Buster Posey injured

[lollipopcurve]

It's a self-policing dynamic.

If you don't want to get run over, don't stand in the baseline.

If you decide to plow into the catcher, plan on subsequently seeing a whole lot of high & tight fastballs each time you step into the batters box against the catcher's teammates.

Says it all.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Posey also knowingly put himself at risk when he chose to play catcher at whatever stage in his life he did that. He and his agent shouldn't act totally in shock that this took place. They know the risks, they know the deal.

Collisions at the plate are an unnecessary part of the game and completely avoidable with a simple rule change.

That's a different thing then arguing there should be a rule against foul balls hitting the catcher....

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by jojo

Sure there is...senseless violence is not aesthetically pleasing.

Pretty much all of history and most of modern culture disagrees with you.

Plus the violence is not senseless. It occurs within the context of the game, just like football, basketball, boxing, MMA, and most other sports.

Why not? You've just argued that there is inherently more drama in knowing that a play could result in two grown men knocking the bejeezus out of one another... Rather than a slipperly slope, it's a logical extension of your argument. If it is inherently more interesting (i.e. more drama) and removing it from the game would significantly cheapen the game, then why not add more of the element? What would be the logical argument for not making every play associated with a potential for a more violent outcome?

This would be like me claiming you want to outlaw pitching inside in order to protect batters from beanballs. But you never said that, just like I never said I wanted to add violence to the game.

[IslandRed]

Stuff happens.

Having said that, after watching the replay several times, I can't help but conclude it was unnecessary. The plate was not actually blocked at any point. I think Cousins knew the throw was going to beat him and his only chance was to take out the catcher, as evidenced by his changing course away from the straight line to home plate to do it.

Part of the game, I guess, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by jojo

Collisions at the plate are an unnecessary part of the game and completely avoidable with a simple rule change.

Isn't it really more of a simple rule enforcement?

There is no rule that allows the catcher to block the plate without the ball, it's something that has never been enforced.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Complete fluke injury based on how Posey's leg was planted. Now watch MLB completely overreact and change the rules of the game.

They do it in football all the time now. A big player goes down, they have to change the rules of the entire sport. When Tom Brady was lost for the season, "no more diving at a QBs legs." (Notice they didn't make the change when it happened to Carson Palmer, only when it was Brady.)

T.O. got "horse-collared" and broke his leg? We better hurry up and change the rules of the game.

It's ridiculous and I hope MLB doesn't follow suit. I don't care about a few fluke plays like Ray Fosse and Buster Posey. Don't go changing the rules. Blocking the plate/taking out the catcher is part of the sport.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

Pretty much all of history and most of modern culture disagrees with you.

Plus the violence is not senseless. It occurs within the context of the game, just like football, basketball, boxing, MMA, and most other sports.

It's unnecessary for the context of the game. But if unnecessary violation makes the game more relevant then increasing the level of violence would be a more compelling argument than arguing such violence is appropriately limited to plays at the plate.

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

This would be like me claiming you want to outlaw pitching inside in order to protect batters from beanballs. But you never said that, just like I never said I wanted to add violence to the game.

Pitching within all areas of strike zone is obviously a necessary and integral part of the game and stepping into the batters box carries with it an inherent level of risk that is unavoidable but mitigated by the knowledge that baseball rules forbid purposefully throwing at the batter.

The notion that baseball should increase the level of violence is a logical extension of an argument that violence makes the game more relevant. Outlawing the inside pitch is not a logical extension of the argument that unnecessary violence should not be permitted.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Isn't it really more of a simple rule enforcement?

There is no rule that allows the catcher to block the plate without the ball, it's something that has never been enforced.

That's probably true but it's such an engrained thing that a specific rule might need to be written.

I'm not a fan of turning baseball tradition upside down because it's a large part of the beauty of the game IMHO. But plowing a catcher to me is something that the game wouldn't miss and removing that potential IMHO, wouldn't diminish the drama of watching Bruce attempt to gun down a runner at the plate with two outs in the 9th inning of game 7 of the world series with the Reds up by one.....

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by jojo

Pitching within all areas of strike zone is obviously a necessary and integral part of the game and stepping into the batters box carries with it an inherent level of risk that is unavoidable but mitigated by the knowledge that baseball rules forbid purposefully throwing at the batter.

The notion that baseball should increase the level of violence is a logical extension of an argument that violence makes the game more relevant. Outlawing the inside pitch is not a logical extension of the argument that unnecessary violence should not be permitted.

Nope. Not biting.

[Roy Tucker]

So, I confess. Call me a Neanderthal and a troglodyte. I like big collisions at home plate.

I don't like guys getting hurt, but if you ever want to get fans talking, bring up classic home plate collisions and people light up like Christmas trees. At least the lowbrow fans I hang with.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

Nope. Not biting.

There's no biting to it. I think one argument is more compelling than the other and the more compelling one is the one that refutes the notion that collisions at home are essential to the game because it's actually much harder to defend the position that such collisions are necessary.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by mth123

Its really that simple.

I second that

[757690]

Scoring is the most essential part of the game. It is the game. Taking away one way to score significantly changes the game.

There currently are rules governing it, such as the catcher must be blocking home plate in order for a runner to be allowed to attempt to run over him. Johnny Bench developed a technique that protected the catcher and still allowed him to tag the runner out with the same effficiancy as blocking the plate.

So catchers have a choice. Unfortunately for Posey, he just did a bad job of executing Bench's Technique, and got hurt. If everyone plays by the current rules and executes properly, no one gets hurt.

[Danny Serafini]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

So, I confess. Call me a Neanderthal and a troglodyte. I like big collisions at home plate.

I don't like guys getting hurt, but if you ever want to get fans talking, bring up classic home plate collisions and people light up like Christmas trees. At least the lowbrow fans I hang with.

One of the most unforgettable plays from the 1990 Reds:

http://youtu.be/fLTmd4Ni974

It still makes me smile.

Edit: I'm an oaf! Can someone please tell me how to embed a video? Thanks

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by jojo

There's no biting to it. I think one argument is more compelling than the other and the more compelling one is the one that refutes the notion that collisions at home are essential to the game because it's actually much harder to defend the position that such collisions are necessary.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.