Catcher blocking the plate....why isn't it obstruction?

[LarrySC]

During the Phils/Rays game tonight (6/25/09), there was a play at the plate. The Phillies catcher knelt down and had the plate covered so the Rays runner had no chance to touch it and score.

Why isn't this called obstruction on the catcher's part? Why is the catcher allowed to block the plate as they do, yet other fielders are not?

[BigRon]

It definitely is obstruction, and should be called. I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but there is no rule permitting blocking or obstructing the plate before the catcher has possession of the ball.

I don't know when this illegal trend began. Bill James wrote about it in one of his Historical Abstracts. I have often wondered why there is not more discussion about this, and why baseball (at all levels) does nothing to stop the practice.

Probably because it adds some action and suspense- but that doesn't make it legal or right.

[ol' aches and pains]

Did the catcher have the ball? If he blocks off the plate without having the ball, he runs the risk of getting run over by the baserunner. That's an unwritten rule of the game. A notorious case occurred in Chicago a few years ago when Michael Barret of the Cubs blocked the plate without posession of the ball, and A. J. Piersynski flattened him. Barret got up and told A.J. "I didn't have the ball, -----!!" A.J. replied something to the effect of "Well don't block the plate, then". Next thing you know, A.J. gets fined for punching Barret's fist with his face. Go figure.

[SupCompleteNerds]

Today is June 24, 2009, not June 25, 2009.

[KevinWI]

I love plays at the plate. Don't spoil it for me.

[Rich the Giants fan]

The question is, did he have the ball? If not, it's obstruction. If he did, it's perfectly legal to block home plate.

My issue is that most catchers today are pu***es and are too afraid to block the plate properly.

[DownUnderDodger]

Today is June 24, 2009, not June 25, 2009.

It's June 25 Down Under. :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's June 25 Down Under. :laugh

Ultimately, everything we do here is for you, Roger. :nod:

[KevinWI]

It's June 25 Down Under. :laugh

We all can't be from the future.

[LarrySC]

No, the catcher did NOT have the ball in his possession at the time he dropped his knee to cover the plate. Is it written in the rule book that if you have possession of the ball you are allowed to block a base so a runner can't reach it?

And sorry for the erroneous date...it was late and I was a bit tired!

[gman5431]

The point has been made here that according the the letter of the rule book that a catcher blocking the plate is illegal.

Also according to the rule book, there are some pretty strick regulations on what a balk is, the batter must be entirely inside the batters box when hitting, and the strike zone is clearly defined as knees to armpits. However, in actual games, almost every lefty rolls with a balk move, do we ever see a umpire ask a hitter to get in the box and stop messing up the back line?, and finally, the high strike barely exists with some blues.

Is this illegal or unfair? Not in my eyes, its the same rules for everyone and they have been accepted as such and make the game what it is. Same thing with blocking the plate. It is accepted practice that the catcher has the right to set up shop and try to block a potential run from scoring. At that point, the unwritten rule is that the onus is on the runner to get to the plate by whatever means possible. This makes the game more exciting and IS baseball.

Furthermore, someone mentioned that we dont block the plate at other bases. Not true, while not with our entire bodies and pads, it is commonplace for an infielder to drop a knee/leg down to provent a sliding runner from getting to the bag. This would never be called obsruction and shoulndt be (IMO). Obstruction should be when an upright fielder runs or impedes a base runner. Blocking plays at the plate are a part of baseball and the letter of the rule isnt the only one that is over looked. Somethings are "adjusted" to make the game what is it.

G Man

[CandlestickBum]

The point has been made here that according the the letter of the rule book that a catcher blocking the plate is illegal.

Also according to the rule book, there are some pretty strick regulations on what a balk is, the batter must be entirely inside the batters box when hitting, and the strike zone is clearly defined as knees to armpits. However, in actual games, almost every lefty rolls with a balk move, do we ever see a umpire ask a hitter to get in the box and stop messing up the back line?, and finally, the high strike barely exists with some blues.

Is this illegal or unfair? Not in my eyes, its the same rules for everyone and they have been accepted as such and make the game what it is. Same thing with blocking the plate. It is accepted practice that the catcher has the right to set up shop and try to block a potential run from scoring. At that point, the unwritten rule is that the onus is on the runner to get to the plate by whatever means possible. This makes the game more exciting and IS baseball.

Furthermore, someone mentioned that we dont block the plate at other bases. Not true, while not with our entire bodies and pads, it is commonplace for an infielder to drop a knee/leg down to provent a sliding runner from getting to the bag. This would never be called obsruction and shoulndt be (IMO). Obstruction should be when an upright fielder runs or impedes a base runner. Blocking plays at the plate are a part of baseball and the letter of the rule isnt the only one that is over looked. Somethings are "adjusted" to make the game what is it.

