Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. 15 Aug '14 08:55
    Any feed back on MLB's new play at the plate rule where you can't block the plate to avoid injury?
  2. 15 Aug '14 08:59 / 1 edit
    I think it takes the play at the plate scenario totally out. The catcher has to stand too far in front of home plate and gives a significant advantage to the runner. I know the Giants Buster Posey suffered a Major injury a few years ago due to a play at the plate, and who could forget Ray Fossey getting bulled over by Pete Rose in the All-star game? Is it part of the game? or is the rule good because possible injury is avoided?
  3. 15 Aug '14 12:46
    I believe that there is no reason to allow the catcher to block the plate without the ball (you can't do that at any base) and there is no reason to have people barrel over the catcher (it's unnecessary contact) but the rule still stinks because it is not clear what is and is not allowed and therefore there is no consistency. Perhaps there should be an area where the catcher is/ isn't permitted to go (without) the ball.
  4. 16 Aug '14 12:15
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I believe that there is no reason to allow the catcher to block the plate without the ball (you can't do that at any base) and there is no reason to have people barrel over the catcher (it's unnecessary contact) but the rule still stinks because it is not clear what is and is not allowed and therefore there is no consistency. Perhaps there should be an area where the catcher is/ isn't permitted to go (without) the ball.
    I like the rule, perhaps you are right and they can fine tune the rule, but it allows more offence into the game, and fewer injuries. it is baseball after all, not football. Its bad enough that a batter has to deal with gettingsmaked in the head with a 95 mph fastball, or that a pitcher has to deal with a line drive to the face…..both on many occasions have been career enders!
  5. 18 Aug '14 04:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bobla45
    I like the rule, perhaps you are right and they can fine tune the rule, but it allows more offence into the game, and fewer injuries. it is baseball after all, not football. Its bad enough that a batter has to deal with gettingsmaked in the head with a 95 mph fastball, or that a pitcher has to deal with a line drive to the face…..both on many occasions have been career enders!
    The rule definitely needs to be clarified. If we factor in plays at the plate by # of injuries though there weren't many injuries. I bet there's more injuries at first base. I know there have been a few major injuries involving catchers, but aren't injuries part of the game? and yes, batter's can get plunked in the head and pitcher's can get hit with a line drive, even a broken bat.
    I just think it doesn't give the defense an equal shot at plays at home. It drastically doesn't. It's not even about blocking the plate, it's just having to stand so far in front of it.
  6. 28 Aug '14 19:46
    If they go back to the old rule, where the catcher could block the plate if he had the ball, and institute a rule that the runner must slide feet first, it eliminates the bowling over that was injuring catchers. Some Little Leagues have done this.
  7. 29 Aug '14 07:09
    I think if they do stick with the current rule, then they at least have to make a catcher's box in chalk or something so the catcher knows where he is allowed to stand, because besides the defense having a disadvantage, there have also been many cases where the catcher was called for interference. At least having this box would let the catcher know where he can be, and would also help during a replay review.