Why Couldn't Pierzynski Have Slid?

[soccer10k]

I posted this in the "Barrett" thread but I figure it should have it's own thread.

 

Why couldn't Pierzynski have slid? There was no reason to bowl over Barrett. I don't care about where the ball was and whether or not Pierzynski knew where it was. He had no intentions of sliding whether the ball was there or not. What happens if the throw gets cut off? Then Pierzynski runs Barrett over for absolutely no reason at all. Pierzynski should have slid just like Jeremy Giambi should have slid in the postseason a few years ago for the A's against the Yankees. I don't think Barrett reacted in the right way, but Pierzynski is at least half to blame for this incident.

[SeldomSeen]

Because he's an ass, but that's neither news nor against the rules. The blame for today falls on Barrett's shoulders.

[soccer10k]

Because he's an ass, but that's neither news nor against the rules. The blame for today falls on Barrett's shoulders.

 

You seem to have missed the point. What happens if that ball gets cut off and Pierzynski still runs over Barrett? I don't see how it's much different because in both situations, Barrett doesn't have the ball. Yes, Barrett overreacted after he got steamrolled. But Pierzynski has to be held accountable for instigating everything.

[frostwyrm]

I posted this in the "Barrett" thread but I figure it should have it's own thread.

 

Why couldn't Pierzynski have slid? There was no reason to bowl over Barrett. I don't care about where the ball was and whether or not Pierzynski knew where it was. He had no intentions of sliding whether the ball was there or not. What happens if the throw gets cut off? Then Pierzynski runs Barrett over for absolutely no reason at all. Pierzynski should have slid just like Jeremy Giambi should have slid in the postseason a few years ago for the A's against the Yankees. I don't think Barrett reacted in the right way, but Pierzynski is at least half to blame for this incident.

Given that Barrett was blocking the plate and obviously expecting a throw I don't see why AJP would have thought the throw was going to be cut off.

[Soul]

Because he's an ass, but that's neither news nor against the rules. The blame for today falls on Barrett's shoulders.

 

You seem to have missed the point. What happens if that ball gets cut off and Pierzynski still runs over Barrett? I don't see how it's much different because in both situations, Barrett doesn't have the ball. Yes, Barrett overreacted after he got steamrolled. But Pierzynski has to be held accountable for instigating everything.

 

What if it does get cut off? Players are taught to blast a catcher who is blocking the plate, in an attempt to jar the ball loose. I don't think anyone is teaching the "just slide because the ball might have been cut off" technique.

 

AJ's an ass, but he did what any other ballplayer would have done, including Barrett.

 

Mike's just frustrated as hell right now, and I don't blame him. I appreciate that he still cares in the face of this travesty.

[katway]

Michael Barrett is 100% responsible for the actions of Michael Barrett. AJP acted within the rules of the game.

[soccer10k]

Because he's an ass, but that's neither news nor against the rules. The blame for today falls on Barrett's shoulders.

 

You seem to have missed the point. What happens if that ball gets cut off and Pierzynski still runs over Barrett? I don't see how it's much different because in both situations, Barrett doesn't have the ball. Yes, Barrett overreacted after he got steamrolled. But Pierzynski has to be held accountable for instigating everything.

 

What if it does get cut off? Players are taught to blast a catcher who is blocking the plate, in an attempt to jar the ball loose. I don't think anyone is teaching the "just slide because the ball might have been cut off" technique.

 

AJ's an ass, but he did what any other ballplayer would have done, including Barrett.

 

Mike's just frustrated as hell right now, and I don't blame him. I appreciate that he still cares in the face of this travesty.

 

If it does get cut off I'm sure many people on this board would be singing a completely different tune right about now even if Barrett decks Pierzynski. People would be talking about how classless it was for Pierzynski to run over Barrett when the ball wasn't even coming to the plate.

 

I highly doubt that "any other player" would have bowled over the catcher. Are you telling me that Juan Pierre would try and run over a catcher in his way? Absolutely not. And please spare me the "Juan Pierre never get's on base and the Cubs couldn't drive him in anyway" spiel because I've heard it already (not directed at you Soul but the board in general).

[stitchface]

he should have slid. that would have been the smarter play as well as the cleaner play. then he got up and went looking for barrett - if he was trying to avoid him, why did he lower his shoulder? Edited May 21, 2006 by stitchface

[CaliforniaRaisin]

If the ball was cut off, Barrett would have stopped blocking home plate.

 

I agree that AJP should have slid, but honestly, it's what AJP did after scoring that caused the fight (slapping home plate, taking a circutious route to his helmet via Barrett). And Barrett had every right to get pissed over what AJP did after steamrolling him.

[katway]

he should have slid. that would have been the smarter play as well as the cleaner play. then he got up and went looking for barrett - if he was trying to avoid him, why did lower his shoulder?

