SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,970
- Like
- 65,509
The Mets game tonight had a controversy in which a Mets player was trying to score in the 9th inning. The opposing catcher had his foot on the line in front go the plate before the ball got there but it arrived before the runner, who was tagged out.
Terry Collins called for a review. The Mets announcers were appalled, not with the call but with the rule about catchers blocking the plate. Bobby Ojeda in the post games how said "I don't know what's happened to the game I used to play. The out call was confirmed and the Mets announcers were glad it was, as was I.
But it's not an old rule. In Bill James' first Historical Baseball Abstract (1985), he has an article on page 190 called "Blocking an Tackling the Plate" Exceprts:
"The modern method of blocking the plate, is, quite simply, illegal. If you read the rule book. (Rule 7.06B), it is quite clear that the catcher is not allowed to block home plate in any way, shape or form without having the ball in his hand, period. The rules say that and, until about 1940, that is exactly what they meant... I started looking through the guides of the twenties and thirties, looking for home plate collision. There aren't any that would register by modern standards. There are plenty of photographs of plays art home plate and sometimes they run into each other, but not like now.Baseball obstruction was a major problem in the 1880's and nineties, when baseball was in danger of becoming a contact sport. In 1897 the rules on obstruction were tightened up and the principle of free access to the bases met with general acceptance at the other three positions. . There was always something of a problem with catcher blocking the plate but there were always limits."
"In 1922 two games were protested because of the intractability of catchers . National League President John Heydler ruled..."The decisions made by the umpires ...are decisions based solely on the umpire's judgment as to whether or not the runner betas the ball". In other words, the principle that you not to block the plate until you actually had the ball was still taken seriously at the time. And what did they eman by blocking off the plate? "Umpire Moran reports that catcher Earl Smith's left knee was in front of the corner of the plate nearest the left foul line, the imprint of his shin guard being plain on the rain soaked ground; but that there remained considerable uncovered plate for Schmandt to touch." And that, more or less, is the position the catcher occupies in all the shots of home plate collisions that you well see from that era. There are no pictures of collisions occurring several feet up the line. Now, of course the catcher sets up eight feet down the line and wrestles the runner until help arrives...No one is expected to leave the heart of the plate open."
James goes on to try to figure out when things changed and decides it was gradual but accelerated in "the last fifteen to twenty years", which would have been 1965 or 70 to 1985.
"It is in principle most dangerous to have rules in the book which are not enforced, or to have one set of rules written down and another acted out. That is exactly how many of the game's controversies have erupted, including the Pine Tar Incident and Merkle's Boner...Having laws on the books that are not (consistently) enforced puts every policeman in the robes of a judge, empowered to decide who the guilty are today."
I think the rule should be that if there is contact between the runner and the catcher before the ball gets there and the catcher left the runner no route to the plate, the runner should be safe. If the catcher blocks the plate before he has the ball but receives it, (as in the Mets play), before the runner gets there, there is no violation. And if they really want to get rid of collisions and the resulting injuries, how about simply making a tag still count even if the player making it loses control of the ball after a collision. Then the runner has no motivation to try to knock over the defender.
Terry Collins called for a review. The Mets announcers were appalled, not with the call but with the rule about catchers blocking the plate. Bobby Ojeda in the post games how said "I don't know what's happened to the game I used to play. The out call was confirmed and the Mets announcers were glad it was, as was I.
But it's not an old rule. In Bill James' first Historical Baseball Abstract (1985), he has an article on page 190 called "Blocking an Tackling the Plate" Exceprts:
"The modern method of blocking the plate, is, quite simply, illegal. If you read the rule book. (Rule 7.06B), it is quite clear that the catcher is not allowed to block home plate in any way, shape or form without having the ball in his hand, period. The rules say that and, until about 1940, that is exactly what they meant... I started looking through the guides of the twenties and thirties, looking for home plate collision. There aren't any that would register by modern standards. There are plenty of photographs of plays art home plate and sometimes they run into each other, but not like now.Baseball obstruction was a major problem in the 1880's and nineties, when baseball was in danger of becoming a contact sport. In 1897 the rules on obstruction were tightened up and the principle of free access to the bases met with general acceptance at the other three positions. . There was always something of a problem with catcher blocking the plate but there were always limits."
"In 1922 two games were protested because of the intractability of catchers . National League President John Heydler ruled..."The decisions made by the umpires ...are decisions based solely on the umpire's judgment as to whether or not the runner betas the ball". In other words, the principle that you not to block the plate until you actually had the ball was still taken seriously at the time. And what did they eman by blocking off the plate? "Umpire Moran reports that catcher Earl Smith's left knee was in front of the corner of the plate nearest the left foul line, the imprint of his shin guard being plain on the rain soaked ground; but that there remained considerable uncovered plate for Schmandt to touch." And that, more or less, is the position the catcher occupies in all the shots of home plate collisions that you well see from that era. There are no pictures of collisions occurring several feet up the line. Now, of course the catcher sets up eight feet down the line and wrestles the runner until help arrives...No one is expected to leave the heart of the plate open."
James goes on to try to figure out when things changed and decides it was gradual but accelerated in "the last fifteen to twenty years", which would have been 1965 or 70 to 1985.
"It is in principle most dangerous to have rules in the book which are not enforced, or to have one set of rules written down and another acted out. That is exactly how many of the game's controversies have erupted, including the Pine Tar Incident and Merkle's Boner...Having laws on the books that are not (consistently) enforced puts every policeman in the robes of a judge, empowered to decide who the guilty are today."
I think the rule should be that if there is contact between the runner and the catcher before the ball gets there and the catcher left the runner no route to the plate, the runner should be safe. If the catcher blocks the plate before he has the ball but receives it, (as in the Mets play), before the runner gets there, there is no violation. And if they really want to get rid of collisions and the resulting injuries, how about simply making a tag still count even if the player making it loses control of the ball after a collision. Then the runner has no motivation to try to knock over the defender.
