416 replies to this topic

[smegma]

Poor Posey, poor Giants, poor fans. It's never good when one of your players gets injured, let alone a linchpin one. I hope he has a great recovery, and I hope Cousins doesn't take it too hard - it was a clean play, shit happens.

My worst baseball memory is when my favorite baseball player of all time, Robin Ventura, slid into home plate during a spring training game. There was no contact, but apparently his cleat caught in the side of the plate and broke his ankle so bad when he lifted his leg, his foot was over 90 degrees off. People in the stands fainted and many networks aired disclaimers before they showed the injury - some wouldn't air it at all. They said he was done for. After surgeries, therapy, and a shit ton of work he was able to come back later that year. You never know what these doctors can do these days!

[Bronn Stone]

jaeherys, on 26 May 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

I guess people forget about Pete Rose and ray Fosse in the 1970 all star game.

That is always on my mind when I see a nasty collision at the plate. I am old enough to have watched that one (I was six, so I am not 100% sure my memory isn't playing tricks, but I do remember the aftermath).  But even in the rough-and-tumble olden days, that was considered wrong by just about everyone not named Pete.  Big contracts changed the mindset somewhat - injure someone permanently these days and you are costing him millions.  But in extra innings, in a game between contenders, that sort of contact is still expected.

Ray Fosse is a broadcaster these days, doing local telecasts for the Oakland A's.  He still doesn't have a whole lot of nice things to say about Pete Rose.  He does take the 'if you can't say anything at nice...' tact your mother probably taught you.  But he was never the same player after that one.

[Week]

Bronn Stone, on 27 May 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

That is always on my mind when I see a nasty collision at the plate. I am old enough to have watched that one (I was six, so I am not 100% sure my memory isn't playing tricks, but I do remember the aftermath).  But even in the rough-and-tumble olden days, that was considered wrong by just about everyone not named Pete.  Big contracts changed the mindset somewhat - injure someone permanently these days and you are costing him millions.  But in extra innings, in a game between contenders, that sort of contact is still expected.

Ray Fosse is a broadcaster these days, doing local telecasts for the Oakland A's.  He still doesn't have a whole lot of nice things to say about Pete Rose.  He does take the 'if you can't say anything at nice...' tact your mother probably taught you.  But he was never the same player after that one.

Maybe he shouldn't have been blocking the baseline to the plate.

There doesn't need to be a rule change, just a change of play by catchers that don't want to risk injury.  This isn't that complicated.  Buster Posey is at greater fault for his own injury than Scott Cousins.

[jaeherys]

I don't think Bronn was advocating for a rule change.  It'd be silly to say there'd need to be a rule change.  He's talking about the unspoken rules that players have amongst themselves.  

I'm not sure Posey or Cousins was at fault.  It comes with the territory of being a catcher.

I do think if Posey would have been set deeper in the box he wouldn't have been severely hurt, but he was clearly positioning himself as if he thought Cousins was going to slide for the outside corner of the plate.  

Posey was positioning himself for how the play unfolds 95% of the time and Cousins went for the hard contact.

Nothing really wrong with how either one of them approached the play.

Edited by jaeherys, 27 May 2011 - 06:46 PM.

[Bronn Stone]

I am on the fence about a rule change, but definitely not advocating either way.  If you watch the replay, Posey wasn't doing that good a job of blocking the plate, if he was blocking it at all.  There was definitely an option for Cousins to slide around, but he elected not to because the throw was ahead of him.  He initiated contact not because of the block, but to jar the ball loose when it arrived before he did.

That having been said, I don't know how a rule can be made to prevent this sort of incident, short of banning blocking the plate in the first place.  I think that is too drastic.

ETA: Brandon who???

Edited by Bronn Stone, 27 May 2011 - 09:07 PM.

[GrimTuesday]

The Yankees vs. Mariners game will be interesting, its strong hitters vs. some of the better pitchers in baseball. I just hope that the M's can come out and play like they have been, cause they've been on fire.

[CryHavoc]

Bronn Stone, on 27 May 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

I am on the fence about a rule change, but definitely not advocating either way.  If you watch the replay, Posey wasn't doing that good a job of blocking the plate, if he was blocking it at all.  There was definitely an option for Cousins to slide around, but he elected not to because the throw was ahead of him.  He initiated contact not because of the block, but to jar the ball loose when it arrived before he did.

That having been said, I don't know how a rule can be made to prevent this sort of incident, short of banning blocking the plate in the first place.  I think that is too drastic.

ETA: Brandon who???

Holy crap, welcome to the big leagues.  Damn.