 

Slowed it down on Tivo and AJP turned his body when he saw Barrett getting up. Looked like AJP would have angled around Barrett before Barrett grabed him.

[Soul]

Because he's an ass, but that's neither news nor against the rules. The blame for today falls on Barrett's shoulders.

 

You seem to have missed the point. What happens if that ball gets cut off and Pierzynski still runs over Barrett? I don't see how it's much different because in both situations, Barrett doesn't have the ball. Yes, Barrett overreacted after he got steamrolled. But Pierzynski has to be held accountable for instigating everything.

 

What if it does get cut off? Players are taught to blast a catcher who is blocking the plate, in an attempt to jar the ball loose. I don't think anyone is teaching the "just slide because the ball might have been cut off" technique.

 

AJ's an ass, but he did what any other ballplayer would have done, including Barrett.

 

Mike's just frustrated as hell right now, and I don't blame him. I appreciate that he still cares in the face of this travesty.

 

If it does get cut off I'm sure many people on this board would be singing a completely different tune right about now even if Barrett decks Pierzynski. People would be talking about how classless it was for Pierzynski to run over Barrett when the ball wasn't even coming to the plate.

 

I highly doubt that "any other player" would have bowled over the catcher. Are you telling me that Juan Pierre would try and run over a catcher in his way? Absolutely not. And please spare me the "Juan Pierre never get's on base and the Cubs couldn't drive him in anyway" spiel because I've heard it already (not directed at you Soul but the board in general).

 

no offense taken.

 

I would expect any baserunner worth his salt to blast the catcher in that situation. Whether or not people on this board would have cried about it is of no consequence.

 

Oh, and by the way: there are other people telling the runner whether the ball has been cut off or not. In this particular case, that would have been the 3rd base coach and Podsednick. The runner doesn't have to make guesses about where the ball is.

[Omar]

The least AJ could've done was help him up after knocking him down... Instead of just start taunting.

[stitchface]

why would you expect a baserunner to blast the catcher? They are far more likely to score safely by sliding not to mention far less likely to get hurt themselves. Blasting the catcher is a terrible play. This isn't football.

[Soul]

That's why a catcher blocks the plate, to stop a sliding runner from making it to the bag.

 

Which, in turn, is why runners try to jar the ball loose.

 

Look, this is an accepted part of baseball and has been forever, and it always will be.

 

If you want to support a rule change be my guest. Fact is, what AJ did was legal. End of story.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

9+ out of 10 people slide around the catcher in that situation. Heck, even when catchers actually HAVE the ball 9+ out of 10 people try to slide around. What AJP did wasn't really wrong, but it was pretty unnecessary, and I can see why Barrett would be pissed.

[Hatman]

Michael Barrett is 100% responsible for the actions of Michael Barrett. AJP acted within the rules of the game.

 

Agreed...Michael Barrett is 100% responsible for the actions of Michael Barrett and so is AJP. AJP acted within the rules of the game...including the point where he raises his fore arm to Michael Barrett's head during the collision and then hot dogs by slapping the plate.

 

It's tantamount to a spikes high slide into second base, a "too hard" tag at first base on a pickoff throw and decoying someone into a needless slide. All within the rules. Those situations commonly are greeted with the offender getting drilled in the next AB...in this case Barrett lost his cool and dished out immediate retaliation.

 

High spirited play on both sides.

[stitchface]

That's why a catcher blocks the plate, to stop a sliding runner from making it to the bag.

 

Which, in turn, is why runners try to jar the ball loose.

 

Look, this is an accepted part of baseball and has been forever, and it always will be.

 

If you want to support a rule change be my guest. Fact is, what AJ did was legal. End of story.

 

End of your argument you mean? Barrett wasn't down blocking the plate - AJ could have touched the plate without sliding and still avoided Barrett. Or he could have slid in easily and safely. Legal or not, it was a dumb, unneccary and cheap play.

[katway]

why would you expect a baserunner to blast the catcher? They are far more likely to score safely by sliding not to mention far less likely to get hurt themselves. Blasting the catcher is a terrible play. This isn't football.

 

Q: Why would a catcher block the plate? A: To prevent the runner from scoring by forcing the baserunner to chose between a difficult slide or collision.

 

Any catcher knows there is a possibility that the baserunner will chose a collision. The better question than whether or not a baserunner should slide is whether a catcher has the right to fight a baserunner than choses not to slide.

[MHizzle]

so barrett couldnt handle gettin run over by AJ....get over it.

[SouthSideRyan]

he should have slid. that would have been the smarter play as well as the cleaner play. then he got up and went looking for barrett - if he was trying to avoid him, why did lower his shoulder?

 

Slowed it down on Tivo and AJP turned his body when he saw Barrett getting up. Looked like AJP would have angled around Barrett before Barrett grabed him.

