Soxfest Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,7800926.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I always enjoyed watching those collisions but I understand it. Players are paid to play, not sit in the trainers rooms due to a collision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Seriously? Its one of the most exciting plays in the sport. This is baseball, not simulated war like the NFL. You can let them run into each other (especially with one dude wearing enough armor to stop a 100 mph rock) once every so often without incurring a lawsuit. The nice thing about baseball is that its not terribly unsafe or physically ruinous, so it could withstand the onslaught of bleeding hearts without sacrificing its integrity. Guess not. I hope the owners vote it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Such an obvious decision. Two of the best young catchers in the game missed a lot of games because of home plate collisions, really no need for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 If they would just enforce the current rule where the catcher cannot block the plate until he has the ball, it would cut out most of these plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 11, 2013 -> 07:18 PM) Seriously? Its one of the most exciting plays in the sport. This is baseball, not simulated war like the NFL. You can let them run into each other (especially with one dude wearing enough armor to stop a 100 mph rock) once every so often without incurring a lawsuit. The nice thing about baseball is that its not terribly unsafe or physically ruinous, so it could withstand the onslaught of bleeding hearts without sacrificing its integrity. Guess not. I hope the owners vote it down. Duke, I'm guessing here but the owners are the ones paying the ever increasing salaries so they very well could be all for it. They want to protect their investments. As a fan I think it blows but if I was an owner I would be for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StL Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Pete Rose is none to thrilled about the ruling: ''What are they going to do next, you can't break up a double play?'' Pete Rose said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ''You're not allowed to pitch inside. The hitters wear more armor than the Humvees in Afghanistan. Now you're not allowed to be safe at home plate? What's the game coming to? Evidently the guys making all these rules never played the game of baseball.'' http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-intends-b...19721--mlb.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 11, 2013 -> 07:32 PM) Such an obvious decision. Two of the best young catchers in the game missed a lot of games because of home plate collisions, really no need for them. I firmly believe baseball is one of the rare sports that most of the rules are best left alone. Your citing two catchers in today's game whereas many catchers in the past have had their careers altered one way or another due to a number of instances. (funny seeing the Rose quote, although I agree with him, where Ray Fosse was never the same after his collision with Pistol Pete) Injuries happen, it's part of the game. Any number of freak accidents can screw up a player's career anyways. That's what makes this game so great and why guys like Ripkin Jr. and guys before him do amazing things in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 07:02 AM) I firmly believe baseball is one of the rare sports that most of the rules are best left alone. Your citing two catchers in today's game whereas many catchers in the past have had their careers altered one way or another due to a number of instances. (funny seeing the Rose quote, although I agree with him, where Ray Fosse was never the same after his collision with Pistol Pete) Injuries happen, it's part of the game. Any number of freak accidents can screw up a player's career anyways. That's what makes this game so great and why guys like Ripkin Jr. and guys before him do amazing things in that regard. So because catchers in the past had their careers ruined by home plate collisions, it would ruin the integrity of the game if present day catchers weren't allowed to face the same fate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 07:48 AM) So because catchers in the past had their careers ruined by home plate collisions, it would ruin the integrity of the game if present day catchers weren't allowed to face the same fate? I'm saying it doesn't matter in either case. Injuries can happen on any play or even in practice shagging fly balls. Should baseball ban head first sliding? I've seen more injuries there then in home plate collisions. Why take out something that's been a part of baseball (that anyone whose played baseball growing up) for centuries because of two freak accidents to young catchers as you said. Maybe I don't understand it.. (your talking to a guy whose still not a fan of instant replay though so I'm bias, and before any of the noobs jump on me, I'm not an old timer like Walsh, Yasny, Jim, Tex etc. here.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 08:00 AM) I'm saying it doesn't matter in either case. Injuries can happen on any play or even in practice shagging fly balls. Should baseball ban head first sliding? I've seen more injuries there then in home plate collisions. Why take out something that's been a part of baseball (that anyone whose played baseball growing up) for centuries because of two freak accidents to young catchers as you said. Maybe I don't understand it.. (your talking to a guy whose still not a fan of instant replay though so I'm bias, and before any of the noobs jump on me, I'm not an old timer like Walsh, Yasny, Jim, Tex etc. here.) A freak injury is when you tear your ACL shagging fly balls. A freak injury is when you slide and your foot gets caught. It's not a freak injury when a catcher is trying to catch a ball while someone runs into him at full speed from a different direction. You've seen more injuries in head first sliding because that happens multiple times a game, home plate collisions are much more rare. If it's such an integral part of the game, why don't they allow collisions at 2nd & 3rd base? