With the Orioles out in Oakland this weekend, manager Buck Showalter was asked his opinion of changing the rules for catchers blocking the plate prior to last night's 6-2 loss to the A's. Showalter appeared to passively disagree with any potential rule changes, although he was somewhat non-commital. All of this talk is of course stemming from the Athletics' "cross-town rival" Giants losing their starting catcher Buster Posey for the season after he broke his ankle blocking the plate. Posey is of course a superstar catcher, which adds fuel to the fire of any arguement like this one. Jim Hunter and Rick Dempsey mentioned on MASN's O's Xtra pregame show prior to the game that Posey's agent apparently called Joe Torre and Bud Selig and asked them to look into rule changes to protect catchers due to his client being injured (for my money that's a weak move for a sports agent).
My personal stance on this is that while safety concerns have to be addressed in all aspects of baseball, this is part of the game. I see it as very similar to the numerous rule tweaks that we see on an annual basis in the NFL. I recognize that medical research is much better now than it was years ago, and we know that various aspects of sports can be dangerous. However my point would be that we're talking about things that are part of the game, and if you change it too much the game ceases to be what we know it to be. This sounds cliche, however I firmly believe that there'll come a point in the NFL whereby they'll put flags in the quarterback's pockets and in order to sack him you'll have to pull the flag. (...implying of course that if the QB sustains a direct hit in the pocket it's unnecessary roughness and a 15-yd unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.) The quarterback getting hit is part of football. In the same context, I remember when I was a kid and I'd see wide receivers get hit so hard that they couldn't see the blonde streaks of sunlight shine for quite some time. Back then (in the 80's), we called it getting laid out. Nowadays they call it hitting a defenseless receiver; while it still comes with the roar of the crowd for the defender that made the hit, it also comes with a 15-yd unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (automatic first down).
Quarterbacks getting hit and wideouts getting laid out are part of football, just as catchers blocking the plate are part of baseball. There are plenty of ways that catchers can protect themselves, from turning their toes towards the runners, or angling themselves towards the runner. When Pete Rose bowled over Ray Fosse in the 1970 all-star game at home plate, there was no talk of changing the rules. And that was an exhibition game! Some of the chatter I heard yesterday around the docket included changing the rules so that catchers couldn't block the plate until they had the ball, among other things. Again, this is part of the game. One could make the same argument about take-out slides on the basepaths to break up double-plays. Isn't there a possibility of injury there? Furthermore, maybe they should look into not allowing first basemen to pick the ball out of the dirt so he doesn't strain his legs doing a split like Brandon Snyder did this week. To top it off, for that matter they could even outlaw outfielders diving for balls, because the guy could get hurt going to the ground.
I'm saying this stuff to prove a point, however there's a hidden message in all of this which is also the same in the rule tweaks in football: go figure, they all help the offense. Catchers not being able to properly block the plate any longer (for safety reasons of course) will give base runners coming into score potential runs a huge advantage, as would outlawing take-out slides (again, for safety reasons). This all provides for more runs and more baserunners (which could lead to more runs). All of the new NFL rules that are designed to protect QB's (for safety reasons) such as not hitting below the knee give him an added advantage. Penalizing a defender for hitting a wideout in the spirit of the play gives the offense an added advantage. (For the record, all football fans know a dirty hit when they see one. If the play is over and the guy gets laid out I have no problem with a ref throwing a flag. However we all also know when something's happened that was in the spirit of the play and the defender had no way of stopping; that shouldn't be penalized. If the wideout doesn't want that contact, he should either have not come across the middle or he should try golf.) All leagues want more scoring because they feel that's what fans want to see. Speaking for myself, I want to see the game and all parts of it. Catchers blocking the plate is part of baseball; ask any former catcher such as Rick Dempsey or Johnny Bench. And ask Sam Huff or Dick Butkis what their opinion is with regard to protecting players and so forth. Speaking of Sam Huff, he's a former catcher himself from his days on the WVU baseball team. Maybe MLB should ask him what his opinion is about contact at the plate! Knowing what we know about Huff, who in my opinion is the greatest linebacker in the history of the NFL, does anyone think he would agree that they should try to take contact out of that play?
Written by:
