It's not an either/or.

 

The rule would require the catcher to give room to the runner. So if that's the case then there is no need to bury the catcher. Again, it works in high school.

 

Your "inherent risk" theory applies to pitchers. I can't think of any reasonable way to protect them from the rare line drive off of the gord. You CAN with a catcher.

 

We now know more about concussions and long-term issues. This isn't the 60s anymore. We've evolved. Rules should as well.

 

 

Just leaves way too much for interpretation IMO. The umpires already struggle with making the correct calls on close plays.

Put up the protective fencing. And yes, it's about as dumb as the no collision rule.

 

Come on. That's not even realistic. Is the pitcher going to hop over it to field a bunt?

 

The collision rule does not prevent the catcher from doing his job. That's the difference.

Just leaves way too much for interpretation IMO. The umpires already struggle with making the correct calls on close plays.

 

 

 

Umpires get paid for interpretations.

Umpires get paid for interpretations.

 

Catchers get paid to protect the plate, and runners get paid to score runs.

Catchers get paid to protect the plate, and runners get paid to score runs.

 

And all can be accomplished with this rule.

Here's my question. If a runner runs through a catcher, does the run count? Is the only possible punishment fines and potential suspension?

And all can be accomplished with this rule.

 

 

Define "giving room for the catcher." How much of the catcher's body can be blocking the plate? Can he block any part of the plate with any part of his body without having the ball in his mitt or hand? Like I said way too much for interpretation. I would be willing to bet if you polled most of your catcher's from the early 80's back, they would scoff at the new rule.

Let's put tutus on them.

I'm fine with increasing the safety of the catcher. I agree that they are often blindsided by many of these hits. HOWEVER, that being said, there needs to be a much more stricter enforcement of "if you don't have the ball, you can't block the plate". Many times the catcher is blocking the basepath and waiting for the ball to arrive. They can't have it both ways. The runner is allowed to the plate just as much as they are. How many times have you seen a catcher do a sweep tag that takes him 180 degrees around to tag a runner who had to slide (basically where the catcher normally receives pitches) and reach back with his hand to try and touch the plate? It wasn't because the runner was trying to avoid the tag...he didn't have a straight line to the plate!

Define "giving room for the catcher." How much of the catcher's body can be blocking the plate? Can he block any part of the plate with any part of his body without having the ball in his mitt or hand? Like I said way too much for interpretation. I would be willing to bet if you polled most of your catcher's from the early 80's back' date=' they would scoff at the new rule.[/quote']

 

Well I was wrong about one catcher. Johnny Bench loves it.

 

 

Johnny Bench praises collision ban, Pete Rose blasts it

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2013/12/12/johnny-bench-praises-collision-ban-pete-rose-blasts-it/

I'm fine with increasing the safety of the catcher. I agree that they are often blindsided by many of these hits. HOWEVER, that being said, there needs to be a much more stricter enforcement of "if you don't have the ball, you can't block the plate". Many times the catcher is blocking the basepath and waiting for the ball to arrive. They can't have it both ways. The runner is allowed to the plate just as much as they are. How many times have you seen a catcher do a sweep tag that takes him 180 degrees around to tag a runner who had to slide (basically where the catcher normally receives pitches) and reach back with his hand to try and touch the plate? It wasn't because the runner was trying to avoid the tag...he didn't have a straight line to the plate!

This is at the crux of it all. If you are not allowed to block the plate then I am fine with the rule. Is there a proposed draft of the rule?

This is at the crux of it all. If you are not allowed to block the plate then I am fine with the rule. Is there a proposed draft of the rule?

 

 

They are still finalizing the wording.

 

They are going to basically enforce a rule that has always been there but ignored at the plate. They will then add some modifications.

Eliminate it every where except Atlanta.

Eliminate it every where except Atlanta.

 

McCann is in New York now. Lol

Then by all means let's put up the little batting practice fence to protect the pitchers. Are you really ok with what happened to J.A. Happ, Alex Cobb, or Tony Conigliaro to name a few?

 

It's not even close to the same thing. Baseball is inherently dangerous. Any player could take a bad hop in the teeth, or get pegged in the grill by a fastball that got away from the pitcher. Those situations are all accidental and not preventable, and no rule will prevent that from happening. Running over the catcher is not accidental. You can't run through any other player with the ball or attempting to field the ball to try to dislodge it or prevent him from fielding it anywhere else on the field or at any other base. Why can't you just run over the first basemen to prevent him from catching it?? Why is home plate enforced differently, and why should the catcher be placed in more danger than any other fielder?? I get that scoring runs is the goal of the game and home plate is the ultimate destination...but you can't get home without getting to first, second, or third. And this rule won't require any new equipment, or safety screen. It just requires umpires to enforce/interpret a rule they regularly enforce at every other base.

 

Why is it so bad to protect a player from an unnecessary, preventable situation?? And for the record, I'm not OK with what happened to the pitchers that get drilled with line drives. I'm all for requiring them to wear some sort of head protection. We make batters wear helmets. Or would you rather we go back to the 40's and not require batters to wear helmets. And lets take away masks for hockey goalies, go back to leather football helmets, take seatbelts out of cars and remove all lifejackets from boats. That way everybody will be tough...we can weed out all the weaklings that way.