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 A freak injury is when you tear your ACL shagging fly balls. A freak injury is when you slide and your foot gets caught. It's not a freak injury when a catcher is trying to catch a ball while someone runs into him at full speed from a different direction. You've seen more injuries in head first sliding because that happens multiple times a game, home plate collisions are much more rare. If it's such an integral part of the game, why don't they allow collisions at 2nd & 3rd base? Because at 2nd and 3rd base, you can be tagged out if you overrun the base, which is likely if you barrel into the defender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 08:25 AM) Because at 2nd and 3rd base, you can be tagged out if you overrun the base, which is likely if you barrel into the defender. Not if he drops the ball after you take him out. Isn't that the whole point of barrelling into the defender? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Not if he drops the ball after you take him out. Isn't that the whole point of barrelling into the defender? Right, but you still have to make it back to the bag even if you jar the ball loose, and your momentum is going to carry you several feet past. Doesn't matter at home how far past the plate your momentum takes you--that's why it's different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 08:44 AM) Right, but you still have to make it back to the bag even if you jar the ball loose, and your momentum is going to carry you several feet past. Doesn't matter at home how far past the plate your momentum takes you--that's why it's different. I've seen several home plate collisions where the runner misses the plate while running into the catcher. Then, while the catcher is writhing in pain without the ball, the runner comes back and touches home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StL Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) If you feel like a runner barreling in to a catcher is good for the game, that's one thing. But history tells us that the most illogical reason to continue a thing is because 'its always been done that way.' Ive been in the navy for 16 years and a lot of the old traditions and hazing and rights of passages have been eliminate because they are dangerous, archaic and unnecessary in this new age where we are smarter and more informed than we were about certain things 50+ years ago. Its dangerous to allow these types of plays simply out of some since of 'tradition.' The question here is, is tradition more important than health? A catcher is a sitting duck on plays like that. why not use our heads and outlaw it so no one else ends up like Vosse? Whats the worst than can happen? The game gets ruined because we cant do plays like that anymore? Edited December 12, 2013 by StL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I have no problem with the catcher getting run over if they are blocking the plate. It is when the catcher is in front of the plate or barely covering it and the runner aims for the catcher instead of trying to score that I don't like. But if they are going to ban collisions, they had better start enforcing no blocking of the plate without the ball or runners are going to start coming in spikes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I wish doctors still prescribed fen-phen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 09:03 AM) I have no problem with the catcher getting run over if they are blocking the plate. It is when the catcher is in front of the plate or barely covering it and the runner aims for the catcher instead of trying to score that I don't like. But if they are going to ban collisions, they had better start enforcing no blocking of the plate without the ball or runners are going to start coming in spikes up. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 09:03 AM) I have no problem with the catcher getting run over if they are blocking the plate. It is when the catcher is in front of the plate or barely covering it and the runner aims for the catcher instead of trying to score that I don't like. But if they are going to ban collisions, they had better start enforcing no blocking of the plate without the ball or runners are going to start coming in spikes up. A great slide and a cloud of dirt is more exciting to me than seeing if the runner can knock the ball of the catcher's glove by hitting him hard enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 But then we don't get this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Guys have been hurt running into OF walls. BAN OUTFIELDS. Guys have been hurt pitching. BAN PITCHING. Guys have been hurt running to 1st base. BAN FIRST BASE. If your career is in pro sports there's an inherent risk that injury will f*** up your career. Its not the games' job to put big fluffy pillows on everything and ban any contact between players and the outside world. Its surely not the fans responsibility to see the game's integrity and entertainment value compromised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) Guys have been hurt running into OF walls. BAN OUTFIELDS. Guys have been hurt pitching. BAN PITCHING. Guys have been hurt running to 1st base. BAN FIRST BASE. If your career is in pro sports there's an inherent risk that injury will f*** up your career. Its not the games' job to put big fluffy pillows on everything and ban any contact between players and the outside world. Its surely not the fans responsibility to see the game's integrity and entertainment value compromised. None of those are related to guys intentionally going to to cause bodily harm. If an ump believes a guy is throwing at another intentionally, that person is warned or thrown out and then fined. If it's done unintentionally, there is no consequence. It's all about intent. You may accidentally step on someone's ankle and crush it running to first (see Tim Hudson) or you may accidentally run head first into another player (see Beltran/Cameron from about 7 years ago), or whatever other accidents you can think of. You aren't going to accidentally try and destroy a catcher by colliding with him. Catchers take enough abuse. There's no need to subject them to getting blindsided by a 220 pound dude comprised entirely of muscle barreling in at full speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (StL @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 06:15 AM) Pete Rose is none to thrilled about the ruling: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-intends-b...19721--mlb.html That is an epic old man rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.