G Man

If anyone wants to get a real eye opener, they should find an online discussion forum where umpires talk about the game and how to call one, they discuss very candidly these sorts of "norms", and *why* they are called (or not) how they are.

[Rich the Giants fan]

No, the catcher did NOT have the ball in his possession at the time he dropped his knee to cover the plate. Is it written in the rule book that if you have possession of the ball you are allowed to block a base so a runner can't reach it?

And sorry for the erroneous date...it was late and I was a bit tired!

Again, yes, you can block the plate, or any base for that matter, if you have the ball. If you do not, it should be called obstruction. You cannot block the plate without possessing the ball.

The reason why you do commonly not see infielders blocking the bases, is that they are not wearing protective padding and are not generally keen on getting a spike in their calf or thigh.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If anyone wants to get a real eye opener, they should find an online discussion forum where umpires talk about the game and how to call one, they discuss very candidly these sorts of "norms", and *why* they are called (or not) how they are.

We do have a stickeyed thread in Baseball 101.

[RuthMayBond]

It's June 25 Down Under. :laughDoc, the DeLorean worked!

[Michael Green]

One of the issues here is whether the catcher is actually blocking the plate without the ball. Most catchers hunker down but really block only part of the plate, whether or not they have the ball, and a smart runner can still get in there.

[sturg1dj]

The point has been made here that according the the letter of the rule book that a catcher blocking the plate is illegal.

Also according to the rule book, there are some pretty strick regulations on what a balk is, the batter must be entirely inside the batters box when hitting, and the strike zone is clearly defined as knees to armpits. However, in actual games, almost every lefty rolls with a balk move, do we ever see a umpire ask a hitter to get in the box and stop messing up the back line?, and finally, the high strike barely exists with some blues.

Is this illegal or unfair? Not in my eyes, its the same rules for everyone and they have been accepted as such and make the game what it is. Same thing with blocking the plate. It is accepted practice that the catcher has the right to set up shop and try to block a potential run from scoring. At that point, the unwritten rule is that the onus is on the runner to get to the plate by whatever means possible. This makes the game more exciting and IS baseball.

Furthermore, someone mentioned that we dont block the plate at other bases. Not true, while not with our entire bodies and pads, it is commonplace for an infielder to drop a knee/leg down to provent a sliding runner from getting to the bag. This would never be called obsruction and shoulndt be (IMO). Obstruction should be when an upright fielder runs or impedes a base runner. Blocking plays at the plate are a part of baseball and the letter of the rule isnt the only one that is over looked. Somethings are "adjusted" to make the game what is it.

G Man

wow, a full post...and a good one too. This may be the best thing you have written here. Keep up the good work.

[BigRon]

Just so there is no uncertainty concerning the rule- according to the Major League Rule Book.

Section 7.06- Obstruction

"Note: the catcher, without the ball in his possession, has NO RIGHT (capitals mine) to block the path of the baserunner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding the ball or when he already has the ball in his hands."

GMan has given his opinion on the appropriateness of ignoring this rule. Mine remains that the rule is appropriate, and ignoring it leads to a number of unnecessary injuries.

[ipitch]

Just so there is no uncertainty concerning the rule- according to the Major League Rule Book.

Section 7.06- Obstruction

"Note: the catcher, without the ball in his possession, has NO RIGHT (capitals mine) to block the path of the baserunner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding the ball or when he already has the ball in his hands."

GMan has given his opinion on the appropriateness of ignoring this rule. Mine remains that the rule is appropriate, and ignoring it leads to a number of unnecessary injuries.

When is catcher considered to be blocking the path of a runner? If the runner is 20' from home plate, can the catcher block his path without the ball? How about 5'? How about 2'?

[BigRon]

When is catcher considered to be blocking the path of a runner? If the runner is 20' from home plate, can the catcher block his path without the ball? How about 5'? How about 2'?


According to the rules, the catcher can NEVER block the path of the runner if he is not in possession of the ball or unless he is catching the ball.

Of course, the rule is ignored- which started this thread.

[ipitch]

According to the rules, the catcher can NEVER block the path of the runner if he is not in possession of the ball or unless he is catching the ball.

Of course, the rule is ignored- which started this thread.

How does a catcher or umpire know if the runner's path is blocked if the runner is still 20' from the plate? If the catcher is 3' up the 3rd base line, the catcher might not be in the path of the runner, especially if the runner made a wide turn around 3rd.

[YankeeDJW]

How does a catcher or umpire know if the runner's path is blocked if the runner is still 20' from the plate? If the catcher is 3' up the 3rd base line, the catcher might not be in the path of the runner, especially if the runner made a wide turn around 3rd.

