You make the call..

[Richard]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v31970597/pitchc-castro-safe-at-home-on-platecollision-rule/?cid=mlb

Blocking the plate or positioning from the throw.


(Runner was ruled safe due to the new home plate collision rule)

Edited April 10, 2014 by Richard

[NrM]

He was ruled safe because the catcher was blocking the plate? What the ****? The ball beat him there and it's not like the catcher re-positioned himself to block the plate.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Poozy

[ukyah]

i don't like the call, but i also don't like the rule. this play is one of the reasons why i don't like it.

[Richard]

Was he ruled safe because he was blocking the plate? I'm confused.

Yes. Ruled safe due to Sanchez blocking the plate.

[NrM]

Yes. Ruled safe due to Sanchez blocking the plate.

 

yea had to do a quick edit. 

 

Stupid call for yet another stupid rule.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Poozy

[sneaky_flute]

Castro slid directly into the catcher's glove and should have been out. I could understand ruling him safe if the catcher was blocking the plate with his leg, preventing the runner from touching the base but that wasn't this case. 

 

By the way, the rule that prohibits catchers from blocking the plate without the ball isn't new. It's always existed in the rulebook but only recently put into effect. 

[Spencer]

[DW711]

It's a puss rule. Castro was out by 15-20 feet.

 

I still blame Posey and a lot of the Giant fans (mostly) for it existing.

Edited April 10, 2014 by DW711

[gotbeer]

Very grey area.  Personally, I think if the ump called him out due to blocking the plate.  It was the ump that was in a horrible position to make the call.  If you look at where the ump is standing, or squatting, how the heck could you call a play from there?  If you draw a line continuing the third base line through home plate, he is still on the wrong side of that line.  I don't know if this is on purpose to see if there is blocking the plate or not.  

 

So this is a cop out by the ump.  He couldn't see squat, called blocking the plate.  And because he called blocking the plate, the review has to say yes, because technically the catcher was blocking the plate.  So there was nothing to overturn.

[Hollyw00d]

I think catchers can still get destroyed on a bang-bang play at the plate even with the new rule, for example the throw barely beats the runner and the catcher doesn't have time to brace himself

 

I do like the rule where runners can't go out of their way to initiate contact however, this isn't football and it's not a good or exciting play IMO.  it's just brutality for the sake of it

[Lou Spirito]

Watch closely and you'll see Sanchez moves is left foot in front of the plate before he catches the ball. The ump has a clear view of that before repositioning himself to make the call. The runner is safe based on the new rule.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Lou Spirito

[Splint7438]

He had the ball an eternity before the runner got there. This was flat out a bullshit call. This will stand as an example when they tweak the rule. There was no reasonable way to call him safe. " a path to the plate" should only be valid if the catcher doesn't have the ball. He clearly had the ball waiting for the runner.

[mancini79]

I heard a more detailed explanation. At the last second, Sanchez moved the ball from his glove to his throwing hand. Castro's foot hit the catcher's glove without the ball in it. Therefore he was safe since the catcher blocked the plate without tagging the runner.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I heard a more detailed explanation. At the last second, Sanchez moved the ball from his glove to his throwing hand. Castro's foot hit the catcher's glove without the ball in it. Therefore he was safe since the catcher blocked the plate without tagging the runner.

 

I noticed on the slo-mo replay that the runner's foot hit an empty mitt.

[sneaky_flute]

I noticed on the slo-mo replay that the runner's foot hit an empty mitt.

The ball is in the process of moving to his throwing hand but is still touching the glove. Wouldn't that still be considered an out? That's not really something I've thought about. 

[CaliAngel]

Sanchez moved the ball from his glove to his throwing hand.

 

What I don't get is why would the catcher even do this?

[arch stanton]

I don't think there is any way the ump saw the transfer to the throwing hand. Intentional or not he was blocking the plate. I don't like the rule but it exists and will be emphasized. Catchers need to get out in front to receive the throw.

[Michifan]

Watch closely and you'll see Sanchez moves is left foot in front of the plate before he catches the ball. The ump has a clear view of that before repositioning himself to make the call. The runner is safe based on the new rule.

Yep. He is blocking the plate, not with his whole body, but with his leg preventing access at all to home plate. Thus it is is leg that causes the out. If he just had the glove there, he'd have been out. 

[Splint7438]

The call was he blocked the plate. Not that he didn't have the ball in the glove. What's next? Are the pitchers going to have to announce what pitch is coming? A path to the plate should not be an issue when the ball is waiting for the runner by ten + feet. It goes against the spirit of the rule. The whole reason for replay is to get the call right. This decision completely ignored that.

[Erstad Grit]

With this rule and the replay stuff I feel like I don't even know the rules anymore.

[sneaky_flute]

Until recently, you would always see the catcher block the plate with his leg so that the runner couldn't reach the base (which I've always thought was cheating), but that isn't what happened here. The catcher WAS blocking the plate but he also had the glove positioned directly in front of his body.

 

The "new" rule makes sense and ensures that outs at home are just like outs at any other base, but the rule wasn't enforced properly here. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

This would have been a lot easier if they'd simply made the rule "you can't block the plate. Period." That would have been a more drastic change to the game but it would have been easier to understand and apply.

Instead they added this qualifier "if you have the ball you can block the plate" which creates all the confusion.

In this case he was blocking the plate without the ball, but the runner hadnt arrived yet. By the time the runner got there, he did have the ball. That's why it's grey.

[sneaky_flute]

There shouldn't be any confusion because it's now treated like any other base. The catcher received the ball long before the runner reached the base and the runner slid directly into the mitt. I honestly don't understand the controversy. 

[eligrba]

I thought he was safe due to his foot touching the plate before being tagged.  It looked like he tagged on top of the plate.

 

It is hard to tell because I'm not in NY wearing beer googles.

[gklingel52]

Very grey area.  Personally, I think if the ump called him out due to blocking the plate.  It was the ump that was in a horrible position to make the call.  If you look at where the ump is standing, or squatting, how the heck could you call a play from there?  If you draw a line continuing the third base line through home plate, he is still on the wrong side of that line.  I don't know if this is on purpose to see if there is blocking the plate or not.  

 

So this is a cop out by the ump.  He couldn't see squat, called blocking the plate.  And because he called blocking the plate, the review has to say yes, because technically the catcher was blocking the plate.  So there was nothing to overturn.

The umpire was in the correct position to make this call. 3rd baseline extended slighty up the first side of plate. It is where he is supposed to be (yes, I am an umpire). Personally, I might have been further up the line in fair territory to get a better angle but I do not think his view of the play (blocking the plate) was compramised. BTW, squatting gives him a better angle of the play same as a golfer squatting to read the green.

 

Do I agree with the ruling, no, but the umpires have been instructed by MLB to enforce the rule and, the managers/catchers have been forewarned it is going to be enforced!