Why Couldn't Pierzynski Have Slid?

[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

 

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

 

Ever turn towards somebody to initiate contact?

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

All Cs do this. I'm sure AJP has blocked the plate w/o the ball too. But just as Barrett has to accept that he might get run over by the runner, if the runner rams him when a slide would have been the easier way to score (he beat the ball by a full step & Pods told him to slide), then slaps the plate and then runs into the guy when "getting his helmet" - he needs to accept that the C (who just got rammed) might be a little pissed. Did AJP hope MB punched him so he'd be out a few games and hurt the Cubs even more? Wouldn't surprise me. But I don't blame MB. If that chain of events had happened to me, I'd probably want to punch AJB too.

[beer man]

Good to see the Cub fandom blaming yet another boneheaded Cub play on somebody else.

 

Must be just plain bad luck. The wind blowing out must have slowed down the throw. The runner could have given a 10 foot bearth to our player, and this never would have happened.

 

The way our team never makes a mistake, we must have the best record in the league. Our manager never takes blame, our gm never takes blame, our players never take blame, and half the fans won't blame.

 

Bad luck. Woe is me.

[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.

 

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.

 

Legal or not is the whole argument. You want to argue the morality of a baseball play? I'm not going to get into that, because it's a bottomless hole.

 

My argument stands. We'll see who gets the bigger suspension. I'll be waiting to hear your excuse why Barrett got the raw end of THAT deal as well.

 

My final take? Barrett should get 7+ games for cold-cocking someone who made a fair, within-the-rules baseball play. I'm no AJ fan, never was. But Barrett's lost his head 2 times in the past week. It's time for the league to sit him down. I appreciate that he still cares, but he needs to get control of himself.

[SouthSideRyan]

Good to see the Cub fandom blaming yet another boneheaded Cub play on somebody else.

 

Must be just plain bad luck. The wind blowing out must have slowed down the throw. The runner could have given a 10 foot bearth to our player, and this never would have happened.

 

The way our team never makes a mistake, we must have the best record in the league. Our manager never takes blame, our gm never takes blame, our players never take blame, and half the fans won't blame.

 

Bad luck. Woe is me.

 

#4!!

[FergieJ31]

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.

 

Legal or not is the whole argument. You want to argue the morality of a baseball play? I'm not going to get into that, because it's a bottomless hole.

 

My argument stands. We'll see who gets the bigger suspension. I'll be waiting to hear your excuse why Barrett got the raw end of THAT deal as well.

 

My final take? Barrett should get 7+ games for cold-cocking someone who made a fair, within-the-rules baseball play. I'm no AJ fan, never was. But Barrett's lost his head 2 times in the past week. It's time for the league to sit him down. I appreciate that he still cares, but he needs to get control of himself.

 

I agree 100%. Every word.

 

I'd add that while it was sort of nice at one level to see AJP get his clock cleaned, I don't know why some people seemed to be celebrating the event, especially given the granny a few minutes later and the final score. Just like Z drilling Edmonds last year, it doesn't show "fight" or "spirit", just bad sportsmanship and frustration, and that's nothing to celebrate.

[stitchface]

Soul I agree with what you say, but its still a valid point that AJP could have and should have slid. Of course Barrett should be suspended and shouldn't have hit him. AJP's history though suggests he should have some culpability as well. And definitely Anderson should also be facing a long suspension - his actions were as bad as Barrett's IMO.

[frostwyrm]

Soul I agree with what you say, but its still a valid point that AJP could have and should have slid. Of course Barrett should be suspended and shouldn't have hit him. AJP's history though suggests he should have some culpability as well. And definitely Anderson should also be facing a long suspension - his actions were as bad as Barrett's IMO.

The collision was clean. Barrett admitted as much.

[JWD]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Some of you guys are missing the point. The collision did not spark the punch, per Barrett himself. It was Pierzynski's movement afterwards that Barrett "perceived" as hostile. Anyone with an IQ over a lump of jelly watching the replay could see Pierzynski did not move "hostilely". There is no excusing Barrett's classless act.