What's with all the random numbers? It's a fairly simple rule. The catcher can't get in the runners way unless he has the ball or is catching it.

You can't block someone from 20 feet away. I don't really see where the confusion is. :think:

[ipitch]

What's with all the random numbers? It's a fairly simple rule. The catcher can't get in the runners way unless he has the ball or is catching it.

It may sound simple, until you try to figure out how far the runner can be from the catcher before he is in the way.


You can't block someone from 20 feet away. I don't really see where the confusion is. :think:

Well, apparently there is confusion because BigRon just said that's illegal, and you said it's not.

If 20' away isn't considered blocking to you, then how many feet away IS considered blocking?

[YankeeDJW]

For the record, I do think it is illegal, according to the rules. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

You don't need to measure in feet. The way I see it, blocking the plate is the physical act of keeping the baserunner from touching it, and obstructing the runner is the same: the physical act of forcing the runner out of his path by getting in his way. You're either in his way or your not. Unless he's fielding the ball, the catcher really has no business running up the third baseline anyway.

[RubeBaker]

Try asking this here:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=27009

[bluezebra]

The question is, did he have the ball? If not, it's obstruction. If he did, it's perfectly legal to block home plate.

My issue is that most catchers today are pu***es and are too afraid to block the plate properly.

YOU stand there and let a 200+lb runner going at full speed run into you. Then, you may call others names.

Bob

[Mattingly]

Again, yes, you can block the plate, or any base for that matter, if you have the ball. If you do not, it should be called obstruction. You cannot block the plate without possessing the ball.

The reason why you do commonly not see infielders blocking the bases, is that they are not wearing protective padding and are not generally keen on getting a spike in their calf or thigh.
I'll do the "Captain Obvious" thing and say that preventing a guy from touching 2B won't necessarily mean he'll score. If he touches home safely, the inning continues, so getting him out at home would seem pretty vital to the game.

[gman5431]

wow, a full post...and a good one too. This may be the best thing you have written here. Keep up the good work.

Haha, my other posts arent good? Thanks for the compliment though.

G Man

[gman5431]

Just so there is no uncertainty concerning the rule- according to the Major League Rule Book.

Section 7.06- Obstruction

"Note: the catcher, without the ball in his possession, has NO RIGHT (capitals mine) to block the path of the baserunner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding the ball or when he already has the ball in his hands."

GMan has given his opinion on the appropriateness of ignoring this rule. Mine remains that the rule is appropriate, and ignoring it leads to a number of unnecessary injuries.

I respect your opinion.

Mine is that the play at the plate is one of the more exciting plays in baseball, right up there with the triple (which unfortunately has been taken from us with joke ballparks like Yankee Stadium, but thats a topic for another day). The throw home, the slide, the tag, the call..... its great. And in a majority of plays at the plate, the catcher "blocks" the baseline in some form, not always with the entire torso but maybe with a leg. If this gets called, it wouldnt go over well, not with players, baseball front office staff, the commisioners office, and fans. Let's not mess with the great game on this one.

G Man

[Rich the Giants fan]

YOU stand there and let a 200+lb runner going at full speed run into you. Then, you may call others names.

Bob

I used to catch and one of my favorite players ever was Mike Scioscia who was far and away the best catcher ever at blocking the plate. I will also say that my feelings on this are a result of an overall growning trend in this regard over the past 20-30 years. Catchers used to be much more proficient at defending the dish than they are today.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I'll do the "Captain Obvious" thing and say that preventing a guy from touching 2B won't necessarily mean he'll score. If he touches home safely, the inning continues, so getting him out at home would seem pretty vital to the game.

I think maybe I'm rather missing your point in relation to my post. Are you saying that infielders don't block the bag for fear of getting hurt when it doesn't matter as much as when they are touching home?

If so, I'll agree to that and it's a valid concern. That's essentially what I was saying. There's no need to risk injury on a tag play at second base.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I respect your opinion.

Mine is that the play at the plate is one of the more exciting plays in baseball, right up there with the triple (which unfortunately has been taken from us with joke ballparks like Yankee Stadium, but thats a topic for another day). The throw home, the slide, the tag, the call..... its great. And in a majority of plays at the plate, the catcher "blocks" the baseline in some form, not always with the entire torso but maybe with a leg. If this gets called, it wouldnt go over well, not with players, baseball front office staff, the commisioners office, and fans. Let's not mess with the great game on this one.

G Man

If it gets called when the catcher does not have the ball, I would have no problem with it at all. It is breaking the rules to block the plate without the ball and it is therefore obstruction.

