On baseball matters, Cracked is right about one thing, wrong about another.
Right: Bill Buckner was not to blame for that World Series. The correct culprit was his dim-witted manager, John McNamara, who should have replaced Buckner with a pinch-runner, then a defensive replacement. In the top of the tenth, Buckner had been hit by a pitch. Think about that. It was in extra innings, every run was critical, and the injured Buckner was walking like Grandpappy Amos on The Real McCoys. He would have been thrown out at second if Jim Rice had hit a clean single in front of an outfielder. Every serious baseball fan was thinking at that moment, "Why isn't there a pinch-runner in there for Buckner?" As it turns out, it didn't matter at that point, because Rice lifted one weakly into right, but it sure made a difference in the bottom of the tenth, when the crippled Buckner was still playing first instead of his usual defensive replacement.
And yes, McNamara knew that Buckner's defense sucked. He kept on the roster a very weak hitter named Dave Stapleton who didn't have major league hitting ability in 1986 (he batted a sparkling .128 that year) but got into a lot of major league games because he could actually field the first base position competently, and actually had some mobility, unlike Buckner.
Why didn't McNamara use a pinch-runner and then a defensive replacement? There's the question for the ages if you're a Red Sox fan. His answer: the Sox already had a two-run lead, and he wanted Buckner to be on the field when the series ended in triumph. Oh, such a moment would have just have brought a tear to your eyes.
Which shows you why there's no crying in baseball.
Wrong: Bonehead Merkle was not a bonehead at all. Yes, the rules technically said he had to touch second in that situation, but nobody ever did. The Cracked article mentions that the Cubs had previously told the umps of their intention to enforce that unenforced rule in that situation, but Merkle didn't know that. He just proceeded as everyone always had. Every other non-Cub player in baseball would have done the same thing.
The NL announced officially: “While [the rule requiring a baserunner to touch the next base to avoid a putout] may not have been complied with in many other games; while other clubs may not have taken advantage of the provisions in the past under other circumstances; yet it did not deprive the Chicago club of the right to do so if they so desired, notwithstanding that it might be termed as taking advantage of winning or losing a game upon a technicality.”
It is precisely the same situation as today when the catcher blocks the plate and hampers the runner's progress toward the plate before he has the ball. Technically, the runner is safe every single time, no matter when the tag is applied. The catcher is not allowed to block the plate unless he is in possession of the ball. The rules are clear. The plate is no different from any other base. As Pete Rose correctly noted when explaining the Fosse incident, "If you don't have the ball, you can't be in the basepath." But in common practice, catchers are in the basepath at every possible opportunity, and the umps never make the obstruction call. I don't think I've ever seen that call made, no matter how blatant the interference. Imagine with a pennant on the line, all is lost because the ump finally decides to enforce the rules and calls Jorge Posada for obstruction after he does the same thing he had done thousands of times in the past. Would you call Posada "Bonehead Posada," or would you blame the high sheriffs of baseball for allowing such a thing to happen? Well, that is precisely what happened to Fred "Bonehead" Merkle.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The 6 Greatest Athletic Feats Ever (Aren't What You Think) | Cracked.com
The 6 Greatest Athletic Feats Ever (Aren't What You Think) | Cracked.com
Like the other fielders, it's only illegal for the catcher to block the plate if he doesn't have the ball. You can't obstruct the runner just to stall for more time until the throw gets there, but If the throw is on time, blocking the plate is perfectly legal. It's the same principle that applies on a steal when the 2nd baseman or shortstop lays his glove down in front of the base as the runner's sliding into it--the runner can't touch the base without taking the tag first. The catcher can set up 5 feet down and right in the middle of the baseline, but if the throw gets there before or with the runner, it's perfectly legal.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is iffy as to when exactly the catcher gains possession in relation to the runner, but that's something of a judgment call in real time. You do see blatant violations every so often, but usually the runner's safe anyhow inherently because the throw came too late.
You stated the rule correctly in your first sentence, then misinterpreted it. It is, in fact, illegal for the catcher to block the plate if he doesn't have the ball,as you stated.
ReplyDeleteBut you problem came when you said this: "The catcher can set up 5 feet down and right in the middle of the baseline, but if the throw gets there before or with the runner, it's perfectly legal."
That's absolutely wrong, although it's a valid assumption because it's the universal application of the rule.
Rule 7.06 B states, in these exact words, "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score."
Simply by being there, he is impeding the runner.
He can't really get into that path at all until he has the ball. If he does that, the ball is dead, and the runner is automatically safe, no matter when the tag is applied.
The rules are even stricter when the play involves a squeeze play: (7.07) "If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."
(I have no freakin' idea how he is supposed to field a bunt without stepping in front of or on the plate.)
HOWEVER - the catcher may go into the runner's pathway, or step on home on a squeeze play, after he gets the ball. At that point, he can pretty much do as he likes.
