Correct me if I’m wrong, but the catcher isn’t actually allowed to block the plate. The new rule benefits the runner, not the catcher.
I think it’s a good thing. Also, I’m one who’s hoping the Giants move Posey to 1B and out from behind the plate.
I’m betting that the DH will be in the NL by 2025-2030. I don’t want that to happen, mind you. I think that’s where things are going (sigh).
Sorry, that happened when the Designated Hitter was allowed. This is just another stake through the heart.
But on the serious side…once the catcher is in control of the ball, the catcher can block the plate, as any other baseman can block when they have control of the ball. This is a moronic rule change.
Everyone seems to have remarkably strong opinions about a rule that they don’t even know what the damned wording will be. Calling it “moronic” is amazing when you don’t know what it says.
The way it’ll probably be worded, because it’s the way that would make the most sense, would be to specifically state that the runner cannot deliberately target the catcher instead of home plate, as in fact sometimes happens; you will see the runner, knowing the throw has beaten him, go directly for the catcher and not for the plate. Presently that is not (clearly) against the rules - it’s kind of an unclear judgment call. They will probably clearly make it against the rules, and if they do, it’s a good and logical change that will take nothing away from the game.
Preventing the catcher from blocking the plate if he has the ball would be a substantially less logical and MUCH more difficult to apply rule. But it doesn’t sound from what we’re hearing so far as if that is the likely rule.
The rule hasn’t been written or submitted yet, and MLB hasn’t determined how the new replay system will work either. But it looks like the consensus is the one being described here: catchers can’t block the plate without the ball, which is the same way it works on the other bases, and runners can’t target catchers.
Don’t take it seriously.
I disagree. Most collisions I see, and a disproportionate number of the bad ones, are caused by runners, afraid that the defense has them dead to rights, targeting the catcher in an attempt to dislodge the ball/break up a catch. That’s pretty much the entire purpose of the play. Ram the catcher really hard in the hopes that he drops the ball.
The easiest way to remove that incentive is to call the runner out the second he initiates non-sliding contact with a catcher in possession of the ball (i.e. the collision cannot cause a “fumble”). This way the runner is so unlikely to gain an advantage from a collision (either the ball will be caught and he’s out on contact; or the catcher will miss handle the throw in which case the collision is unnecessary anyway), that his best play will be to slide in.
Focusing on plate blocking will get messy for the simple reason that it’s hard to define. If the catcher has his foot on the plate is he blocking it? If it’s a hit down the left field lineand he’s at home in anticipation of the throw (much like a middle infielder on an attempted steal) is he blocking home? Was Buster Posey blocking the plate? I don’t consider any of these catchers to have been blocking home, but I can see how others would disagree and how a rule enforcing or expanding on this could lead to confusion.
Hasn’t there been a significant upturn in home plate collisions in the past few years? Sure seeems like it just watching games.
There were collisions even 35 years ago. But I don’t recall them happening every game.
The high salaries of key players is a factor too, of course. Owners and fans do 't want their multi-million dollar players sitting out a season to heal.
This is the classic example of what they’re trying to get rid of. Posey was quite obviously NOT blocking the plate; Cousins was not at all prevented from getting to the plate. He hit Posey solely for the purpose of hitting him, to knock the ball loose. I can’t think of any good reason such a play should be legal.