Now that is not to say that if he drops the ball prior to contact, or as a direct result of it, that it would be called obstruction. But were that to happen, the runner would clearly score anyway as a result.

But you are simply not allowed to block the plate without the ball and there is no matter of appropriateness involved if you do.

[HotCornerDave]

NOTE: 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.

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

When in doubt, RTFM...

[Rich the Giants fan]

When is catcher considered to be blocking the path of a runner? If the runner is 20' from home plate, can the catcher block his path without the ball? How about 5'? How about 2'?

I think it's a matter of how what he wrote is read, but I believe what he meant was that if there is no physcial contact with the runner and the runners path to home plate is not physically obstructed, there is no blocking involved. If he's standing in front of the plate while the runner is two, five, ten or twenty feet away, he can always sidestep out of the way at the last moment.

Try wording it this way:

The catcher may block in the path to home plate without the ball for as long as he likes, so long as in the end, he does not impede the runners ability to touch home plate.

[gman5431]

If it gets called when the catcher does not have the ball, I would have no problem with it at all. It is breaking the rules to block the plate without the ball and it is therefore obstruction.

Now that is not to say that if he drops the ball prior to contact, or as a direct result of it, that it would be called obstruction. But were that to happen, the runner would clearly score anyway as a result.

But you are simply not allowed to block the plate without the ball and there is no matter of appropriateness involved if you do.

Ok, if that is your stance then you are basically against catchers blocking the plate at all. A vast majority of the time they are blocking the plate and waiting for the ball. If they have the ball already they will actively be going for a tag. I understand what you are saying but if this rule was inforced it would eliminate a lot of plays that i consider good and exciting, not only at home but at every base. I know what the rule book says but like i mentioned earlier this isnt the only rule that is somewhat twisted. The game is better as a result.

G Man

[Rich the Giants fan]

Ok, if that is your stance then you are basically against catchers blocking the plate at all. A vast majority of the time they are blocking the plate and waiting for the ball. If they have the ball already they will actively be going for a tag. I understand what you are saying but if this rule was inforced it would eliminate a lot of plays that i consider good and exciting, not only at home but at every base. I know what the rule book says but like i mentioned earlier this isnt the only rule that is somewhat twisted. The game is better as a result.

G Man

No, I am not at all against blocking the plate (I actually live for collisions at the plate as they are one of the most exciting plays in sports).

That is not what I am saying.

If you are in the act of receiving the ball, then as it's been pointed out, it's ok. If the ball is on its way but not imminently about to reach you, then it is obstruction. This is a judgement call for the umpire to make, but this is usually a pretty obvious call.

[ol' aches and pains]

No, I am not at all against blocking the plate (I actually live for collisions at the plate as they are one of the most exciting plays in sports).

That is not what I am saying.

If you are in the act of receiving the ball, then as it's been pointed out, it's ok. If the ball is on its way but not imminently about to reach you, then it is obstruction. This is a judgement call for the umpire to make, but this is usually a pretty obvious call.

It should be obvious, but it rarely gets called. Usually, the baserunner will make the judgement call, by going through or over the catcher if he's blocking the plate without the ball. Catchers (with the possible exception of Michael Barret) know they block the plate wihout the ball at their own peril.

[gman5431]

No, I am not at all against blocking the plate (I actually live for collisions at the plate as they are one of the most exciting plays in sports).

That is not what I am saying.

If you are in the act of receiving the ball, then as it's been pointed out, it's ok. If the ball is on its way but not imminently about to reach you, then it is obstruction. This is a judgement call for the umpire to make, but this is usually a pretty obvious call.

What is defined as imminently? 5 feet away? On route from the OF?

G Man

[Rich the Giants fan]

What is defined as imminently? 5 feet away? On route from the OF?

G Man

That would be a judgement call by the umpire but I would say 5 feet would be at the outermost border of being imminent. The catcher has to be "in the act" of catching the ball.

The biggest problem I have with catchers today, though, is how they all stand in front of the plate, going to the ball rather than letting the ball come to them, and then attempting a sweep tag. This is done to avoid collisions and takes more time than if you simply let the ball come to you and drop the tag straight down.

[gman5431]

True. I guess most catchers do this to avoid being run over.

G Man

[DownUnderDodger]

Ultimately, everything we do here is for you, Roger. :nod:
Captain, I am not sure what your comment is trying to say, however if my post has upset you in any way I apologise. I was merely trying to add a little humour to a previous post which was querying/correcting the nominated date. And who pray tell is Roger?

In the meantime this thread has given me some more insight into some of the rules of baseball, which I can use in future when such incidents occur in a game.

[SupCompleteNerds]

It's June 25 Down Under. :laughYou making wise cracks at me!?