Why they don't just change the official rule to conform to the way it is applied in reality is beyond me.
In fairness, catchers today are not as blatantly illegal as they were 25 years ago, when the runner should have been called safe 100% of the time, but they're still bad, and umps still ignore it.
Via the particular words used, 7.06b opens itself for interpretation allows for wiggle room in application.
ReplyDeleteThe catcher's NOT necessarily blocking the path of the runner "simply by being there." "Blocking the path of" implies the runner is trying to get somewhere and the fielder is in his way. Technically, then, the act of "blocking" only begins the instant the runner is actually forced to slow down, go around, or barrel through the catcher. Unlike 7.07, in which the *area itself* is forbidden from occupation--"you can't stand there"--7.06b specifically describes the play in relation to the runner. It's kind of the tree-in-the-forest bit: if a catcher's in the baseline, but the runner's not to him yet, is the runner really being impeded? I can go outside and lay across the street for hours, but I'm not impeding traffic until a car reaches me.
I'd further argue that due to the use of different language in the two rules, the allowance for this particular interpretation of 7.06b is intentional, which brings us back to simply judging who got there first, the runner or the ball.
First of all, rules should not have wiggle room. They are rules, not general guidelines.
ReplyDeleteBut here's the key point you are missing. Would an ump allow a SS to kneel down in a catcher's position to completely block second as he awaits the throw from RF on a guy stretching a single.
Well, there are no special rules for catchers or for home plate. Anything that is obstruction for a SS or first baseman is obstruction for a catcher as well. But the rules are not applied that way.
Furthermore, the actual rule, as written, and as applied at all other bases, is for the safety of all players. Intentional collisions are dangerous and should not be part of baseball.
OK, those guys are zillionaires and can decide to collide if they care to, that's their business, but the way the game is played by the zillionaires causes kids to play the same way.
No, the shortstop can't just park there and wait for the ball in advance of the runner who's stealing, but consider the context of a run-down. If the mere presence of a fielder in the baseline constitutes obstruction, when the pursuing fielders swap out after the first throw to the base, the one who enters the rundown should automatically be guilty as soon as the runner doubles back, as he is now between the runner and the next base without the ball. To the contrary, unless there's contact prior to that fielder's catch, there's no call.
ReplyDeleteI totally get what you're saying and am partially just playing devil's advocate here, but doesn't the very existence of a rule specifically addressing the catcher and home plate differentiate it from the other bases? The rule doesn't need to be changed. More accurately, it needs to be eliminated.
Your point about youths mimicking the majors is 100% correct, but in the youth/high school leagues I've always been around, the rules are more akin to the MLB squeeze rule, i.e, the catcher can't go up the baseline, period, unless that's where the throw takes him. In addition, it's the runner's responsibility to slide on any close play. I've seen runners called out for lowering their shoulders as well as safe because the catcher blocked the plate.
"No, the shortstop can't just park there and wait for the ball in advance of the runner who's stealing."
ReplyDeleteCorrect, and there are no special rules for catchers.
"Doesn't the very existence of a rule specifically addressing the catcher and home plate differentiate it from the other bases?"
Actually the opposite.
If I remember right, I think they added that footnote to rule 7.06 in the mid-80s, in an attempt to say to catchers "Y'know, this rule is supposed to apply to you as well." Recent trends have, in fact, stopped the really blatant catchers' interference which was the custom of that era (remember Lance Parrish?), but the problem lingers on, albeit in a more muted form.
(Unless you are referring to rule 7.07, which is so specific because it genuinely is a special case for catchers, runners, and batters. Without specific guidelines for that delicate ballet, there is a possibility for a three-way collision. There is a batter either standing there in the box missing a pitch or trying to get to first while the other guy dashes in from third - as you know, that whole mess is particularly problematic if the batter is right-handed.)
As luck would have it, I *JUST* saw a play demonstrating what I'm talking about re: the call being relative to the runner in the top of the 2nd of Sunday's Mets-Braves game.
ReplyDeleteWith a runner on 3rd (Eric Hinske) and the squeeze on, the batter (Tommy Hanson) struck out and the catcher (Josh Thole) caught the ball cleanly. As Thole first began to chase Hinske back to 3rd base, the 3rd baseman (David Wright), already in front of the bag to field the bunt, initially took a few steps *toward* the runner. Wright did back up a little towards the 3rd base bag as the chase approached him, but he was between the runner and the base without the ball the entire time, right up until Thole tagged Hinske out. If obstruction is defined as the mere presence of the fielder in the baseline, then it should have been called there because Wright was blatantly between the base and Hinske--who was running towards him--without the ball for probably 5 full seconds. However, Hinske never made it to within about 10 feet of Wright, so Hinske was in no way interfered with. Thus, no call.