A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
The recent rule changes in football to penalize hits to the helmet have brought increased scrutiny to violent contact plays in sports. Now in the wake of Buster Posey's broken ankle, the sports world's attention is focused on plays at the plate and whether runner-catcher collisions should be given the Pete Rose treatment: banished from baseball forever.
Could it even be done? Could catchers be banned from blocking the plate, or runners be forced to change the way they slide?
Is this a rule change that should be welcomed by our modern sensibilities -- distaste for unnecessary violence, and increased awareness of players' lifelong health?
Or is it an unwelcome intrusion compromising a classic American sports image, and further evidence of the infantilization of our masculine role models?
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
It doesn't really seem like tweaking the rules for plays at the plate would affect the game in a significant way, so I have no strong opinion either way. But I wonder if there's such a thing as making a sport too safe. At some point, all of these rules designed to sissify our mainline sports will drive youngsters to those sports -- ultimate fighting, MMA, boxing, etc -- that still involve some component of danger.
Aug '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
As someone who suffered from many collisions at home plate, I think changing the rule isn't necessarily in the best interest of the sport as sport. In a game where 1 run can make a difference, Catchers blocking the plate can have a significant affect on the opponent's ability to score runs.
The thing is Major League Baseball isn't sport for sport's sake, it is a business. Losing Buster Posey for a Season can have significant affects on the bottom lines of the Giants and MLB. The loss of any talented athlete is a loss of revenue. When Dusty Baker overpitched Mark Prior -- and his coaching staff possibly failed to correct mechanical problems -- the Cubs lost a cash cow.
I love baseball, I love home plate collisions, but a massive shouldering of a player that is in no way an attempt to slide might seem excessive to some.
Jul '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
"....distaste for unnecessary violence, and increased awareness of players' lifelong health?"
They have a choice not to play.
Heck, a lot of times I wonder why some Football Players even wear pads.
If They don't like "unnecessary violence" They can play soccer.
Oct '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
If you can't barrel over the 2nd baseman to break up a double play, why is it ok to barrel over the catcher to score? Can anyone answer that apparent contradiction?
If the rules were enforced as written - the catcher is not allowed to block the plate if he does not have the ball - then there wouldn't really be an issue. (Actually, no player is allowed to block any base if that player doesn't have the ball.)
Sep '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
I hate to see guys injured and I wish I'd never gotten hurt and that I still had my acl, meniscus etc but I love contact sports, watching and playing even as an old guy. The concussion thing in football is serious and I think they are probably handling it right but in general fewer rules make for better games ...kinda like gubmint. Violence happens. I've seen some serious injuries in soccer too by the way.
Edited on May 28, 2011 at 5:47pmOct '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
I also think it's greatly overstating the case to suggest that eliminating home plate collisions would emasculate the sport. The collision is a rarity. It's not like fighting in the NHL or sacking the quarterback in the NFL, both of which are commonplace and violent, the elimination of which could, arguably, sissify those sports.
Banning home plate collisions would have a negligible impact on the substance of the game, but it would eliminate an event that usually turns out badly for at least one of the combatants.
Regarding the argument that runs are key and that 1 run can make a difference...most of the time the runner doesn't dislodge the ball from the catcher and is out, anyway, so really, what is gained by allowing collisions vs. what is lost?
(In the Buster Posey case, he never even had possession of the ball, so the collision wasn't even necessary. In the Ray Fosse/Pete Rose case, it was the freakin' All-Star Game, and back at a time when the outcome didn't matter.)
Edited on May 28, 2011 at 5:55pmMay '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
If shortstops and second basemen wore all that gear, they'd get creamed, too.
Take this for what it is - an owner who sees his all-star on the sidelines.
But guys who've played the game and still do think a rule change is unwarranted. Buck Martinez (MLB 1969-1986) "The throw is always going to take you into harm's way. If it's up the third-base line, you have to move into the path of the baserunner."
Brad Ausmus, who retired last season after 19 years catching in the majors, "There's a difference between a clean play and a dirty play. If you're just trying to hit the catcher, that's dirty. But if you're trying to keep the catcher from catching the ball so you can score a run, that's clean."
The Red Sox Jason Varitek agrees. "Catching, you're usually not on the winning end of those. Period," Varitek said. "Some things are part of the game."
Mar '11
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
Seeing that photo of the Braves in the '91 series hurt this suffering Pirates fan far too deeply to contemplate your post. Forgive me.
Oct '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
EJHill
If shortstops and second basemen wore all that gear, they'd get creamed, too.
"All that gear?" Catchers' gear is designed to protect the catcher from a pitched/fouled ball, which is why the plate umpire wears nearly identical gear. If catchers' gear were intended to protect them against a 200-pound man running full-steam at them, then umpires' gear would be appreciably lighter and less protective. But it's not. Catchers' gear and umpires' gear are one and the same, and only designed to protect them against balls.
