praise_gibbs Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Not true, says wikipedia: "In baseball, blocking the plate is a common technique performed by a catcher to prevent a runner from scoring. The act of blocking the plate accounts for most of the physical contact in baseball. By the rules of baseball, a runner has the right to an unobstructed path to a base. However, this right is not granted if the fielder guarding the base possesses the ball or is in the process of catching the ball." I know my source sucks, if you can dig it up in the rule book, please do. He clearly had his foot blocking the bag before the ball was in a catchable area. This is not allowed. I'm sure the that ump took this into consideration while pondering for several seconds whether to call him safe. As I said before, if the catcher had not been over the plate before he was allowed to , Holliday doesn't get hurt and he might recover and touch home before the catcher retrieves the ball. Your source says the exact same thing. Read it again. By the rules of baseball, a runner has the right to an unobstructed path to a base. However, this right is not granted if the fielder guarding the base possesses the ball or is in the process of catching the ball." It says that the runner has a right to an unobstructed path to a base. However, this right is not granted (to the runner) if the fielder guarding the base possesses the ball or is in the process of acthing the ball. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp Rule 7.06( Comment: Under 7.06( when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call. NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Rule number 12461B: Whatever. I only caught the last innings of that game. I think it's the only inning of baseball I've watched on TV in years and it was actually exciting. Don't think I'll see anything like that for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwoody86 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I think our disagreement comes down to the interpretation of "the process of catching the ball" I don't think that applies to the catcher expecting a ball to come, or the ball on the way. I think you need to actually be catching the ball before you can physically block the plate. Lets just be happy something like this didn't happen to the Skins (as I try not to thing about Alstott's 2-point failed conversion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 I think our disagreement comes down to the interpretation of "the process of catching the ball" I don't think that applies to the catcher expecting a ball to come, or the ball on the way. I think you need to actually be catching the ball before you can physically block the plate. Lets just be happy something like this didn't happen to the Skins (as I try not to thing about Alstott's 2-point failed conversion). Even so, the ball was nearly in Barretts glove at the point of Holliday having his fingers underneath Barretts shoe. Holliday could have saved himself from injury should he have slid feet first instead of head first. The blocking of the plate had little to nothing to do towards Holliday getting injured. The play should have been called out. Regardless of who you and I wanted to win (both wanted Rockies). Fair is fair, you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Holliday should have hit him square in the chest before he caught the ball and knocked him 5 feet backwards. This is a beef of mine with baseball. Too often rules are left to interpretation. Knock the catcher out completely next time, and there isnt a question of out or safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwoody86 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Even so, the ball was nearly in Barretts glove at the point of Holliday having his fingers underneath Barretts shoe. The play should have been called out. Regardless of who you and I wanted to win (both wanted Rockies). Fair is fair, you know? If you're going to say fair is fair, then rules are rules. Regardless of how close Holliday is, Barrett sets up ON the plate to make the play BEFORE he is "in the process of catching the ball". This is clearly against the rules and should be called interference, game over. The umpire does not call this directly, but uses this in his opinion of calling Holliday safe. Holliday could have saved himself from injury should he have slid feet first instead of head first. Maybe true, maybe he breaks an ankle or tears an ACL. These baseball players are no football players, clearly, if you can tear an ACL while arguing. The blocking of the plate had little to nothing to do towards Holliday getting injured. Does that even make sense to you? If Barrett didn't block the plate, how does Holliday get injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 If you're going to say fair is fair, then rules are rules. Regardless of how close Holliday is, Barrett sets up ON the plate to make the play BEFORE he is "in the process of catching the ball". This is clearly against the rules and should be called interference, game over. The umpire does not call this directly, but uses this in his opinion of calling Holliday safe. Correct rules are rules. Barrett was not blocking Holliday from ever touching the plate. He was in his stance ready to catch the ball that was already thrown to get the out at home. Holliday decided to slide to the left of Barrett instead of right at him. He could have slide towards Barrett feet first and then touched home plate before the tag. Holliday chose to go around Barrett. It would have been different if Barrett were completely blocking the plate. It just so happens that Barrett was blocking the portion of the plate that Holliday tried to graze his hand against. Well within the rules, mind you. Maybe true, maybe he breaks an ankle or tears an ACL. These baseball players are no football players, clearly, if you can tear an ACL while arguing. I know that much. Still, he should know the effects of sliding head first into the ground. Does that even make sense to you? If Barrett didn't block the plate, how does Holliday get injured? Again. If Barrett were completely blocking the plate.. you'd have a case. Holliday made a bonehead dive and paid for it. It isn't like Barrett tripped him or anything. Holliday dove headfirst into the ground and expected to come out unharmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Hooray for resurrecting old threads. 1) He was out. The umps blew the call. I hope MLB has some sort of instant replay. 2) Why didn't the runner just bowl over the catcher? Sheesh... correct or not Holliday should get flak for now running thruogh the catcher. 3) Tim Kjurkjian is the ESPN guy who said, "No replay, because it will remove the spontaneity of the game and ruin Colorado's celebration... we don't want to stop the game for 15 minutes". I don't think this guy has watched the NFL *ever* when's the last time they stopped a game for 15 minutes? 4) Right when the play happened ESPN all said something like, "I don't think he touched the plate, pretty sure he didn't touch it" and then after 20 minutes they changed to, "Well... we'll never be able to tell". Hogwash, he missed the plate. 5) Why didn't the Padre catcher deck the ump? Great job of blocking the plate yet that guy blows the call... guess blue just wanted to go home... 6) The only closer I've seen who is close to automatic is Mariano Rivera... everyone else from Hoffman to Billy Wagner, Armando Benetiz (when he was great), has had problems from time to time. Hoffman looked pretty washed up or tired from this season.... but you can't blame him for blowing the save. ESPN guy Kjurjian also was heavily implying he has a history of choking?! Ridiculous... he brought up WS vs. Yankees, All Star game, last night and some other games, yet failed to mention the fact he got them into the World Series, postseason, etc. Great game... too bad hotel I was in didn't have TBS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrilla4 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The way I see it if they had called that one ball a homerun like it was there would have never been extra innings....and as for the homeplate thing the only reason that I can think of was that if your unsure of a call you got to call them safe...but I think that Hollidays reaction of just laying there instead of acting like a guy who missed homeplate got him the safe call.....however, comming from two runs down to the all time leader in saves...is a well deserved victory..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The way I see it if they had called that one ball a homerun like it was there would have never been extra innings... that was my line of thinking, but that missed HR call happened during regular time. who knows how the padres would have responded to that HR? they still would have had time to regroup and come back. the missed call at the end of the game gave them no chance to respond. all in all, the pads don't have the offense to compete. if this game were in petco park, it would have been different as it's a pitcher's park instead of the launching pad in denver. pads' strength is pitching; rockies' strength is hitting. that was an exciting last game for me to have as a pads fan. now that i'm back on the east coast, i'm a nationals fan (cheer for the team closest to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwoody86 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 It would have been different if Barrett were completely blocking the plate. It just so happens that Barrett was blocking the portion of the plate that Holliday tried to graze his hand against. Well within the rules, mind you. Where in the disputed rule does it say that you are allowed to partially block the plate??? I think that "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score." pretty clearly states that you cannot even partially block the plate. A football analogy, a cornerback pulling one of a receiver's arms down is just as much pass interference as grabbing both arms down. "But he could have slid for the other half of the plate!" = "But he could still have caught it with that other arm!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.