MLB has eliminated home-plate collisions

[Average Reds]

Not as bad as we thought.

The former New York Yankees manager did not provide specifics about the plate-collision rule except to say baseball wants to curb intentional contact.

“There’s a memo that’s going to come out. It’s pretty cut and dried at this point in time,” Torre said. “If nothing else on that play, we want to eliminate those very vicious hits where you target the catcher as opposed to home plate.”

Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon said there doesn’t appear a radical change to existing guidelines, noting catchers still will be able to block the plate if the ball arrives in time.

“The general spirit of it is you don’t want a collision intentionally initiated by the base runner. That’s what it sounds like to me,” Maddon said.

Home plate collisions also will be subject to review, however they won’t cost a manager a challenge under the new system.

“It’s going to cost you a challenge if you’re challenging safe or out. But if it’s the collision part of it, if it’s going to be a violation, then that is going to be looked at the same as the home run (replay). … The only thing different is the (umpires) are not going to leave the field, you’re going to get everything from New York,” Torre said.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/02/24/mlb-set-to-announce-home-plate-collision-rule/

Sounds like the college rule

 
BTW - this does sound like a more sensible refinement than I had anticipated.  Doesn't ban collisions so much as trying to eliminate cases where runners don't even focus on tagging the plate and instead just go head hunting.
 
The problem is what gets called when a catcher sets up a block before the ball gets there?  Because the next time I see obstruction called on the catcher in that case will be the first time.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
 
The way you have phrased this is clever, but disingenuous.
 
I don't think anyone had a problem with the rule if the catcher has the ball and is in a position to make the tag before the player reaches home.  But if the catcher can continue to block the plate, the runner has no access to home.  And in many of these cases, the catcher isn't in position to tag the runner out, he just prevents the runner from touching the plate and then applies the tag.
 
And that's a perfectly legitimate perspective.  We should just stop pretending that it's about player safety, because now runners will be injured trying to get to the plate while sliding through a catcher's shin guards.

 
It's not you I was arguing with; the way you phrased the question in the passage YTF quoted seems exactly right to me. If we're trying to minimize collisions, it needs to be both/and: prohibit blocking before possession of the ball, and prohibit contact aimed at dislodging the ball rather than reaching the base, and enforce both prohibitions. But YTF seemed to be implying that he sees an inherent problem in the "slide or don't collide" rule change because it alters the competitive balance on plays at the plate in favor of the defense. My point is that there isn't anything sacred about the current state of that competitive balance, such that we should need to worry about that at all.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Why not treat all plays at home as though they're a force play?  Once the runner commits to more than halfway down the baseline, the plate can't be blocked (on pain of interference and automatic award of home), but the catcher only has to catch the ball and tag the plate to force the runner out. 
 
Speed would still count, OF arm accuracy would still count, and you'd still get bang-bang plays at home.  

 

[Plympton91]

The force play thing seems like overcompensating

Treat it like you treat second and third base. Everyone slides and the fielders try to block the base if the play is at all close. The only reason we see these collisions at home is because you can overrun the base. But being able to overrun the base creates the injury risk, so mandate a slide.

 

[terrisus]

Not as bad as we thought.

What do you mean "Not as bad as we thought?" That sounds pretty bad from a perspective of wanting to eliminate home-plate collisions. Sounds like they barely did anything at all.

 

[Rasputin]

 
BTW - this does sound like a more sensible refinement than I had anticipated.  Doesn't ban collisions so much as trying to eliminate cases where runners don't even focus on tagging the plate and instead just go head hunting.

 
Doesn't even do that, just the cases where the runner leaves the baseline to do it.
 
It's a horrifically poor attempt at an implementation.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Unless I'm mistaken, nobody has posted the actual rule yet.
 
 

The new rule, 7.13, states "a runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate)." A runner violating the rule shall be declared out, even if the fielder drops the ball.
 
Along with the rule, the sides agreed to a pair of comments that umpires use to interpret the rule. The first comment says, "the failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner's lowering of the shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation." The comment says players who slide appropriately are not in violation of the rule.
 
