For the ones that said this gives them a reason to stop watching.

 

Did we stop watching football when they put rules in to protect the QB?

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

 

What's the downside?

 

That catchers, in addition to shin guards, chest protector and helmet, use it (the rule) as another defensive tool to try and give them an advantage to setting up in the base path and blocking the plate without the ball.

 

That's why I said I'm all for the rule, as long as it's tempered by a real hard look at calling interference and automatically awarding the run, should they block the base path without already having the ball. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

It is a common sense rule. This is most likely much ado about nothing in the long run. If the catcher has the ball he blocks the plate, if he doesn't he can't. No different than anywhere else on the field. You don't see the 2nd (except double play break ups which are out of control sometimes) and 3rd basemen blasted when they have the ball going to make the tag very often. Granted that is not a place where they score a run, but they are valuable enough bases that you would think it would happen more often. If you are stationary, I don't care how much equipment you have on, the one causing the force is much less likely to get hurt. Catchers are defenseless in that instance.

If you are directly in front of any base, blocking the bag, whether you have the ball or not you should be able to get blasted.

If you are directly in front of any base, blocking the bag, whether you have the ball or not you should be able to get blasted.

 

Why?? When did baseball become about contact?? A 162 game season is a tough enough grind, and very few players stay healthy enough to play every game, and introducing unlimited contact at the bases, would certainly create more injuries and hurt the product. This isn't about toughness, it's about common sense.

To me it is not about the offensive player, it is more about the defender. Purist guy correct me if I am wrong on this. There are obstruction penalties now, so I have never understood why players can impede base runners at home plate. Or is that an "unwritten" rule that is never enforced? NFL players have been able to adjust to not hitting defenseless receivers in the head, I think a baseball player can adjust not bowling over a catcher (or the catcher moves from the base path) the few times it ever happens in a season.

Dottie Henson must be rolling over in her grave. Had this been enforced 70 years ago she would be talked about with the likes of Yogi Berra and Roy Campanella.

Why?? When did baseball become about contact?? A 162 game season is a tough enough grind, and very few players stay healthy enough to play every game, and introducing unlimited contact at the bases, would certainly create more injuries and hurt the product. This isn't about toughness, it's about common sense.

 

Because the runner has a right to the base. It's not about contact. It's about advancing to the next base to win the game. If the MLB is worried about touching another player because it's not a "contact sport" then adopt the HS rule for breaking up double plays.

 

If the defender has the ball and needs to completely block a base to get the runner out, that runner should have every right to run them over.

 

If they're not in front of the plate, there's no reason to run into them. That part of a rule alone would save a bunch of collisions.

Really? You think that is analogous?

 

You said there are inherent risks that should be acceptable. I agree except when it can be eliminate the risk reduced without affecting the game. So take batting helmets. Not wearing them poses a risk. You reduce that risk by simply requiring batters to wear the helmet and it doesn't affect the game. Neither does this. Anyone really think collisions at home are huge part of the game?

If you are directly in front of any base, blocking the bag, whether you have the ball or not you should be able to get blasted.

 

Why?

If you are directly in front of any base, blocking the bag, whether you have the ball or not you should be able to get blasted.

 

Of course you knew I'd agree with you. I figured this rule would come a season sooner after Buster Posterboy got trucked.

Why?

 

It's a serious question. Why do we need to have guys getting trucked in baseball?

Two way street Clyde. What about catchers blocking the plate, guys going headfirst, mashed by a 250lb cat in shinguards. Broken fingers, wrists. Happens. What about that? It's a base. Two way street.

Two way street Clyde. What about catchers blocking the plate, guys going headfirst, mashed by a 250lb cat in shinguards. Broken fingers, wrists. Happens. What about that? It's a base. Two way street.

 

Agreed. Rules can be put in (or simply enforced) to handle both.

It's a serious question. Why do we need to have guys getting trucked in baseball?

 

It has little to do with getting trucked. It has to do with being allowed to get to the base you're trying to advance to.

 

What happens if a guy is in front of the rim, inside the halo, on a layup? He gets blasted because he's protecting the goal. On top of it, he also gets the foul.

 

Why does a catcher in full gear get to drop his body in front of the plate while a runner slides into his shin guards? No hurt catchers in HS but plenty of busted ankles.