play at plate

[Cocktails and Dreams]

When there is an obvious easy out at home and the catcher gets called for blocking the plate even though the runner is not even close to home when he caught the ball, why is it not an error on the catcher? Should absolutely be an error.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This is obviously new territory since the rule went into effect this year.
As time goes by, it could change to an error for the Catcher. As a scorekeeper, I would like to give him an error, but am bound. It is similar to a fielders choice in which a fielder will throw too late to a base to force a runner.
By rule, this is a fielders choice and like the catcher in the example, there was no misplaying of the ball. Still, it was not the pitchers fault that his bonehead fielder threw to the wrong base or that his bonehead catcher blocked the plate without need.
His ERA may be effected as a result of his fielder's incompetence.
As of now though, both circumstances do not result in an error.

[Fourslot40]

I'm glad you brought this up Chad because this topic fires me up. Speaking humbly as a former pro catcher and umpire, this blocking the plate rule is absolutely horses*it. Seriously though, it needs to be revisited because several plays this year has been overturned that should not have been and have mattered in games. Catchers train for contact... and sign up for the physicality of the position. Just as well, umpires can easily see, especially in a four-man game whether or not the catcher had blocked the plate illegally without the ball. Make it an umpire judgement call and lose the rule. These former catchers/ current managers today know it's horses*it.

To answer the question though, could be a judgement call. I've seen throws put these catchers in the "line" without fault to the catcher. So it could be an official scorer thing. How about we just award every player in the field an error so that no one player gets his feelings hurt and all runs scored in the inning at that point and beyond are unearned? Kind of like how every kid gets a trophy.

That felt good.

Bosch

[DOUGHBOYS]

I agree.
They have turned a physical play in baseball into a wussy play.
Baseball fans used to hold their breath when an announcer would say, "HERE'S THE THROW! HERE'S THE PLAY AT THE PLATE!"
Now, it is no more exciting than a play at any other base.

In trying to 'protect' a catcher, it has taken away one of the most dramatic plays of the game and turned it into a play that the catcher, base runners, and fans still do not fully understand.

[Fourslot40]

I agree.
They have turned a physical play in baseball into a wussy play.
Baseball fans used to hold their breath when an announcer would say, "HERE'S THE THROW! HERE'S THE PLAY AT THE PLATE!"
Now, it is no more exciting than a play at any other base.

In trying to 'protect' a catcher, it has taken away one of the most dramatic plays of the game and turned it into a play that the catcher, base runners, and fans still do not fully understand.

Well said Dough and in this day and age where MLB has to compete with the action of football and basketball, they are going to need to find ways to make the game exciting for the new generation of fans. People go to hockey to watch fights. I applaud the NHL for keeping that in the game.

[viper]

I can foresee a line crossing the third-to-home baseline about 8-10 feet from home plate. If the catcher has the ball prior to the runner reaching that line, he can be where ever he wants to be. This would be the MLB equivalent to the NBA charge/no charge line.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Worse probably.
In leisure co-ed softball, we have a line that is drawn parallel from home plate to the backstop. Runners are told not to touch home plate, but to cross that line as if it is a finish line in a race. The catcher takes the throw from the field and the play is similar to a play at first base. If ball is caught before the runner reaches the line he is out, if runner beats the throw, he is safe.
Of course these rules would have been laughed at years ago, but there is no stopping the wussification of America.

[Atlas]

This may be a gross over simplification of a larger problem, but why doesn't MLB just require its runners to slide--head first or feet first--into home when there is a play?

If the intent is just to preserve the catcher's health and well being, shouldn't this do it? No collisions.
Screw this line to the plate path or whatever. Let the catcher block as best he can and let the runner take his best shot sliding. If there's contact with a slide, then so be it. Injuries should be few if at all. Those that may occur should be relatively minor.

You want to slide head-first into home with a catcher in gear? Be my guest.
You want to go in cleats first---no different than a play at third--except the defensive player is a little better protected.

Too simple, I guess.
And I'm sure I'm not the first one to voice this option.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Can you imagine the World Series being won or lost on a call like the one we saw yesterday in San Francisco? Why doesn't MLB get in front of this RIGHT NOW and fine tune this rule before it ends up deciding a playoff spot, a playoff game or even the World Series? You know this play is going to come back to bite MLB in the ass this post-season, yet nobody is doing anything about it. Yikes.

[Fourslot40]

Can you imagine the World Series being won or lost on a call like the one we saw yesterday in San Francisco? Why doesn't MLB get in front of this RIGHT NOW and fine tune this rule before it ends up deciding a playoff spot, a playoff game or even the World Series? You know this play is going to come back to bite MLB in the ass this post-season, yet nobody is doing anything about it. Yikes.

When it does Greg, then they will turn tail and make a change. It was a reactive move that was over-reactive. Collisions were rare, but this scenario/ play has a higher probability because it's like a neighborhood play. The umpires themselves are on record for disagreeing with the rule, however they have to call it based on the interpretation set by MLB. They were recently heard sympathizing with one manager after a review that they quote, "know it's "bulls*it". The interpretation of the rule definitely needs tinkering for next season and every manager that this rule worked against should be in the ear of the new commissioner.

What's interesting to me... if we're looking to minimize injuries, how can they do away with plate collisions when the take out slides at second base are far more frequent and dangerous in my opinion?

[Money]

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.js ... mode=video

It simply takes away from the spirit of the game. I just watched it for the first time as I was on the road yesterday. What the FUC# is goIng on with major league baseball.