Anyway, I think it could be adjudicated like any other case of offensive interference.  When A-Rod slapped the ball out of Arroyo's glove, it was interference; body slamming a catcher to make him drop a ball should be no different--in both cases you're interfering with a fielder to make him drop the ball (unless he's blocking your path to the plate).  If you go far outside the baseline to slide into the second baseman and break up the double play, it's interference.  But if he's in your way, he's fair game.

I think it would be simple enough to move that to catchers.  If he's blocking the plate, he's fair game.  You have to get to the plate after all.  But if you have a path you have to take it.  Umps tend to err heavily on the side of the runner when adjudicating offensive interference, so probably only the most egregious cases would be called, but it would help.  And since it's already used on the field in other situations, it's not like it's a stretch or inconsistent.

I don't know if it would have been called in this case.  He definitely had an open path to the plate, and it looked to me like he chose to go at Posey instead, but it wasn't a big path and as I said, umps tend to err on the side of the runner.  But it would certainly make the runner think twice about it.

[Week]

CryHavoc, on 27 May 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

I think it would be simple enough to move that to catchers.  If he's blocking the plate, he's fair game.  You have to get to the plate after all.  But if you have a path you have to take it.  Umps tend to err heavily on the side of the runner when adjudicating offensive interference, so probably only the most egregious cases would be called, but it would help.  And since it's already used on the field in other situations, it's not like it's a stretch or inconsistent.

Welcome to the present.  Really virtually no different.

[CryHavoc]

Weekapaug Groove, on 27 May 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

Welcome to the present.  Really virtually no different.

I dunno.  The attitude that if the throw is close (or going to beat you) the catcher is fair game no matter where he's standing seems to be pretty prevalent.  I've seen some pretty egregious hits on catchers over the years when the catcher wasn't anywhere near blocking the plate, fortunately none of which ended this badly.  And in this case, Cousins had a path to the plate and pretty much admitted in his interview that he went at Posey.  He does say that he thought Posey was "blocking the dish", but then later he says he knew Schierholtz had a cannon so "I decided to try and knock the ball loose."  Interview  Plenty of players and ex-players have said that that's just how you play it in extra innings.

I think that if it's interference to slap a ball out of the pitcher's glove, it should be interference to tackle the catcher and hope he drops it. I can't be angry with Cousins, because that's pretty much how the game is played now--it was a clean hit in terms of what's allowed.  But I don't think it continue to be.  I think if the runner has a route that doesn't mean tackling the catcher, he should have to take it.

I don't know how much it would change in practice.  Maybe you're right and it wouldn't change anything; it's entirely possible.  But I think it would be a pretty large shift in intent at the very least, with the potential to mitigate at least some of those hits.

[jaeherys]

If it's interference to truck the catcher, then you have to reasonably conclude that it must be interference to block the path to the plate if you do not have the ball.

If that's what you would intend, then Cousins would have been awarded home plate last night because Posey never had control of the ball.

A position player can't simply impede the path to a base when he doesn't have the ball.

[CryHavoc]

jaeherys, on 27 May 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

If it's interference to truck the catcher, then you have to reasonably conclude that it must be interference to block the path to the plate if you do not have the ball.

If that's what you would intend, then Cousins would have been awarded home plate last night because Posey never had control of the ball.

A position player can't simply impede the path to a base when he doesn't have the ball.

It is true that the catcher can't block home plate without having the ball.  The rule tends to be enforced loosely, and I would be in agreement with enforcing it more strongly.  It's also unclear at least to me exactly what is considered blocking the plate--is any part of the catcher being in the entire base line and home plate area considered blocking it, or is it okay for the catcher to be a little bit in that area if that's where he needs to be to receive the throw, as long as he leaves an open path to the plate also?

But I've watched several replays and looked and photos.  There was absolutely a path to the plate, and after watching it a lot more I think I was being conservative before in saying that the path was small.  Posey was completely in front of the plate (toward the pitcher's mound, not toward third).  He's kneeling on the chalk line that's a foot or more in front of the plate.  There was a big-ass path.  Cousins didn't take it.  I think that hit should be interference in the future.  This is the clip I've been watching; pause around 11 to 13 seconds.

[jaeherys]

Posey never had the ball.  If he is blocking the plate in any manor the runner should be awarded home then.

If you are going to change the rules, when the position player does not have the ball a baserunner should not have to alter his path to the base in any manner and should have the ability to choose which part of the bag he initiates contact with.

If the position player does not have the ball they should not have the ability to impede or redirect in any manner a baserunners path to the bag.

Baserunners should not be penalized to protect position players.

Edited by jaeherys, 27 May 2011 - 11:39 PM.

[Bronn Stone]

I have watched baseball for forty years.  I've never once seen a call against a catcher for blocking the plate before the ball got there.

[CryHavoc]

jaeherys, on 27 May 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

Posey never had the ball.  If he is blocking the plate in any manor the runner should be awarded home then.

