There is no doubt in my mind that on Wednesday night Scott Cousins was guilty of a dirty play. When the Marlins’ outfielder was trying to score from third on fly ball, he made no attempt to reach home plate. As he neared home, he launched himself into Buster Posey’s upper body, apparently having made the decision that his best chance of scoring was to ensure that Posey was forcibly separated from the baseball, and that he himself would be able to find the plate in the confusion that followed.
He was probably correct about that decision, even though, in this case, Posey had already dropped the ball before any contact occurred. Posey was acting the way catchers are currently taught—receive the ball, and then drop to your knees across the front of the plate to block the runner’s access to the plate, while making the tag for the out. In any number of games on similar plays, the catcher does make a clean catch, the runner slides, the catcher’s shin guards hit the ground ahead of the runner’s foot, cutting off his path to the plate, the tag comes does down, and the out is recorded. Cousins’ play, like many before him, is an accepted part of the game today—and an evolutionary adaptation to the behavior of the catcher. It is what you have to do to beat the catcher’s strategy. As I said before, I have no doubt that it was a dirty play, but baseball has accepted this particular pattern of dirt, and I can’t fathom how any punishment or retribution would be justified in the face of this organizational pattern.
There are those who think the problem could be resolved by enforcing existing rules (7.06b in particular), but they are wrong: Posey was clearly in the act of fielding a ball and by that act was, per the rules, entitled to his position. There are also voices out there who seem to believe that the rules of baseball were carried from Mt. Sinai by a some 19th-century Moses, and that we shouldn’t change them just for this. If you will look at the history of 19th century baseball, though, you will find that rules were changed almost every year, on matters both more and less substantial than the issue we’re looking at here. No one should ever shy away from changing a rule (or, for that matter, a law), if it is the right thing to do, simply because it has always been done some other way. If the rules as written create a hazard for the players, then we are obligated to at least look for ways to mitigate that hazard. I think the search for such changes is complicated because both the fielders and runners share blame for the current state of affairs.
One way to do it, which I believe would cut down on these events, is by returning to a very, very old rule. In the earliest rules, the 1840s and 50s, a baserunner was out if he was touched by the ball while off his base. It didn’t matter whether he was gently tagged, got hit in the back on a throw from the outfield as he approached third, or was drilled by a hard-as-you-can throw from three feet away. The latter did happen, and that resulted in injuries which many saw as unnecessary. The rulebook sought to address this by taking some of the physical force out of the play, introducing the force out and requiring that the player be tagged out by someone holding the ball, and not “soaked”, as the practice of throwing at a runner dodgeball-style was called. One consequence of the earlier rule, though, was that it did not matter if you dropped the ball after the tag –the batter was out as soon as the tag was made, continuously held or not. Dislodge the ball all you want—you’re still out (although Cousins still wouldn’t be, because Posey never had the ball at all). Returning to that rule would remove the crashing incentive from the baserunner.
You could also try to take a page from the NFL rulebook (horrors!), in which a player taking a throw would be considered the same as a “defenseless receiver”, and greatly limit the kind of contact can be made on him. That would be reasonable on one hand—but still does nothing to account for the ability of the fielder to legally block the base.
If I ran the zoo, and had absolute authority, I would change the obstruction rule to make it quite clear that the baseline belongs to the runner in all instances except for a player fielding a batted ball (which, to my knowledge, isn’t causing any issues). I would definitely remove the fielder’s right to the baseline while fielding a thrown ball. In my vision, the defensive player would never, under any circumstances, have the right to barricade, block, hinder, deflect, or otherwise physically prevent a baserunner from reaching the base. You are entitled to try and tag the runner before he gets there; you have no right whatsoever to do anything to keep him from getting there. If you are a fielder in the baseline for any reason—other than standing there with the ball in a position to make an immediate tag—then your body will be considered part of the base. A runner who clearly slides into your legs before the tag is applied—where the glove comes down from chest high after contact, say—will be considered safe. And it isn’t just for catchers. I have seen first basemen holding a runner try to position their foot so that the runner will hit his foot, instead of the base, when he dives back on a pickoff attempt. Shortstops have been known to drop their leg in front of second when a would-be basestealer approaches—although you generally only try that if you know the runner is going to come in head first. I consider those practices illegal as well, and again would treat their blocking body parts as part of the base. But it is generally catchers, because of their protective gear, and their practice of a knee-drop, who have the most potential to cause injury to other players. Just ask Derek Jeter.
