IGT 6/20/14 Mets @ Marlins Dice-Met v. Alvarez

[Guest d'Kong76]

The only thing that is clear, is that the new commish
will be overseeing a review and revision of instant replay
and the catcher thing -- and not the inevitable expansion
of MLB to 32 teams.

[smg58]

Frayed Knot wrote: I can't tell anymore if the rule suxx or not because I don't know what it is. I thought I did originally but now I'm not so sure and, what's worse, no one else seems to be sure either.

Unfortunately, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[smg58]

Saw both replays. The Wright play was a really bad send with one out. That should be the topic of conversation where that play is concerned. As for the last play, I do agree that Nieuwenhuis could have slid like he meant it, but give credit to Ozuna for a fantastic throw.

[Edgy MD]

My main problem is wondering if both runners slid past the catcher and the plate in exactly the same manner due to some sort of strategic instruction, whether coming down from Goodwin, Collins, Jeffpon, or whoever --- either in deference to the new rule somehow or in deference to the culture of risk consciousness that helped launch the rule. Because I'm no contact-monger, but those slides were unsatisfying to watch, from this fans perspective.

The most dramatic time of the game, and I'm watching players playing like redshirts in a practice game.

[Zvon]

smg58 wrote: Saw both replays. The Wright play was a really bad send with one out. That should be the topic of conversation where that play is concerned.

That conversation is kinda boring because even I, who thought from what I saw on TV that he should have gone, think that a coach with more of the play visible should not have sent him. He was out by a mile. Blame Tim? Who else?

This is a much more interesting conversation we are having about the plays at the plate because it's an issue that remains unclear.

The thing about Wrights rights. I believe he could have run him over, but he could not put his elbows out in front like a linebacker. So, how does one run over a catcher now? Waving his arms in the air like he just don't care?

Wright could have run him over, but in a way that...I can't exactly imagine. And I could be wrong about this. I have no doubt that if Wright slid super hard feet first into the catcher he would not have been penalized on review.

But the collision with the catcher, where the upper body of the runner is moving forward for contact is what they really want to curtail. So maybe it should be a more simple thing. Like its okay for a catcher to block the plate as he sees fit but the runner can only slide into him feet first. Wouldn't that be what they want and solve the whole dilemma?

Personally I don't like what they are doing with this rule. I think it's good for the game if it addresses what really needs to be addressed. I think as it stands now it's not. It's muddying the waters.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: My main problem is wondering if both runners slid past the catcher and the plate in exactly the same manner due to some sort of strategic instruction, whether coming down from Goodwin, Collins, Jeffpon, or whoever --- either in deference to the new rule somehow or in deference to the culture of risk consciousness that helped launch the rule. Because I'm no contact-monger, but those slides were unsatisfying to watch, from this fan's perspective. The most dramatic time of the game, and I'm watching players playing like redshirts in a practice game.

I think it's the "in deference" thing. At least to my eyes, more and more guys have slid like that over the last few years, predating this rule. And I fully support _a_ rule, and trying to weed out the rest of the machismo "take one for the team" attitude of the handful of guys that go barreling into the catcher like they don't have a head on their shoulders to concuss. But geeze, figure out how exactly it's going to work before tossing it willy nilly to the umps.

[Zvon]

This is the thread with the other block the catcher discussion. I imagine it would be a bitch to merge just selected posts from this one into the other.