The second comment says that "unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score." The runner shall be declared safe if the catcher violates that provision. In addition, it is not a violation "if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable."

 
So you're still allowed to truck a catcher as long as you actually try to touch the plate?  This rule would not have prevented Buster Posey's situation.

 

[Lars The Wanderer]

Maybe not. But I think he might have been called out.
 

 

[Infield Infidel]

They can make the call, and they'll have replay to help, but it won't stop the collision.
 
That rule is needlessly complicated and and it's still subjective, since the runner can create his own base path ("direct pathway"). 
 
They should have made it more basic. Runner stays outside the third base line, catcher stays inside the diamond or outside the first base line. Runner crosses the line, he's automatically out, catcher crosses the line, he's automatically safe. 

 

[terrisus]

Maybe not. But I think he might have been called out.
 

 
Well, except for the whole "lowering the shoulder" thing.
 

They can make the call, and they'll have replay to help, but it won't stop the collision.
 
That rule is needlessly complicated and and it's still subjective, since the runner can create his own base path ("direct pathway"). 
 
They should have made it more basic. Runner stays outside the third base line, catcher stays inside the diamond or outside the first base line. Runner crosses the line, he's automatically out, catcher crosses the line, he's automatically safe. 

 
What about if the throw is on the other side of the line? Obviously the catcher would need to cross it to get the ball.
 
But, yes, the "rule changes" are needless complicated and subjective.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I don't know about "needless".  There's really no sporting reason, no competitive reason, why there need to be violent collisions at the plate.  There aren't really violent collisions at 2nd or 3rd - somehow runners are just going for the base and fielders aim for swipe tags.

 

[terrisus]

Oops, meant "needlessly," to mirror the post I was quoting.
 
And, my point is that they're basically beating around the issue, when they should just say "Don't collide with the catcher."

 

[Infield Infidel]

 
Well, except for the whole "lowering the shoulder" thing.
 
 
What about if the throw is on the other side of the line? Obviously the catcher would need to cross it to get the ball.
 
But, yes, the "rule changes" are needless complicated and subjective.

 
Which line? The third base line? If the catcher is inside the diamond, he can catch it before the ball gets to the line, then apply the tag. If it's over everything, there wouldn't be a collision. 
 
The main thing is the catcher and runner need to know where they need to be positioned prior to the play to be within the rules. If it's a bad throw I don't think the catcher would want to be there anyway. 

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

 

Oops, meant "needlessly," to mirror the post I was quoting.
 
And, my point is that they're basically beating around the issue, when they should just say "Don't collide with the catcher."

 
I know what you meant.  I don't think their changes are being done needlessly at all, or are needlessly complicated.  This is an important issue, something well worth eliminating from the game, and drawing the rule up so that it's fair and unambiguous is important.  If that takes a few extra long words, well, so be it.  The rulebook has lots of complex statements.  We're not writing slogans here.

 

[JakeRae]

They don't even need a new rule. The old interference rules were enough. Call the runner out for interference if he trucks the catcher. Call the runner safe if the catcher interferes with the runner's path to the bag. Suspend any player who intentionally creates violent contact or positions himself so as to create violent contact.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Something that I don't think has gotten a lot of intention in regard to the change in rules about blocking the plate is the squeeze play. 
 
Yesterday, the Sox tacked on an insurance run when they squeezed a run home in the bottom of the 7th against the Orioles.  And, under the old rules, I bet that Matt Wieters would have blocked the plate and kept Brock Holt from ever touching it. 
 
I think the feasibility and the desirability of the squeeze play has been increased by this change in the rules.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I was going to point this out, but I couldn't find the post in the game thread where the point was made to properly credit it.  I think you are correct here, and that we'll see more and more of them used as teams catch on.  Glad to see the Red Sox out in front of it, so to speak.  Without the ability to block the plate, the pressure has been moved from the runner who used to need a perfect break and excellent speed to succeed, to the defense, who now need a great or sometimes perfect throw to give the catcher a chance to get a tag on after having to catch and then turn toward the runner.