At the same time, I would interpret the rule to make it clear that the runner has a positive obligation to always go for the base, and never for the fielder—and that it applies as much at second base (breaking up a double play) as it does at home. I do believe that the runner trying to break up a double play should be required to touch second (not just be “able” to touch it, as the rule is now interpreted) if he also makes contact with the pivot man (unless the contact happens in front of the base, and prevents the runner form reaching it). Launching yourself with a shoulder tackle or forearm shiver is pretty clearly going after the fielder, not the base, and should earn the runner an out and a banishment. By considering a baseline-crowding fielder to be part of the base, there is no excuse left for the fielder to worry about being blocked from the base.
I do worry, though, that this would give runners an incentive to seek contact, if the fielder’s body is closer than the base. Players will—and should—seek any advantage they can, within the rules, and I can see cases where a runner would make a sliding contact he might well be able to avoid.
Unfortunately, I have to cop out and say that it will be the umpire’s responsibility to enforce the principle that baserunners go for the base—that a baserunner who has the opportunity to reach the base without contact must take it, even if it makes him more likely to be out. I wouldn’t expect that to be enforced any better than many current rules where a player’s decision-making process has to questioned by the umpire, and frankly I hate rules that make “intent” or “capability” part of their wording. Ideally, the rule will always be based on what they did or did not do, period—it shouldn’t matter why they did it, and it shouldn’t matter what else they might have done instead. There will always be ambiguity and grey areas. I can only hope that those people who have the ability to change a rule think through the reasons for a rule change, the root causes that make it necessary, and a range of possible remedies. They also need to remember that the rules are there to make the game better, not just for the sake of having another rule .
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
completed upended Avila who was straddling the plate and
gave the runner room to score. The runner slid for his legs instead to topple the catcher without going for the plate. The MLB analyst (I think it was Harold Reynolds) applauded
the slide, saying in effect your job as a runner is to separate the catcher from the ball. I was amazed Avila wasn't damaged as both of his legs were uprooted by the slide but he luckily was in a position to take the hit and let his legs give way to the runner's momentum, his feet weren't planted like Posey's and unable to go anywhere.
That is the mindset that will have to be altered.
I'm glad someone finally called out the shortcomings of the current rule, and hope MLB is reading this.
Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse more opportunities for takeouts. I'm just wondering about the distinction.
If there is a rule change, I hope it also addresses some of the ridiculous takeout slides at 2nd base.
How about every stolen base attempt at third base? Similar situation: ball coming from a 90-degree angle compared to the runner, no force in play. What kind of uproar would there be if Matt Kemp or Jay Bruce barreled through David Wright instead of sliding during a steal attempt? Would the same people say the runner's job is to separate the 3B from the ball? I would probably steal third every time I had a runner on second. How fast would the rule be changed then?
I feel the umpire can absolutely determine intent in regards to these plays, and should be allowed to eject a player if he deems his intent was to hit the fielder and not go for the bag. They're allowed to make this judgement call when it comes to pitchers and hit batsman, this one will be easier to call. Rare is the time when a slide "gets away from you".
To evo34's point, should the catcher sit indian-style (can't still be PC) on the plate, he gets what he deserves. This scenario is something my friends and I growing up also thought was a good idea. :)
At no other base do you see such a consistently blatant attempt to block the base. The ability for the fielder to block the base is what needs to be removed. If a base is blocked, the fielder should be awarded if the runner slides on the obstructed body part like Clay suggested.
How can you enforce that? How do you define "fielding?" Fielding is not just the actual act of catching the ball. Part of catching the ball is getting into position to catch it.
The fielder can't control if that throw is coming in on target. The fielder has just as much right to the ball as the runner has to the base.
And Posey was on one knee, not both knees, and that's why he got hurt. His right foot was planted, and that created the resistance that caused the injury. Had he been on both knees, Posey would have tumbled backward. Poor fundamentals.
Adopting the idea that a tag immediately puts a runner out, even if the ball is subsequently dropped or jarred loose is a good idea.
OTOH, I do like this comment from Duane Kuiper ... "I stood out there defenseless at second base for 10 years (as a player) until they changed the rules about guys sliding with the sole intent of taking somebody out. So they can change it at home plate, too."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/27/MN6J1JLDD8.DTL
OTOH, you want to change the rules so that *this* will never happen again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgr7aeFjNFk
... Wow, that's a *fun* video!
Here's a question ... on a play like in that video (where JT Snow crashing into Pudge Rodriquez at the end of their 2003 NLDS series ... should Pudge have been called for "obstruction" and JT Snow ruled safe? Perhaps if umps make that call more often, then catcher behavior changes, becomes less risky (for themselves *and* the baserunner).
(After seeing Posey writhing in pain, I thought Cousins should be banned from playing (with no pay) for the length of time Posey is out. I saw a similar slide last year that Mark Teixeira made in the midst of one of his April slumps--he took the catcher out violently (the catcher was taken out of the game if I recall right), and was proud of it. It's unsportsmanlike to say the least.)
