a hundred years ago. The only thing that really has changed is the proclivity to cover the entire world in bubble wrap.

 

Finally, I have no idea what video you are watching but Cousins seemed to be straight down the line and across the plate. Even if there were rules about being out of the basepaths and collisions, I highly doubt Cousins would have been called out on it. Posey was setting up a tad bit toward first, but upon "catching" (attempting to) and tagging the runner he moved toward the center of the plate and right into Cousins path. Cousins would have had to go outside of the baseline to slide (not collide) with Posey. Basically what I'm saying is that what Cousins did is pretty clean, which is why all this hysteria about rule changes is pretty ridiculous. I see nothing in what he did as being potentially illegal.

 

If anything, the Hayes/Morgan collision should be the case study for rule changes, if they must take place. But he was a third string back-up and not the ROY darling on the defending world champs.

I don't understand what Wigginton did wrong, he blocked the base better so he could apply the tag.

 

 

Not suggesting Wiggy did anything wrong, if the 3B here is blocking the plate like catchers block home plate, should a baserunner be able to steamroll the 3rd baseman too? And maybe he can but we just don't ever see it because that hasn't become the fun espn highlight play that the collision at the plate has.

I think most people here are forgetting that the reason many basemen aren't run over is just because its really not smart to. At home plate, once you touch the plate you don't have to worry about anything. At third base, if you run over the third basemen, you're probably going to come off the bag, in which case even if he does drop the ball, he can pick it back up and tag you out.

 

At this point, I wouldn't be against their being potential fines and things like that for instances where trucking the catcher really is unnecessary. I wouldn't throw Cousins hit into that category, but I probably would the Hayes hit, looking at the replay. Those of you saying "the catcher doesn't have to block the plate" are ignoring the fact that even when the catcher is not blocking the plate at all, its pretty much giving whatever mad man who is the runner an open license to bowl over the catcher, just because their is no system in place to punish those who do so in unnecessary situations. If you look at the Nyjer hit, he didn't even make contact with Hayes until after he had touched the plate with his foot, which is completely ridiculous.

I don't understand what Wigginton did wrong, he blocked the base better so he could apply the tag.

 

 

Not suggesting Wiggy did anything wrong, if the 3B here is blocking the plate like catchers block home plate, should a baserunner be able to steamroll the 3rd baseman too? And maybe he can but we just don't ever see it because that hasn't become the fun espn highlight play that the collision at the plate has.

 

Good question, I have never really seen baseball played that way, but it brings up a good topic for discussion. Also note that sliding into 2nd base or taking the 2nd baseman out to avoid a double play is universally allowed. I think the biggest thing that should be focused on is the force out obviously 1st base is going to be a force out but any other base should be fair game imo.

 

So who wants to be the first one to barrel into the 3rd baseman and change the norm?

Collisions at the plate are just plain f***ing exciting, case closed.

Collisions at the plate are just plain f***ing exciting, case closed.

 

Not case closed because the case isn't stupid.

 

There was nothing exciting about this:

Finally, I have no idea what video you are watching but Cousins seemed to be straight down the line and across the plate.

 

 

His momentum was carrying him pretty clearly away from the plate and up the first base line. It had to have been to catch Posey at the front of the plate. Posey was not standing on top of the plate or up the third base line at all, so Cousins had to veer out of the baseline.

 

If an attempt were to be made to lower the rate and severity of these types of plays, a limit on how far out of the baseline a player can go could be an option. Cousin's only chance to be safe, as he saw it and within the bounds of the current rules, was to go away from home and towards Posey, who was standing in front of the plate towards the mound or the first base line. You can even see in that still that he is using his right foot to generate additional force on the inside of the base line, using it as leverage to propel himself towards Posey. His momentum is carrying him towards the right front of the LH batter's box.

 

I'm simply presenting a solution that attempts to find a middle ground between banning these plays altogether and leaving things as they are. I'm the type of person who will fall on the side of reducing violence and the potential for injuries wherever feasible, which is why I think there should be limits on what a player can do as far as creating contact at the plate. The base runner should, at the very least, be in a position to make a play on the plate. Scott Cousins wasn't; his attention was focused 100% on hitting Posey so he could dislodge the ball and find home plate in the confusion afterwards.

 

 

 

Does anyone actually know what the rules would be if a player did a similar thing to a 3B?