Put football players in catchers' gear and see how many are left standing at the end of a game.
Better yet, put the catcher in football gear, and then we're talking apples and apples. But of course that would make his job nearly impossible. Which is why home plate collisions ought to be banned.
Oct '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
EJHill
Brad Ausmus: "But if you're trying to keep the catcher from catching the ball so you can score a run, that's clean."
The Red Sox' Varitek said. "Some things are part of the game."
Not the sharpest tools in the shed:
Spitballs and getting a player "out" by throwing the ball at him and hitting him were "part of the game" (Varitek) at one time, too. So the "some things are part of the game" argument is lame. Taken to its logical extension, there should never be, and should never have been, changes to the original rules.
Ausmus: "But if you're trying to keep the catcher from catching the ball..." well, then, you're actually interfering with the fielder trying to play the ball and you're "out." By rule.
Martinez: "The throw is always going to take you into harm's way. If it's up the third-base line..." - Huh?? But it's not always up the third-base line.
Jul '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
Where's Ursula on the matter?
Aug '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
keep your hands off my home plate collisions. Man up, I say.
Dec '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
Life is a contact sport.
The younger folks learn that, the better able they are to survive it.
Instead of trying to adjust reality to fit their sensibilities, perhaps they ought to try adjusting their sensibilities to fit reality for a change.
You all are discussing mandating that a full grown adult man refrain from making physical contact with his opponent while competing on the field of sport.
Something like that already exists, it's called Ballroom Dancing.
Also, everyone is talking like these two guys are set in motion by irresistible forces on an unalterable collision course, such that they have no choice but to run into one another head long at max speed.
That's not the case. At any point in the process, one or both of them could decide that this is stupid, and try another tactic. They make the choice, based on risk vs reward, and they live with the results.
You'd have a hard time finding a better metaphor for the nanny state than an umpire breaking into the middle of the play to prevent the players from risking injury to win the game (IE acceptable risk levels mandated through regulatory fiat).
Oct '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
CoolHand: Life is a contact sport.
You all are discussing mandating that a full grown adult man refrain from making physical contact with his opponent while competing on the field of sport.
You'd have a hard time finding a better metaphor for the nanny state than an umpire breaking into the middle of the play to prevent the players from risking injury to win the game (IE acceptable risk levels mandated through regulatory fiat). · May 29 at 12:38am
"Life is a contact sport." Yes, with rules. What's your point?
"You'd have a hard time finding a better metaphor..." Who is suggesting that an umpire "(break) into the middle of the play?"
Straw men and red herrings, folks. That's all I've seen so far in defense of collisions.
Batting helmets were made mandatory in 1971, ear flaps in 1983! What a travesty! Man up, you say? I presume you think helmets should still be optional?
Again, can anyone explain why it's not ok to barrel over the 2nd baseman turning a double play but it's ok to barrel over the catcher? (I think I've already debunked the "equipment" argument.)
Oct '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
CoolHand:
You all are discussing mandating that a full grown adult man refrain from making physical contact with his opponent while competing on the field of sport.
That's true...so what? Every sport has rules governing physical contact one player may and may not make with his opponent.
Hockey has boarding and charging penalties (among others), football has penalties for illegal blocking (e.g. clipping) and tackling (e.g. clotheslining), basketball has charging and blocking penalties, even baseball has rules prohibiting certain contact between competitors (e.g. breaking up the double-play, or slapping the fielder's glove a la the Evil Empire's A-Roid in the 2004 ALCS).
Again, nothing but straw man/red herring arguments. Seems to me no one has yet made a compelling case for permitting home plate collisions, nor refuted the arguments I've made for banning them.
Jan '11
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
Well, you can rule the game into boredom, but that wouldn't be cricket. Or, would it?
May '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
I know. I've worn that gear for 30 years as an umpire in High School and sandlots.
First, by rule, a runner is allowed an unobstructed path to his next legal base. If you look at the Posey play from the low 1st base camera, Buster clearly positioned himself in the baseline and never, ever had possession of the baseball. (Start at 1:05 of the video)
It was a clean play. Stop the wussification. I don't care that you have the Giants catcher on your fantasy team.
Apr '11
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
EJHill I don't know what video he watched, but Posey is clearly in front of home plate and the base "is open!" The runner clearly moved a bit inside the baseline and lowered his shoulder for the hit. Intent to injure?
May '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
dittoheadadt
Seems to me no one has yet made a compelling case for permitting home plate collisions, nor refuted the arguments I've made for banning them.
You are saying that by enforcing the rule as written, you could eliminate collisions? How does the umpire determine who is responsible for the contact?
Jul '10
Re: A Man's Home(plate) Is His Castle
As opposed to spiking him?
Same reason it's more acceptable at first, but not third: because running through home plate (like first base) is part of the game.