Football players have to make these decisions "on the fly" all the time. Sure there are still collisions, but just imagine how many more there would be if pass interference and roughing the passer and kicker were legal?
Professionals can adapt to the rules.
Enough with that stuff. Save it for football - a sport that really is about battles and trenches and violent contact (see george carlin for the comparision).
Collisions at home plate should go the way of the spitball. It's quite simple - adapt from recreational slow-pitch softball. If catcher already has ball, runner cannot barrel him over - he can try to slide around, jump over, some other evasive move, but he cannot simply try to railroad the catcher.
If catcher does not have ball / is in the process of fielding the throw, he CANNOT block the plate by intruding on the runner's established baseline path to the plate. As long as the runner maintains a straight line towards home while running, if he slides and is blocked, he is automatically safe. If he barrels into a blocking catcher, he is ejected but ruled safe because catcher broke rules. If he barrels into a non-blocking catcher, he is ejected and AUTOMATICALLY ruled out.
Yes, collisions will always take place at some point - fielders fielding the ball right in the baseline, ask Fernando Vina v. Albert Belle - but home plate collisions simply don't need to be part of the game.
Dick C.
Either that or get a sex change. This is a mans sport and shouldn't be played by wussies.
Part of me likes those kinds of collisions, and part of me sees them as completely unnecessary. But in the end, it's difficult enough standing in against a 95-mph fastball. Catchers and baserunners don't need to prove their toughness to me. I feel sad for you, hyprvypr, that they need to prove themselves to you.
And maybe more pertinently, when will be the next time?
I'll tell you what's coming next in this social-engineering environment. Some pitcher is going to have a game in which he throws over 140 pitches. At some point in the future, he will have some sort of injury. (which of course NEVER happens in this age of pitch counts). His agent will call for a rule change limiting the number of pitches allowable in a game.
Baseball in 2015: 105 pitch limit for pitchers, no pitcher allowed to work more than two days in a row, no player is allowed to slide into a base spikes first, forfeiture of game if there is contact between a runner and a fielder (subject to video replay, of course), a 25-game ban for cursing, a 50-game ban for spitting, and lifetime suspension for using politically incorrect language (the John Rocker Rule).
Enjoy the game.
And if Cousins is dirty, then so is Pete Rose, Nick Swisher this year, Bob Gibson, etc... These are men and men play with competetive fire, not politically correct estrogen-based gayness.
I want ALL of you wussies OUT of the country and OUT of the fan base. You're ruining it for the rest of us(and by the way, the majority of us).
1) Ejections of fans who boo or say abusibe things to players.
2) All hot dogs shall be vegetarian, all beer non-alcoholic.
3) Smoking shall be banned in open-air stadiums. (oh wait...they've done that already)
4) May Day promotion....all fans shall bring in their tax returns and admission shall be charged on a sliding scale (union members exempted).
5) Casual Fridays ... Players can design their own uniforms to express their individual fashion sensibilities.
6) At end of game, regardless of final score, both teams shall be declared victorious because, really...everybody's a winner!
Wagman, basically your argument is destroyed and any further comments by you will likely have no credence here at all. Like Ken said, go play tiddlywinks and stop messing with baseball.
To repeat, I don't advocate physical wipeouts by players, but then again, I also don't advocate catchers blocking the plate, particularly when they don't have the ball yet. I feel for Posey and the Giants but this is baseball and it happens. I don't hear many Yankees fans apologizing for Swisher's total baseless wipeout of Nishioka.
Contact happens in baseball - always will - but that doesn't make it a contact sport. A contact sport is one in which contact is the point of the game. Contact in baseball is and has been since the days of John McGraw, a sport in which contact has either been incidental, or nationally castigated (Juan Marichal, Pete Rose, etc.)
Maybe the revisionist history of the do-gooders can say Rose was reviled at the time, but he wasn't. You can say that there's nothing in baseball rules mandating contact but lemme tell ya..when an average game has hundreds of 90 mph fastballs thrown within fractions of an inch of a hitter's body, when every game has fielders and runners arriving at a base within a split second of each other, when it's hard to find a single game when some pair of fielders do not collide, or a fielder and a runner don't collide...it's a contact sport, baby. Tell the manufacturers of batting helmets, catcher's helmets, chest protectors...tell all of them that baseball is not a contact sport.
Pete Rose was certainly NOT nationally castigated in 1970. In honor of Memorial Day, I'll say that the brave pilots who dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan were not nationally castigated in 1945. Not at all. The castigation was begun by the touchy-feely brigade years later. And now they turn their ever-expanding reach to baseball. God help us.
Whatta bunch of losers. One thing's for sure, your ancestors didn't secure this country's borders, MINE did.