 

[Reverend]

There was a lot of bemoaning Lester's defense on not getting the throw off to home plate last night, but I wonder if part of it was uncertainty at being able to pull the playoff under the new rules. Don and Remy made a big deal about Lester not getting the ball out of his mitt, but I took a screen shot of a point when he had the ball cocked to throw home before choosing to go to first.
 
What really stands out to me is Ross's forward placement on the plate and how hard it would have been to make the tag.
 

 
 
Change means uncertainty. It seems quite possible that they simply don't know what the timing is to make this play anymore.
 
Thoughts?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think you're right.  I didn't see the play in real time, but it certainly looks like it would be extremely close and probably a difficult play for Ross to make with the new rule in place.  I'm still in favor of the rule.  Safety should be paramount on the field and I think a higher rate of runners scoring at home what used to be easier plays to make defensively are a small price to pay for catchers to not have to worry about being crushed by a runner while trying to catch a ball coming from another direction.
 
Players will resist and maybe even complain, but eventually we'll have players coming into the league who have never played a baseball game where colliding with the catcher is permitted and the idea will seem foreign to them, rather than the other way around.  The league will adjust slowly, but it will adjust and the sport will be better off for it in the long run.

 

[Rovin Romine]

There was a lot of bemoaning Lester's defense on not getting the throw off to home plate last night, but I wonder if part of it was uncertainty at being able to pull the playoff under the new rules. Don and Remy made a big deal about Lester not getting the ball out of his mitt, but I took a screen shot of a point when he had the ball cocked to throw home before choosing to go to first.
 
What really stands out to me is Ross's forward placement on the plate and how hard it would have been to make the tag.
 

 
 
Change means uncertainty. It seems quite possible that they simply don't know what the timing is to make this play anymore.
 
Thoughts?

 
One, I'd hope that this type of play (throwing home with a runner on the way) was practiced in spring training - specifically in light of the new rule.  If not, Farrell has a lot to answer for. 
 
Two, I don't know how the placement makes this more difficult.  Ross's left foot looks like it's close to the bag (right in line with the runner, given the width of the runner's body).  So, arguably, Ross may have been blocking the plate.  If Lester hits Ross's glove or throws slightly up the line toward the runner, Ross can turn and swipe pretty quickly.  
 
(Shouldn't Middlebrooks have been moving to back up the catcher though?)
 
It looks like it would be close though, so I can't clearly fault Lester for choosing the first base option.  However, given the team's offensive woes, I'd have taken the slimmer chance on getting the runner at home.  At worst you'd end up with a run scored and a runner on second.  At best you get an out, no run, and a runner on first.   Even if you have a bang bang play, I think you go for it.  But if you don't, take a second to steady yourself and make the throw to first. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The placement makes it more difficult because in the past, he could have blocked the plate and made it more difficult for the runner to touch home.  Now, he has to stand at the front or in front of the plate, make the catch and then turn, find the runner and apply the tag behind where he was standing instead of where he would previously have been set up.  There's an extra step involved now, which takes more time, and then makes the tag more difficult.
 
Edit: And one spring training isn't really enough to overwrite a lifetime of making a play a certain way.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The placement makes it more difficult because in the past, he could have blocked the plate and made it more difficult for the runner to touch home.  Now, he has to stand at the front or in front of the plate, make the catch and then turn, find the runner and apply the tag behind where he was standing instead of where he would previously have been set up.  There's an extra step involved now, which takes more time, and then makes the tag more difficult.
 
Edit: And one spring training isn't really enough to overwrite a lifetime of making a play a certain way.

 
I think you're overstating this a bit - at least for this particular play.
 
Ross seems to have done what he needed to.  He's as close to the line/plate as he can get (arguably too close), which gives him the maximum amount of time to apply a tag.  He's got his feet set perpendicular to the baseline, so I don't see the "turning" that's involved.  All he has to do is catch the ball (with the left hand glove) and move the glove down and to his left.  He might want to pivot slightly on his left leg to increase his arm speed in bringing the ball down, but it looks like he's pretty squared up.  I also don't see the "finding" of the runner.  The runner is in Ross's vision.  It's not like Ross is trying to field a throw from the first base side of the infield and would need to turn his head away from the runner.  All Ross has to do bring the ball down into the base path/runner.  
 
