Buster Posey injured

[RANDY IN INDY]

In the travel baseball that my son plays, you have to make an effort to slide at home plate in every case. No running over the catcher, period. We had some contact a couple of weeks ago when the catcher of the other team was 6 feet up the line, without the ball, in the baseline. One of our kids took him out, and was called out for not making an attempt to slide. My argument was the kid was in the baseline, without the ball and if the runner would have attempted to slide, he would have had to start the slide 9 feet from home plate and would have no chance of getting there. I hate the rule, because it has allowed catchers to come out and block the plate in a way that you have no chance of scoring with a slide and they have no fear of any contact.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by 757690

If he gets hurt, that was his choice. What's wrong with that?

It's unnecessary and he doesn't have a choice because he'll be benched if he doesn't.

Collisions at the plate are completely unnecessary. This logic holds for every other base and it DOES "make too much sense".

[757690]

Originally Posted by jojo

It's unnecessary and he doesn't have a choice because he'll be benched if he doesn't.

Collisions at the plate are completely unnecessary. This logic holds for every other base and it DOES "make too much sense".

Many catchers choose to not block the plate.

Scoring is completely unnecessary? That's why it only happens at home plate.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by 757690

Many catchers choose to not block the plate.

Scoring is completely unnecessary? That's why it only happens at home plate.

But you have to get on base in order to score. Why not tackle the first baseman?

If the catcher can block the plate to prevent scoring, why not play it safe and block the runner before he even gets past second?

Rather than having to round all bases to score a run, why not let a runner kick the ball through some posts for half a run?

Tackling a catcher in order to score is a completely unnecessary part of the game.

[RANDY IN INDY]

The game is set up in such a way that collisions at the plate are going to happen. The game dictates that you must stay on the base at 2nd and 3rd, so running through the defenders makes no sense in those cases. On occasion, you see collisions at first base, where the runner can run through the bag, and at times the first baseman gets too much of the bag on an errant throw. At home plate, once you touch it, you don't have to go back. If the catcher is using his body and protective equipment to block it, the runner should, no less, be able to use his body to get the catcher and his protective equipment out of the way. Usually is not a problem, but on occasion, someone is going to get hurt. Nature of the game. Nothing more. I don't have any problem with it, at all.

[757690]

Originally Posted by jojo

But you have to get on base in order to score. Why not tackle the first baseman?

If the catcher can block the plate to prevent scoring, why not play it safe and block the runner before he even gets past second?

Rather than having to round all bases to score a run, why not let a runner kick the ball through some posts for half a run?

Tackling a catcher in order to score is a completely unnecessary part of the game.

If the goal is to sell cars, you do things to get someone to sign the sales contract that you don't do to get them to test drive it.

A doctor will cut off a leg if keeping it will kill them, but not if keeping it will lead to them getting sick.

Slippery slope arguments are neither logical nor convincing.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by 757690

If the goal is to sell cars, you do things to get someone to sign the sales contract that you don't do to get them to test drive it.

A doctor will cut off a leg if keeping it will kill them, but not if keeping it will lead to them getting sick.

Slippery slope arguments are neither logical nor convincing.

It's not a slippery slope argument. It IS the logical extension of your position.

[757690]

Originally Posted by jojo

It's not a slippery slope argument. It IS the logical extension of your position.

I think the examples I provided prove otherwise. You obviously think otherwise. Not much more to say.

[oneupper]

Here's an angle:

Would we be talking about this if it were Kelly Shoppach, Chris Synder, Craig Tatum or even our own Ryan Hannigan? (Well WE would be talking about Hannigan, I refer to others).

I don't think so.

Only the young and talented deserve protection, it appears.

[icehole3]

Is this a legit trading partner?

[remdog]

Randy is SO RIGHT.

You are allowed to defend your position but you are supposed to have a reasonable chance of having the ball in that situation. The runner also is allowed to decide his approach to the base. In this case, the runner made a choice and Posey made a choice. It's just the way it worked out. It's called baseball and I'm not interested in seeing catchers wearing ballerina skirts---heck, they already wear enough equipment.

