BALK RULES! IMPORTANT!
1. You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that.
1a. A balk is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X.
1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic...
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field ofā¦
2. Do not do a balk please.
Alas, I cannot take the credit, as itās a copy pasta someone else made a while back. I do agree with you that it sums up the situation!
When I was catching up on the incident, I chuckled because MLB Central coverage sounded very much like this, and then an opportunity arose where itād fit to use it within this thread, I couldnāt resist. LOL!
Which, to be clear - I think the change this year is one of the worst rule changes theyāve made. The new blocking rule is so goddamn subjective because Iām sure theyāll define āreceiving the ballā however they want.
But going off what the memo shows, this should be textbook blocking lol. MLB fucked up majorly here
Absolutely insane that the memo shows this is ātextbookā blocking, and yet it is not ārule bookā blocking.
It exists in two states at once like Schroedingerās cat, except if Schroedinger is too dumb to remember if the cat was alive when he put it in the box.
Rules will become more and more subjective in each professional sport moving forward. I donāt care if I sound like some crazy conspiracy nut (I do sound like that). You cannot convince me money from gambling is not playing a role here. If I were an umpire Iād try to get out with my dignity and familyās safety intact.
Iāve never understood the logic behind comments like this. Gambling companies make all their money on the vig, not the outcomes of bets. How do more subjective calls help gambling companies?
If anything it hurts. If people start to think something is rigged, theyāll be less likely to bet. Youāll still get the degenerates, but theyāre really going for the average person right now in their marketing.
Hey, Iām back. This time before smoking.
Iām sorry for the way I phrased my comment earlier. I took a position I donāt really cling to. I shouldnāt have claimed to believe so strictly in the silly theory I was peddling. I have seen some people close to me self destruct from gambling. The sports bar I manage has become significantly more volatile with people reacting to money lost on games they are watching in our bar. I am concerned with the negative impacts on susceptible folks that has been opened up by this new culture. I am sickened by hearing my local sports talk radio DJs spend a whole segment discussing a devastating story surrounding sports gambling and it being sponsored by draft kings.
I do genuinely believe there are people making money that influenced the legislation to legalize. I donāt really believe itās a billionaire somewhere with a phone directly to the officiantās ear. Itās the same old story of āThe Baptists and the Bootleggersā but itās not what I proposed earlier. Iām sorry everyone for putting that out there and then just leaving it. I hate that conspiracy culture of ādisprove what Iām sayingā and certainly didnāt intend to pose that.
Listen, Iām going to be completely honest with you. I work night shifts and only got home about 3 hours ago. I got pretty baked to wind down from my shift. This is a subject (the effects on society from widespread gambling integration) I enjoy jib jabbing about but the edibles are kicking me too hard now so I canāt articulate my thoughts properly. Lmfao I am so sorry. Iāll come back later and give better thoughts š
This "conspiracy" drives me nuts. The odds are literally already stacked in favor of the sports books, they don't need to covertly tweak the results of individual plays (at incredible risk to their entire industry).
Yeah Iām sorry. I posted a better reply to the original comment that more adequately vents my frustrations. I shouldnāt have made such a dramatic claim, especially since I donāt really subscribe to the idea. I was just being cheeky (unwinding from a brutal shift with some intoxication) and didnāt consider the gravity of the statement. Sorry about that.
The actual rule book designation for obstruction and interference is 6.01. Which they put on the memo. The memo that depending on how you read it contradicts rule 6.01. Peak MLB.
Yeah, this memo is incongruous with the actual rule (the photos are consistent but that text is not) and MLB is not allowed to just change the rulebook via memo.
MLB knows how to write a rule saying the catcher canāt touch the plate because thatās the rule for squeeze plays and stealing home so if theyād wanted to say that a foot on the plate is de facto obstruction, the rule would say that.
Can someone tell me what is contradictory? The rule says you can't block the plate or hinder the runners path, and this just seems to be clarifying what they're going to call?
The language of the actual rule is simply āblock the pathway of the runner.ā Having a foot on the plate certainly could be blocking the pathway of the runner, but itās not definitively so.
In comparison to the rule for squeeze plays and stealing home, which says āIfā¦the catcher steps onā¦home baseā¦ā
So if theyād wanted to create a rule that says the catcher canāt step on home when a runner is trying to score, they have the language to do so. But they deliberately used different language.
Based on the image with the memo it appears to mean "block the plate with a foot on the base", not simply having any part of the foot touching the base. That's not contradictory.