I suppose the runner could slide "wide," fading away from Ross, and trying to get his hand on the plate, but Ross can't move himself closer to that kind of hypothetical slide without blocking the plate before the throw arrives.  So in that case I'd agree with you that Ross might have to catch the ball and move toward the runner.  But given that Ross is pretty much on top of the plate, he only has to move to his left.  He's not going to spin around or go behind himself or anything like that (because at that point the runner would have already tagged the base.)  I'd imagine he'd just do the traditional "awkward two handed catcher lunge" at a wide-sliding runner.  I don't even know if he needs to move his feet all that much to do that, so much twist his torso and "fall" off to his left.  
 
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there's really no other option for Ross - what he did (at the moment of the photo) seems pretty textbook (new book, granted).  And it seems like he had a decent chance to tag the runner.  
 
All Lester needed to do was throw the ball into Ross's glove.   I don't see how Lester's "lifetime" of making a play a certain way applies, just because Ross has moved 18 inches closer to the mound.   
 
***
 
What's going to be more interesting are bunts up the first base line with a runner on third.  

 

[Reverend]

 
I think you're overstating this a bit - at least for this particular play.
 
Ross seems to have done what he needed to.  He's as close to the line/plate as he can get (arguably too close), which gives him the maximum amount of time to apply a tag.  He's got his feet set perpendicular to the baseline, so I don't see the "turning" that's involved.  All he has to do is catch the ball (with the left hand glove) and move the glove down and to his left.  He might want to pivot slightly on his left leg to increase his arm speed in bringing the ball down, but it looks like he's pretty squared up.  I also don't see the "finding" of the runner.  The runner is in Ross's vision.  It's not like Ross is trying to field a throw from the first base side of the infield and would need to turn his head away from the runner.  All Ross has to do bring the ball down into the base path/runner.  
 
I suppose the runner could slide "wide," fading away from Ross, and trying to get his hand on the plate, but Ross can't move himself closer to that kind of hypothetical slide without blocking the plate before the throw arrives.  So in that case I'd agree with you that Ross might have to catch the ball and move toward the runner.  But given that Ross is pretty much on top of the plate, he only has to move to his left.  He's not going to spin around or go behind himself or anything like that (because at that point the runner would have already tagged the base.)  I'd imagine he'd just do the traditional "awkward two handed catcher lunge" at a wide-sliding runner.  I don't even know if he needs to move his feet all that much to do that, so much twist his torso and "fall" off to his left.  
 
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there's really no other option for Ross - what he did (at the moment of the photo) seems pretty textbook (new book, granted).  And it seems like he had a decent chance to tag the runner.  

 
I agree with all of this, but this is still more than what used to occur when the catcher just caught the ball precisely where the tag would be. And I'm not saying Ross did anything wrong, just that a play that used to be natural for these guys is now different.
 
I'm actually curious why catchers have decided to come out in front of the plate and tag to their left rather than set up behind and to the left side of the plate where they would be able to just drop their glove for the tag like a second baseman. Anyone have any insight into this?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

-Snipped for size-
 
All Lester needed to do was throw the ball into Ross's glove.   I don't see how Lester's "lifetime" of making a play a certain way applies, just because Ross has moved 18 inches closer to the mound.    

 
 
Well, you are still discounting where the ball will arrive on the vertical plane.  Ross is standing in a crouch in front of the plate, instead of kneeling on the plate or just left of it.  He is further away from where he needs to make the tag than he used to be and in a situation where a split second can make all the difference, that changes the risk assessment that a player has to go through when deciding whether to throw to first or home on that play.  In the past, there was a greater chance of preventing the run from scoring so risking the throw to home where you might get the out and might have a run score made more sense.  Here, the risk of a run scoring is greater, even if by a little bit and so the safer play of throwing to first is even safer than it used to be.
 
In other words, I think players in Lester's situation are more likely hesitate than they used to be which will result in more throws to first.
 