 

HE TURNED HIS BODY TOWARDS BARRETT

[Sammy Sofa]

The collision isn't shouldn't even be the issue. Barrett tweeked because AJ slapped the plate, probably talked some trash or made some absurd noise and then basically elbowed Barrett aside going for his helmet. Subtract all those things, ESPECIALLY the last one, I highly doubt Barrett takes the swing. Dwelling on whether he should have slid or not is moot.

[katway]

he should have slid. that would have been the smarter play as well as the cleaner play. then he got up and went looking for barrett - if he was trying to avoid him, why did lower his shoulder?

 

Slowed it down on Tivo and AJP turned his body when he saw Barrett getting up. Looked like AJP would have angled around Barrett before Barrett grabed him.

 

HE TURNED HIS BODY TOWARDS BARRETT

 

Ever turn to the side to avoid or get around someone?

[rjchapma]

It was not AJs fault that was a fair and square move by him. Im not saying it was the right thing to do, but it wasnt wrong or illegal. The only people that should have gotten tossed were Barrett for starting the fight and Brian Anderson who was being a douche bag and starting a fight witht the nicest oldest guy on the cubs team. Dont get me Wrong AJ is an prick and I dont like him,but on there other hand Barrett is a head case and needs to keep is cool just like the thing with Dave roberts.

[sherwood921]

He could have slid, sure, but Barrett was blocking the plate. As far as helping Barrett up, he wouldn't do that because knowing there was another runner, and having knocked the catcher over, the ball should be loose somewhere with the possibility of the other runner advancing.

[wolf stansson]

From Rob Neyer's latest email bag:

Snell: When it comes to those football plays at home plate -- you wrote about them in your last column -- let's not forget to parcel out a fair share of the blame to catchers and umpires. Catchers aren't allowed to block the plate before they have the ball. Like many other rules, umpires have chosen never to enforce this. A good number of home plate collisions are caused, I think, by catchers blocking the plate and basepath before they're legally entitled to. Since the umpires will never call this, one could argue that the runner is just enforcing his right to an unimpeded basepath.

 

Rob: Ah, the oft-cited (by me) but never-called (by umpires) Rule 7.06(b), which says in part, "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."

 

Of course, it's common for a catcher to block the plate with his foot or calf, and hope that gives him an extra split-second to receive the ball and apply the tag. And often it does. Just last night, one of the Catching Molina Brothers pulled off a brilliant play, the difference being that he did have the ball when he stretched his leg across the baseline (the rest of him was still up in the air).

 

Obviously, there's a great deal of room for interpretation by the plate umpire, and umpires despise interpretation (the strike zone notwithstanding). But the intent of the rules is crystal clear: The player owns the baseline and the base unless the fielder is in a position to block access with the ball.

 

That's one sort of collision, and I suppose the more common. In addition to being a violation of the rules, it also results in the occasional injury. There's another sort of collision: the sort we saw in the Yankees-Rangers game on Tuesday night. This one's not specifically against the rules, but it's certainly against the spirit of the rules. If the catcher has the ball, why should the runner be allowed to plow into the catcher at full speed and with dangerous intent? Do we let runners destroy infielders during rundown plays? No, and there's absolutely no difference here.

 

Somebody asked me if catchers actually get hurt, and somebody else asked me what can be done about this. Yes, catchers do actually get hurt. Ray Fosse's the famous example, but there have been many others. And what can be done? Simple. We'll call it Rule 7.06©: "Runner is out if no attempt made to slide or get around fielder with ball waiting to make tag."

 

I didn't make that up. It's Rule 7.08(a)(3) in the Little League Rules. But there's no reason it wouldn't translate perfectly to the big leagues.

 

(And by the way, aside from the injuries, there's another reason you don't want runners tackling catchers: If the runner knocks the catcher down and/or out, other runners can circle the bases with impunity. Do we really want that added incentive for what I consider dirty play?)

 

I don't blame the catchers, or the umpires, or the runners. The catchers have to cheat and the runners have to tackle -- because it's the standard practice. And the umpires let things go because it's easier that way. I blame the Lords of Baseball, who have been letting this happen for a long time now. They could have put a stop to the wrestling matches at any point, but just didn't care enough to do anything. And I suppose that now everybody considers destructive, injury-causing collisions as just "good baseball." Except it's not baseball. Or rather, it's not supposed to be.

 

Senior writer Rob Neyer writes for Insider two or three times per week. To offer criticism, praise or anything in between, send an e-mail to rob.neyer@dig.com.

Not trying to troll. Just thought it was valid to the point, and I'm sure not everyone is aware of it. Pierzinski is well documented as the most obnoxious man in baseball, but this is Barrett's fault. The only thing Pierzinski did that was remotely out of line was slap the plate. If that is enough to incite the leader of a team (as well as one of the last remainging viable offensive options) to throw a punch, then the player either has anger issues or there is something else behind it.

 

I think that something else is just Barrett's competitive dissatisfaction with the team. Doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it.