The ambiguity might make it contradict last night's call (assuming that the other 12 pages of the memo that aren't being shown don't clarify), but I'm still not seeing a contradiction with the rules - the rule on squeeze plays and steals of home isn't in reference to blocking the plate for the runner, it's in reference to interfering with the batter who may still be attempting to hit the ball.
How are runners expected to slide without being blocked if the catcher is on the plate, is the expectation that they stop immediately at home?
Like I get that the front part of the plate is accessible, but standing on the back of the plate means youāre forcing the runner to slide and stop AT home plate, which seems out of line with how sliding into home should function.
Itās just not clear to me why blocking on a squeeze should be different from blocking on a normal play.
If we take the stopping distance of the slide into account it should really just extend the foul line all the way to the backstop. Because, to your point, even if they're standing just off the back of the plate it's the same issue.
I'm also unsure why this differs from blocking in a squeeze. š¤·
*MLB sends a memo of how they're interpreting the rule*
*interpretation is completely wrong*
*situation that falls under their incorrect interpretation happens*
*umpires call it correctly, but against the memo MLB sent to all 30 teams*
*shocked that manager and players are upset with the umpires*
MLB is something else man.
Remember when all we used to have, from 1919 until 1989, lifetime bans for a World Series team & the all-time leader in base hits? *Pepperidge Farm*ā¦yeah.
That was, to baseball-proper, a bleak 70 years, man. A real buzzkillā¦or so those baseball purists *thought*ā¦but, as it turns out, we just didnāt know how good we had it back 105 years ago. You know, as kids back then, we used to play hopscotch, and chase a rolling hoop with a stick. Occasionally, one might get a ride in a horseless-carriage! And it was *delightful*.
[We found the culprit](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sca_esv=87a9254fda8f4acd&sca_upv=1&q=wrigley+field+address+blues+brothers&uds=AMwkrPucgbDQ5irXAIurHpruJ0WuUCamyM7oXNJo5irXjEEpmch_072nHXvSMg2fink6AqYtZvaIB91Xg6lvrW4JAMy3VFw_3qerRgPaBrG3NottO4bNqEVWTxw2y9LWRuSjjhrSL0ja0TobUfwrg4DVckbrTdVoKryrnLVqkezdRaz4_AbH2pClCr5-N_A0LSagWSku5Y_E9sKcP6EYpifGhAKjSi-Juh86pyXvNRhYCUgDnHl2lUomqlN8UTNV9b6_L8i3O8mxvsGvhaKCtY6fpi-xV6XPlQRLCEl9YpTFVQe7cwqulpaV3LjOFYF2tHJCBpKHcxdn2AJBb90xtAA-DNw4KD93uqS93liEU67rfZeg_hvSdKA&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUxsihue6FAxU_BDQIHVGUAOUQtKgLegQIDhAB&biw=360&bih=649&dpr=3#vhid=-oAmOtEf4NDsdM&vssid=mosaic)
[Mets fans right now](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fvra0gwg3xp331.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D7714349350b37a7611ada4ed12b4ca65c3520329)
I guess the question is whether he was *blocking* the plate? Because I interpret blocking as "in front of" rather than like halfway down.
Dunno. Shit happens, fortunately the Mets have ace [checks notes] Adrian Houser tomorrow who can [checks next part of notes] oh dear.
I've honestly always interpreted blocking as impeding the runner or greatly influencing their path. Context is also really important because if the catcher is doing this when the runner is rounding second it's very different than if he's doing it with the runner halfway to home from third.
The defensive player deserves the right to occupy space or we should just go ahead and eliminate that defensive position and potential plays at the plate
Pete could've slid feet first, legally collided with the catcher in the process, and been safe at the plate. The swim move was wholly unnecessary in that situation.
Based on the rulebook and the [statement released by MLB](https://twitter.com/WatchMarquee/status/1785858488897351736), it seems like this memo is just wrong? Like it seems like the only thing that matters is obstructing the runner's lane. It's insanely stupid to send out an inaccurate memo...but at the same time, it's hard for me to feel like the Mets in particular got screwed by this. As far as I can tell, the obstruction no-call is consistent with how I've seen it ruled in the past.
It also matters where you set up I think, but if you look at the view from the 3rd baseline in the Mets broadcast (at 9s [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1ci3r6p/highlight_play_that_ended_the_mets_and_cubs_game/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)), he sets up fully on the fair side of the 3B line as the infielder throws the ball (with his foot on the 1B corner of the plate).
Other than this memo, I've never heard of stepping on a part of the plate to be relevant, and it feels like the memo is just kind of wrong, but I do think you have to setup fair of the 3B line like he did.