Edit: Damnit Rev, that's twice today you've beaten me to the punch.  Be slower.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I'm actually curious why catchers have decided to come out in front of the plate and tag to their left rather than set up behind and to the left side of the plate where they would be able to just drop their glove for the tag like a second baseman. Anyone have any insight into this?

 
The ball might hit the runner?  (Also, the runner could just run upright through the base.)  I doubt it would be ruled intentional on the runner's part.   Also, depending on how near the catcher was to the base path, it could be ruled as obstruction, especially since most players run/slide toward the foul side of the baseline. 
 

 
Well, you are still discounting where the ball will arrive on the vertical plane.  Ross is standing in a crouch in front of the plate, instead of kneeling on the plate or just left of it.  He is further away from where he needs to make the tag than he used to be and in a situation where a split second can make all the difference, that changes the risk assessment that a player has to go through when deciding whether to throw to first or home on that play.  In the past, there was a greater chance of preventing the run from scoring so risking the throw to home where you might get the out and might have a run score made more sense.  Here, the risk of a run scoring is greater, even if by a little bit and so the safer play of throwing to first is even safer than it used to be.
 
In other words, I think players in Lester's situation are more likely hesitate than they used to be which will result in more throws to first.
 

 
Eh.  I'm not quite convinced, especially when the ball is being thrown from the 3b side of the diamond.  I do I hear what you're saying though, and I'll gladly concede that a 1b side of the diamond throw would be far more difficult under the new rule.  
 
That said,  I think we're down to a couple of points. 
 
1) whether Lester made the right decision.  Sort of a wash.  I still think they should have gone for the runner.  Reasonable minds can differ.
 
2) whether Lester was prepared to make that decision, given the new rule.  No one really knows.  Farrell has a clear responsibility to take the whole team through the "throwing out the runner at home" play (which is a common enough occurrence and a significant enough change in some circumstances to warrant coaching.)  He should have done it enough so that his professional ballplayers can make a decision on the issue in game conditions.  Given that Ross seems to have set himself up just fine, given the new rule, it seems like some coaching was done.  Either way though it's ultimately on Lester, whatever his "comfort" level.  Lester has to know how to field his position.  
 
On the whole I think it's way more likely that Lester just choked and went for the "safer" option to try to get out of it.   Did he do it because he couldn't accurately assess his chances of throwing out a runner at home?  If so, it's still Lester's responsibility.  

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

No one is saying it isn't Lester's responsibility.  We're just pointing out that there may be a reason for him making what might have ended up as the wrong decision there.  It takes time, even with great coaching, to change the way you react to something you've been doing a certain way your whole life.  That play is different not than it used to be, so it may have caused a split second of hesitation there that wouldn't have happened in previous years, making the decision to throw to first for him.
 
It's an example of where the rule change may have altered how an inning ultimately played out, even if the impact was as small as a split second.

 

[soxhop411]

SO MLB needs to fix the rules, as evident by what happened in PIT...
 
 
Eye on Baseball ‏@EyeOnBaseball  47m
VIDEO: Call overturned because catcher Russell Martin blocks plate on force out http://cbsprt.co/1ra0W1c  via @cbssports
 
 
ESPN/MLBN has been debating it all day today.. 

 

[BosRedSox5]

What an idiotic call. Jesus, MLB umpiring is becoming a joke. He was on the plate and moved the second the ball got into his glove but he was knocked over. 

Just seems silly. Why can't umpires just use their heads? 

 

[Lowrielicious]

SO MLB needs to fix the rules, as evident by what happened in PIT...
 
 
Eye on Baseball ‏@EyeOnBaseball  47m
VIDEO: Call overturned because catcher Russell Martin blocks plate on force out http://cbsprt.co/1ra0W1c  via @cbssports
 
 
ESPN/MLBN has been debating it all day today.. 

Looking at that replay I would say the rules are fine, and whoever made that replay decision to overturn the onfield decision needs to be fixed. And by fixed I mean fired. 
 
Were Martins toes blocking the plate for a few seconds before the ball arrived and well before the runner arrived? Ridiculous. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

It's almost as if the umps in NY have an ulterior motive in mind...