Plays at the Plate. . . Collisions at Home

[TheLegend]

And if the catcher declares no contact, he should not be allowed to aggressively block the basepaths, because that would simply be unfair!

I disagree, and I think we're not communicating on this. You can easily do an evasive slide at home to get around the catcher/tag blocking the plate. Please, kind sir, reread my post about how these slides work. It's actually really fun to pull off one of these evasive slides. You could totally do it. In fact it's one of the most exciting possible plays in baseball.

Scott, this is the second time in this discussion that you've asserted that I didn't understand you, when I thought it was perfectly clear that I simply disagreed

Yes it is possible to slide around a catcher, but if the catcher doesn't have to worry about a collision AND can aggressively play the runner's path to the plate, it gives the defense a HUGE advantage on close plays at home.

And even if it isn't a huge advantage, you do agree that it gives the defense SOME advantage, right? Seeing as that the offense would have it's options cut, but the defense wouldn't. So calling no contact would give the defense an advantage, and the catchers who don't mind contact (or in my case, the ones who like it ) would still call no contact simply for the tactical advantage.

[tallguy]

Scott, let's not forget those of us who are not exactly stellar sliders. While this is part of the game, and so should of course be allowed, and arguably rewarded, it shouldn't be made to be required by our house rules. Collisions can lead to a nasty injury, but so could a poorly executed slide (e.g. any of mine!). I think Ken's suggestion makes sense.

[Baseball=Life]

Thanks for the reminder Daniel that it's the runner who is at risk as well, not just the catcher. Think about it, this isn't like other sports where both people are in motion when they collide---in this situation one is coming full speed and the other is still, thus much more vulnerable.

Paul, you're a big guy. If I was playing catcher and you came running toward home at full speed and didn't slide, it would be a bad situation.

Compare and contrast these two situations if you would:

1) Slide at a close play at home, get some scrapes on your legs, at worst twist an ankle.

2) No slide at close play at home, have a full-blown head-on collision with the catcher, untold levels of injury all over the body for both.


Myself, I would prefer some scrapes than the full head on collision.

Don't forget, what we saw Nick do was actually very mild. He, as pointed out by Peter I think, didn't go in 100% because he saw Mike lose the ball. In a situation where the catcher has the ball, if you go in upright, MLB rules say you can absolutely level the catcher. For instance, you can put both elbows up with your arms crossed and smash into the catchers shoulder/head area, the idea being to make the catcher drop the ball. So please let me know which of the two approaches would result in more potential for injury.

And, learning to slide can be done. I'm happy to show anyone the basics.

TheLegend, I'm still contemplating your remarks, will respond soon.

[Baseball=Life]

Ok, Ken, let's see here......

On the notion of the catcher playing the runner's path to the ball...

If the catcher has time to block even the evasive slides, then it's not a close play by definition.

On close plays the catcher doesn't have much time to set up because they've only just received the throw. If they have time to locate the runner/slider's location and then go to it, the runner is going to be DOA.

I don't know, the "slide to avoid contact" rule has never been an issue in the games I've played and umpired. It's just to avoid the full-out leveling I mentioned in the prior post when responding to Paul. Do you think these sorts of leveling are what we want?

Hahahah we haven't even heard from Nick & Mike C on this yet.

Seeing as that the offense would have it's options cut, but the defense wouldn't.

I see what you mean, however I think it's a very small advantage. And I just fear that people won't want to catch if they can't have the option of not being fully run-over. Reiteration: sliding will often involve contact, just not the steamroller contact a sprinter coming in with their elbows out would create.

Hey, maybe we should just regulate how a person should come in if they want to remain upright. That would be pretty easy, just say (for instance) that people can't use their elbows or shoulders to plow the catcher, but anything else is ok. This solution would eliminate some of the worst injuries possible for coming in upright, though it would leave intact the injury possibilites for knees (ie what happened to Nick). And it would marginalize the advantage for the defense Kenyatte talked about.

Have you pulled off one of those evasive slides? It's so fun, like the headfirst hook slide.

By the way, no matter what we decide to go with, I'm sure all agree with my comments that the on-deck batter needs to provide the runner with guidance about where to position themselves (since the on-deck batter won't know whether the runner will slide or collide). To make even more clear, the on-deck batter should not only motion downward with both hands if it's close and a slide is warranted, but he should motion downward and to one side, ie the side opposite where the catcher/throw/ball are.

[BostonMike]

I say we should use MLB rules as much as we can (i.e. allow collisions). All this really means is the person assigned to play catcher needs to be aware/prepared for this type of thing to happen.

Now speaking for the kid who got nailed. I agree with what Ken said. The catcher knows there could be a play like that, I even said after I got hit, that it was bound to happen one of these days. It also was part my fault because I dropped the ball but still got in the way. I just have to be more aware of where the ball is and runner, I mean it hurt to get knocked like that, but what doesn't kill ya only makes you stronger, or just confused as hell.

[Baseball=Life]

Right on, Mike, way to be a gamer!

[TheLegend]

Ok, Ken, let's see here......

On the notion of the catcher playing the runner's path to the ball...

If the catcher has time to block even the evasive slides, then it's not a close play by definition.

On close plays the catcher doesn't have much time to set up because they've only just received the throw. If they have time to locate the runner/slider's location and then go to it, the runner is going to be DOA.

Best case scenario (for the defense at least) the catcher has the pressence of mind to not waith for the ball to move into the basepath, but instead take position there as the relay man is making his throw (as suggested in SIv1 ). When the catcher does this it makes it much more difficult for the runner to get home and can often turn what would've been a run into an out.

Case in point: The winning run last week- even with the throw being a little late (and judging by Peter's straight on slide) that could've been an out if we had a catcher who had tried to block the plate.

I don't know, the "slide to avoid contact" rule has never been an issue in the games I've played and umpired. It's just to avoid the full-out leveling I mentioned in the prior post when responding to Paul. Do you think these sorts of leveling are what we want?

Of course that's not what we WANT (see more below), but we don't want an unbalanced game either.

Seeing as that the offense would have it's options cut, but the defense wouldn't.

I see what you mean, however I think it's a very small advantage. And I just fear that people won't want to catch if they can't have the option of not being fully run-over.

I think if the catcher doesn't want to risk contact he should be able to call "no contact" as Lincoln suggested, at the cost of not being able to aggressively play the basepath.

Hey, maybe we should just regulate how a person should come in if they want to remain upright. That would be pretty easy, just say (for instance) that people can't use their elbows or shoulders to plow the catcher, but anything else is ok. This solution would eliminate some of the worst injuries possible for coming in upright, though it would leave intact the injury possibilites for knees (ie what happened to Nick). And it would marginalize the advantage for the defense Kenyatte talked about.

This also seems like a good idea. We should discuss the specifics of how this would work.

[BostonMike]

Speaking of Nick how is he doing, is his knee alright? I saw it on Sunday, and wow, knee vs head.

[Baseball=Life]

Nick's been out of town for a few days, I think he's coming back today.

He said his knee really started hurting and straightening up after about a day.

He actually asked me to use the knee brace I had been using. I'm certainly going to let him use it if he still needs it when he comes back.

[BostonMike]

If you talk to him Scott send him my regards. Thanks

[Baseball=Life]

Hey, maybe we should just regulate how a person should come in if they want to remain upright. That would be pretty easy, just say (for instance) that people can't use their elbows or shoulders to plow the catcher, but anything else is ok. This solution would eliminate some of the worst injuries possible for coming in upright, though it would leave intact the injury possibilites for knees (ie what happened to Nick). And it would marginalize the advantage for the defense Kenyatte talked about.

This also seems like a good idea. We should discuss the specifics of how this would work.

Yes, we should. Do you think that the elbows/shoulders limitations I mentioned are the way to go? Is that enough to prevent the full-out runovers? Is it too much to prevent the runner from having a chance to knock the ball loose?

[Tayster]

Omg, have they come to an agreement?

Time to hold hands and sing kumbaya

[Baseball=Life]

Omg, have they come to an agreement?

Time to hold hands and sing kumbaya

Funniest thing yet written in this Forum!!!!

[TheLegend]

Omg, have they come to an agreement?

Time to hold hands and sing kumbaya

ROFLMAO!

(for those of us who aren't complete and utter computer nerds, that translates roughly into: Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off)

[TheLegend]

I think not allowing the runner to dip his shoulder is dangerous because it makes it difficult for him to brace himself for the impact (and thereby makes him more vulnerable for injury).

Ah! I have an idea... but I can't figure out how to word it in a clear way.

Tell me if the following doesn't make sense and I'll try to clarify:

==
-Full on "head-up" collisions are not allowed. If a runner flagrantly or neglectfully causes a collision where more than half of his body comes into contact with the defender the runner will be called out.

- In a situation where a collision is inevitable, the runner must run through one of the defenders shoulders (as opposed to running through his chest).

==

Does that make sense? Basically, this prevents the runner from just taking the catcher completely out by forcing the runner to run to his outside shoulder. I think this'll will give the runner a fair chance of jarring the ball loose and will definately result in the catcher not catching the ball if it's not quite there yet, but will preserve both players' health.

I'm still not sure if my description made sense at all, but I'm sure you guys will tell me if it didn't.