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?? 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.

 

If the 1st basemen is standing on the bag waiting to receive the throw the base runner can absolutely run through him in attempt to reach the base.

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

 

Anyone?

......

 

If you don't want to get buried, get out from in front of the dish. Hate this rule; such a knee jerk reaction to a couple of injuries. I once got knocked out cold running over a catcher in a game -- and I'd do it again. Runs are scarce in baseball, if you want to block the plate, you're going to get whacked. You can't just keep over-legislating sports to protect people -- there are some inherent risks that should be acceptable. This is one of them.

 

Why? Should we eliminate batting helmets because there are inherent risks to batting that should be acceptable? I mean a cap was good enough for the Babe, why not these wussies today?

If the 1st basemen is standing on the bag waiting to receive the throw the base runner can absolutely run through him in attempt to reach the base.

 

The collisions I'm talking about (and are the ones that are most commonly seen at the plate) are when the runner is trying to dislodge the ball at the plate. No fielder can block access to the base without the ball, and if he get's run over, it is what it is. The play that is in question is when the catcher is in possession of the ball and the runner tries to run him over. Runner's cannot do that at any other base.

Hate it. Just another reason to not watch baseball for me.

Anyone?

 

It would most likely be handled like runner interference is. Ex: Runner trying to break up DP and slides too far out of the baseline. Runner interference. Runner is out.

Hate it. Just another reason to not watch baseball for me.

 

If this causes you to not watch baseball then it's because you're not really a baseball fan.

It would most likely be handled like runner interference is. Ex: Runner trying to break up DP and slides too far out of the baseline. Runner interference. Runner is out.

 

That'd be the only way this will work, and even then I think it leaves way too much subjectivity.

 

If it's just a fine or potential suspension, I don't think you'll see it change in any way. Teams would probably be okay with a guy getting fined or suspended if it meant they scored a winning run here or there.

That'd be the only way this will work, and even then I think it leaves way too much subjectivity.

 

If it's just a fine or potential suspension, I don't think you'll see it change in any way. Teams would probably be okay with a guy getting fined or suspended if it meant they scored a winning run here or there.

 

Agreed. It has to cost them outs and runs.

If this causes you to not watch baseball then it's because you're not really a baseball fan.

 

Come on Clyde, that's what baseball is all about. People watch it for the collisions. That's why youth and high school baseball is so boring to watch, no one intentionally running over anyone.

If this causes you to not watch baseball then it's because you're not really a baseball fan.

 

I'm not a baseball fan and this adds to my reasons not to be

If they would rule fielders interference any time a catcher is blocking any part of the plate without possession of the ball then I might be able to live with the rule. I still believe the new rule is going to greatly benefit the defensive team though.

If they would rule fielders interference any time a catcher is blocking any part of the plate without possession of the ball then I might be able to live with the rule. I still believe the new rule is going to greatly benefit the defensive team though.

 

It may, but I think using the word "greatly" is overstating things a bit. The only difference this will make is now home plate is treated no differently than any other base. And while I don't have any real stats, it's a move by the runner that is all that successful, and when it is, I'd guess it rarely is the difference in a ball game. And it certainly is no benefit to the defense when you lose your catcher for a few games, or worse, the rest of the year.

Why? Should we eliminate batting helmets because there are inherent risks to batting that should be acceptable?

 

Really? You think that is analogous?

Really? You think that is analogous?

 

We both agree that the upside is less serious and potentially long-term injuries for catchers, correct?

 

What's the downside?