[VR]

has graced us with their judgement from their place of higher standing as baseball experts....


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6608210


Several jewels such as this....

"But it wasn't a necessary play. He was hunting. Buster gave him an option and he didn't take it."

Brandon Phillips just keeps looking smarter.

[RedFanAlways1966]

I don't care who pays him these days... I agree with what he said about that play and Scott Cousins. I have watched that play numerous times. Posey gave him a clear path to the plate and was positioned at the very front of the batters box when ready for the tag. Posey did start his positioning (about the time that the RF makes starts the throw) with his left leg blocking the baseline, but quickly moved out of the way as the throw was heading home.

Cousins has one thing on his mind (one thing at two different times). As he rounds third he is thinking about scoring. As he gets 1/2 way home he is thinking about bowling over the catcher. He has no idea where the plate is nor does he care. He cares only about destroying Posey first and then worries about touching home next. As a matter of fact he may have accidently touched home during the collision, but gets up and touches it again b/c he had no clue about touching home as he arrived there. Should I even bother mentioning forearms, elbows and a shoulder that were used to destroy another player who WAS NOT IN THE BASELINE.

Let the call stand and let the umpire call it safe or out. However, the league should take action to protect the players. You know... like having them wear batting helmets, protective cups, catchers equipment, etc. All cllisions should be reviewed after the game by the league. If malicious intent is determined, then you get a suspension and fine. Malicious intent? You may only make contact if the baseline is blocked. If a catcher is blatantly blocking the basebline, he s/b suspended/fined and the umpire should rule a runner safe if he determines the basepath was blocked.

I do not blame Scott Cousins. This is the game that these players have been taught. However, there is NO ROOM for physical contact like this in baseball. Regardless of the past. It is dangerous and has no place in basbeball.

[VR]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

I don't care who pays him these days... I agree with what he said about that play and Scott Cousins. I have watched that play numerous times. Posey gave him a clear path to the plate and was positioned at the very front of the batters box when ready for the tag. Posey did start his positioning (about the time that the RF makes starts the throw) with his left leg blocking the baseline, but quickly moved out of the way as the throw was heading home.

Cousins has one thing on his mind (one thing at two different times). As he rounds third he is thinking about scoring. As he gets 1/2 way home he is thinking about bowling over the catcher. He has no idea where the plate is nor does he care. He cares only about destroying Posey first and then worries about touching home next. As a matter of fact he may have accidently touched home during the collision, but gets up and touches it again b/c he had no clue about touching home as he arrived there. Should I even bother mentioning forearms, elbows and a shoulder that were used to destroy another player who WAS NOT IN THE BASELINE.

Let the call stand and let the umpire call it safe or out. However, the league should take action to protect the players. You know... like having them wear batting helmets, protective cups, catchers equipment, etc. All cllisions should be reviewed after the game by the league. If malicious intent is determined, then you get a suspension and fine. Malicious intent? You may only make contact if the baseline is blocked. If a catcher is blatantly blocking the basebline, he s/b suspended/fined and the umpire should rule a runner safe if he determines the basepath was blocked.

I do not blame Scott Cousins. This is the game that these players have been taught. However, there is NO ROOM for physical contact like this in baseball. Regardless of the past. It is dangerous and has no place in basbeball.

I think this is where it gets clouded. If Posey catches it a 1/2 second earlier....he swivels his left leg into the baseline and the runner doesn't get close to touching home plate. Cousins has to be expecting that to be the action.....as it is core to catching technique.

Had he slid....he may have broken his own ankle.

This is the conundrum that's been created at home plate by allowing catchers to block the plate with their protective gear on.

[Chip R]

I remember many years ago, Albert Belle creamed a 2nd baseman who was trying to tag him but was right in the baseline. A lot of people criticized him mainly because he wasn't a nice guy and not because he ran over the 2nd baseman. I don't believe Belle was ejected and he may have even been safe at 2nd. That always made me think why if you can run over a catcher, you can't run over a 2nd baseman or third baseman or SS on a tag play. Sure, they aren't wearing the equipment a catcher is but as the Posey incident has shown, they are as vunerable as anyone.