If you are going to change the rules, when the position player does not have the ball a baserunner should not have to alter his path to the base in any manner and should have the ability to choose which part of the bag he initiates contact with.

If the position player does not have the ball they should not have the ability to impede or redirect in any manner a baserunners path to the bag.

Baserunners should not be penalized to protect position players.

The point of the second paragraph was that it is my revised opinion, after watching numerous replays and looking at some stills, that Posey was not actually blocking the plate.  If you draw a line from the end of the baseline chalk (before it turns) to the plate, Posey is not in it just before he's hit or when he's hit (his foot is in it for a fraction of a second a couple seconds before, but the runner hit him while he was in no way in it.)  And that chalk line marks the far inside of the baseline.  Given that, I don't think he was actually blocking the plate.

[jaeherys]

Sorry he's takign away the entire inside portion of the plate

picture

[CryHavoc]

jaeherys, on 27 May 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:

Sorry he's takign away the entire inside portion of the plate

picture

That's a couple frames before the collision.  He's further forward after that.  But even so, following a line from the runner to the inside of the plate, at worst I can only see that his toes might be blocking the furthest inside path to the back inside corner. And if you look at just before the collision actually takes place, Posey moves further forward--I don't see him blocking it at that point.  

Maybe I'm having trouble with the camera angle and perspective in the shots (my depth perception sucks when depth actually exists), but I would not consider that blocking.  I'm also looking at a paused frame several frames later with Posey in front of the plate on the chalk line, with a straight line from Cousins' feet to any part of the plate, and Cousins instead facing completely parallel with the top edge of the plate and diving straight at Posey.  In my opinion, that should be offensive interference.  I do not think the game of baseball gains anything by allowing such a play.  But I guess we disagree.

[jaeherys]

No, he is not.  At least have an honest discussion about it.

Picture of collision

Did he give Cousins an avenue to the plate?  Yes, he gave him the outside corner of the plate.

Was he impeding a portion of the plate?  yes, he took the inner half of the plate away from Cousins.


He clearly launched himself at Posey as you'll see in the picture I linked.  However,  Posey was taking away a sizeable portion of the plate and therefore was fair game.

What happened to Posey was unfortunate.  He is one of my favorite players to follow in the game.  However,  let's not start crying for rule changes when this has been a risk that is assumed by both baserunners and catchers for the previous 140+ years the game has been in existence.

[CryHavoc]

First of all, there's no need to first assume that people are being dishonest because they don't see the same thing you do.  I wasn't looking at that frame, perhaps because I didn't pause the video at that point.  I believe the one I am looking at takes place just slightly before that (and either the shot is from a different camera or the camera was panning and changing angles, because I can see less of the fence than in your still), and while the line of the runner's leg is indeed pointing diagonally as in the still you linked, his upper body appears at that camera angle to be parallel with the top of the plate and pointed at Posey (and in both cases, way more at Posey than at the plate).  From what I can tell, which may or may not be correct, Posey leans left away from the collision, leading to the picture you linked.  Your still comes later, and is thus probably more accurate with respect to the actual collision, but there's no need to accuse dishonesty.  I apparently didn't get the video to pause at that point (I'm using the one on MLB.com, which is a bitch to adjust, especially with my crappy internet connection).

As for "rule x has been around for x years, why complain now?", why not complain now?  I've thought some hits on catchers have been egregious for years; it's never came up on an internet message board while I was paying attention before.  Now it has, and in a particularly unfortunate manner.  Just because it's always been that way is not a legitimate reason to keep doing it that way, especially not in baseball, which changes rules all the time for far more arbitrary reasons than safety.  In the face of serious injury and the possibility for even worse ones in the future (and career-changing injuries in the past), I think you'd need to go past tradition and name something important it does for the game to really give an argument against doing something to improve catcher safety.

[jaeherys]

Posey is leaning the way he is because he was coming back across his body to go for the swipe he was anticipating having to make on the outside corner of the plate.  Hence, why he blocked off the inside portion of home plate.

Edited by jaeherys, 28 May 2011 - 01:07 AM.

[CryHavoc]

jaeherys, on 28 May 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:

Posey is leaning the way he is because he was coming back across his body to go for the swipe he was anticipating having to make on the outside corner of the plate.  Hence, why he blocked off the inside portion of home plate.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.

Edit: Anyway, on a lighter note, Crawford's debut was pretty cool (and reminiscent of Nava's last year).  

Also pretty cool, I was reading a story and apparently the last Giants player to hit a grand slam in his first at bat was Bobby Bonds, and he scored Willie Mays and McCovey.  That's kind of nifty.

Edited by CryHavoc, 28 May 2011 - 01:19 AM.