Interesting call in Guardians v Detroit game

[Bulldog Bruce]

I read the tweet responses and I can't understand how so many people can be wrong including the catcher? His foot is obviously in the basepath before he has the ball. His foot never moves and the runner has to slide to the side and reach for the plate. This is a "you can't have it both ways". If you are trying to protect the catcher from being run into, he needs to leave that path open until he is actually tagging someone.

[FONT=&]
[/FONT]​

 

[ronpolk]

Agree with your assessment. Clearly blocking the plate without the ball.

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

Good breakdown here on another booth-overturn lane violation call from Aug 9. Looks like the same crew chief.

[tweet]1556996802888568834[/tweet]

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

That one I think should not have been overturned . I think the guy who is narrating, his analysis is dead on. The Guardians catchers foot was always in the way and he actually had to move right to receive the ball. He leans away from where his foot is but leaves it there.

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

Agreed.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

I think the guy who is narrating, his analysis is dead on.

Bruce you should definitely follow JomBoy's Breakdowns on whatever social media you have. I subscribed to his YouTube channel of breakdowns. He's really the one that took the Astros Cheating from speculation to investigation with his work.

As for these 2 calls, 1st one was correct; the 2nd a dumb over-reach & incorrect.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

I read the tweet responses and I can't understand how so many people can be wrong including the catcher? His foot is obviously in the basepath before he has the ball. His foot never moves and the runner has to slide to the side and reach for the plate. This is a "you can't have it both ways". If you are trying to protect the catcher from being run into, he needs to leave that path open until he is actually tagging someone.

[FONT=&]
[/FONT]​

Man, that's a tough one. The rule doesn't define blocking the plate. The runner used his off hand to reach around the catchers foot, but maybe he didn't have to? The runner had a path to the plate without having to change course or lane, though he did probably have to adjust his arm path to do it. But if the catcher is farther away from the plate than that, can he reach the runner with the tag? Is that blocking the plate? Mlb needs to clarify the rule.

IMO, blocking the plate requires the body or a leg, not a foot.

 

[missouridawg]

Man, that's a tough one. The rule doesn't define blocking the plate. The runner used his off hand to reach around the catchers foot, but maybe he didn't have to? The runner had a path to the plate without having to change course or lane, though he did probably have to adjust his arm path to do it. But if the catcher is farther away from the plate than that, can he reach the runner with the tag? Is that blocking the plate? Mlb needs to clarify the rule.

IMO, blocking the plate requires the body or a leg, not a foot.

Any body part that is not allowed to be slid into should not be in front of the bag. If it’s just a foot, will a player get ejected for sliding into it if the catcher doesn’t have the ball? Then that foot shouldn’t be in the way until the ball is under control.

If you want to protect catchers, you have to give runners a clear, unobstructed lane to the base.

Whenever a SS or 2B drops a let in front of the second base, I wish they’d eject that fielder. It’s asinine to think you can just block a bag like that.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

Any body part that is not allowed to be slid into should not be in front of the bag. If it’s just a foot, will a player get ejected for sliding into it if the catcher doesn’t have the ball? Then that foot shouldn’t be in the way until the ball is under control.

If you want to protect catchers, you have to give runners a clear, unobstructed lane to the base.

Whenever a SS or 2B drops a let in front of the second base, I wish they’d eject that fielder. It’s asinine to think you can just block a bag like that.

It's part of the game. I don't think they can call a single foot "blocking the plate" without causing a clusterf*ck, because the fielder has to stand near the bag.

 

[Go Budaw]

Knee jerk thoughts are that blocking the plate shouldn’t be a reviewable call. Maybe the plate was blocked and maybe it wasn’t, but you’ve got to judge it in real time.

It’s like reviewing a catch in football, judging that it was incomplete, but still give the offense 15 yards because you saw pass interference on the replay. Pandora’s box is opened when you can look at every single gray area / subjective judgment call on any given play due to replay.