On top of it they hold the pitcher responsible. Words and any reasoning cannot come close to justifying MLB being so ignorant,

THE GAME OF BASEBALL HAS BECOME A JOKE.

THANKS BUD SELIG. GET THE FRICK OUT!!

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Obviously the rule is asinine. What is the rule exactly? I am curious what difference it makes where in the hell the catcher is standing when the runner is nowhere near home. Where is the line drawn on that? Anytime he is past third and the catcher is blocking the plate it is safe? Or where is the line drawn?

And as for the point of my post. Why is it not an error? And where is it described that it isn't supposed to be as Dough suggested. I don't believe it is. And I absolutely believe it should be an error on the catcher. No way in hell the pitcher should be charged with 4 earned runs because of this ineptitude by his catcher, even though it obviously was a ridiculous call. Should be an error all day on the catcher. This is similar to a routine grounder and somehow first basemen does not have his foot on the bag when he receives the throw. It is certainly an error on the first baseman in that case. Why is this not an error on the catcher here? Because the scorer is an idiot and scored it wrong, that's why, not because it is ordered to be scored that way. The catcher had the ball in plenty of time and made error in not executing the out, just like the first baseman in my example.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I agree that they should be unearned.
But they aren't.
Blaming the catcher is not the way to go. The error is on Major League Baseball.
The rule is murky. The players are feeling their way around the rule. The catcher made a decision he thought was right. Unlike your 1b not touching the base theory, it is a mental error, not physical. The 1b made a physical error in not touching the base.
He KNOWS he is supposed to touch the base.
The catcher made a justified decision in trying to get an out.
The scorer's hands are tied.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Respectfully disagree. Unless you show me that the scorer is instructed to score it this way, I will continue to think it is scored incorrectly. It is similar to my first base example. First baseman thought he was on the base. He wasn't. Catcher though he was good. He wasn't. Same thing.

And the umpires made their decision, no matter how ridiculous. Therefore the blame does need to go to someone on a routine out that was not made. In this case it is indeed the catcher.

[DOUGHBOYS]

The 1b made a physical error. A scorekeeper can rule an error on him.
What the catcher did is more like an infielder thinking that the infield fly rule is in play and letting a ball drop and all runners advance.
It should have been an easy out.
As a scorekeeper, I would love to give the fielder an error. I cannot.
It was a mental error.
If mental errors were at the discretion of the scorekeeper, it would open up a pandora's box.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

This should clear it up. Should be error. Pretty clear cut the catcher obstructed home plate to me, as interpreted by the ridiculous umpire ruling.

c) When an umpire awards the batter or any runner or runners one or more bases because of interference or obstruction, the official scorer shall charge the fielder who committed the interference or obstruction with one error, no matter how many bases the batter, or runner or runners, may advance.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This should clear it up. Should be error. Pretty clear cut the catcher obstructed home plate to me, as interpreted by the ridiculous umpire ruling.

c) When an umpire awards the batter or any runner or runners one or more bases because of interference or obstruction, the official scorer shall charge the fielder who committed the interference or obstruction with one error, no matter how many bases the batter, or runner or runners, may advance.

This is for obstruction. Not the new rule.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Chad, can you send a video of the play?
I am only going on your and others descriptions of the play.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Nowhere in the scoring section is the new rule specifically addressed. It just says if obstruction occurs resulting in an base, it is an error. If you don't think a base was rewarded due to catcher obstruction of home plate, that is your right. I do think so. Nowhere does the scoring say that an error shouldn't be charged due to catcher obstruction call. So going by the scoring rules, I still think it is an error. It even says ANY runner awarded a base. It certainly does not stipulate ANY runner except for those obstructed by the catcher.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Chad, can you send a video of the play?
I am only going on your and others descriptions of the play.

Hopefully this works. Not that it matters what MLB calls it on their website, but the title of it even says catcher obstruction.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/gia ... y=news_mlb

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Nothing to do with error or not, but the other ridiculous thing about it is bat shattered. Flowers hesitated to move as he was unsure where bat was going. Then immediately started to get in position but there was hardly any time to get out of the path before catching the ball. Pretty brutal umpiring in New York.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I understand.
But MLB has not instructed scorekeepers that this is part of the obstruction or interference rule.
Again, an error for MLB.

Wow, just saw the replay you sent.
WHAT A BRUTAL CALL! Just horrible.

Like said, I wish I could give an error, but until MLB instructs it's scorekeepers that the new rule is part of the obstruction rule, I would have ruled this the same as that official scorekeeper.
And I'm considered more of a maverick scorekeeper. So, it's safe to say that every MLB scorekeeper would have ruled the same.
I know you disagree and I see your side clearly.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Yeah they don't even acknowledge the horrible vagueness to the rule which needs to come first, let alone acknowledge how it should be scored.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Yeah they don't even acknowledge the horrible vagueness to the rule which needs to come first, let alone acknowledge how it should be scored.

Agreed in every way.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Along these same lines, I would like to see score keeping changed in baseball in a lot of ways....

Why does a pitcher's ERA suffer with the example that Chad gave?
It shouldn't.
Score keepers should be allowed to use common sense along with scoring a game. Common sense would allow that the runs that scored on and after this play would/should be unearned.
A ball is lost in the sun and the hitter gets a hit. Give him his hit, but common sense dictates that the pitcher should not be penalized.
A fielder throws to the wrong base and a pitcher's ERA suffers.
It's not right.
Common sense, instead of mandatory rules that bind score keepers should be the norm in baseball.
Instead, we have plays like the one Chad displayed, that kills a pitchers ERA, without it being his fault.