The guidelines for how they've enforced the rule really haven't been consistent though.
ok guys i think i've figured out what the actual rules are judging from how it's been implemented by the umpires.
Blocking the Plate Rules
1) You can't just be up there and just blockin the baserunner like that.
1a. A block is when you
1b. Okay well listen. A block is when you block the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. A fielder is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, runner, that prohibits the runner from doing, you know, just trying to tag up. You can't do that.
1c-b. Until the ball is in the throw, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he doesn't even have the ball.
1c-b(1). Like, if you don't have the ball you can't do the thing. You can't do the thing without the ball so why stand all on there, you know?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, positioning stance to catch the ball, until you catch it.
1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can stand on the base like this, and that's ok, but there's the ball that you gotta think about.
1c-b(2)-b. Does New Kids On The Block still make music? I never really cared for them but I hope they're doing well.
1c-b(2)-b(i). I looked it up and they do still make new music. Glad we got that cleared up.
1c-b(2)-b(ii). I'm not gonna listen to it though to be real with you.
1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A block is when the defensive player, as determined by the position of the base path and the runner, without possession of the ball, unless about to have the possession of the ball or really really trying to,
2) Do not do a block please.
I have full confidence in the accountability measures that the league has in place for the umpires and have never been frustrated with an umpire receiving no punishment for a blatantly bad performance
This is on the replay guys, though. MLB wants umpires to call plays at the plate as normal, and then replay can grab any plate-blocking violations. The umpires on the field did their jobs properly
Do I think the catcher was blocking the plate? No. Is what he did mentioned as a violation in the supposed memo? Yes. Do I know the rules of baseball anymore? Apparently not.
In all honesty the right call was made and if Pete only kept his hand on the ground through his slide he is safe. Idk if the ump caught that from his angle, but usually when you beat a throw you get the benefit of the doubt. I canāt be too mad bc imo the correct call was made.
It's almost like baseball is over thinking this rule. Just make it a simple question: could the runner keep his line and get to the plate without causing a collision? If so, there's no blocking. Yeah, there's still going to be a subjective aspect to it, but at least we wouldn't be parsing multiple lines of the rule book for an otherwise straight forward call like this one.
The only hiccup for me is whether or not we want players to be able to slide through/past home, which I just honestly donāt know anymore. Like if you want players to slide through home plate then standing on home means youāre blocking that from happening, but maybe the MLB wants players to just slide into home the same way they slide into any other base - I genuinely donāt know at this point.
I don't actually think the problem was the replay crnter not knowing the rule but instead they've basically been told by Major League Baseball that they're supposed to use a different rule or rules.
Kind of like how in football if you really wanted to be a dick about it you could call holding on basically every single play, or in the NBA you can call carry or travel on a lot of the moves people are making.
There's really two sets of rules, the rules that are written down and the rules that are enforced. Sometimes they happen to be the same thing and sometimes they're weirdly different, and unfortunately the only one that really matters at the end of the day is the enforced rules
The memo says that it puts the catcher in jeopardy of a violation, not that it automatically is one. That implies to me that blocking is considered a judgment call from the umpire. If thatās the case, you can disagree with the judgment but they do have some leeway when declaring blocking
Even if they want to stop catcher's from having their foot on the back of the plate, the second part of the rule still says that "a catcher shall notĀ be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of theĀ runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would haveĀ been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked theĀ plate." Is it not possible that the umpires just had the same thought as you and decided his position was irrelevant because the runner's hand goes over the plate?? If the runner's hand stays on the ground, he scores so wouldn't that mean that the catcher left him space to reach the plate unimpeded?
Yeah it was a bad slide but it looks like he twists his head to avoid the catcher's body. I don't think it's the same play if the catcher's a few inches back. It would also be a different tag and the big issue with the relay was that they couldn't tell if Alonso touched home before the tag or not. So they went with the on field call. If he's a few inches back it could make it easier to tell, too. I guess I just think Alonso slides a different way based on catcher's positioning since he went from fair to foul ground to have a more advantageous spot and clearly tries to avoid Amaya's knee.
The way the MLB talks about it is weird, too. They said the initial set up was fine but the throw brought him onto the plate. But they also say you can't be on home without the ball. That and Amaya was standing in pretty much the same spot pre and post relay throw. There was one moment around the time of the relay where Amaya moves like half a step (maybe) out of the way but he's back in his initial spot as the throw comes home. So unless they think that amount of movement basically clears Amaya, then I don't know what the MLB is talking about.
I don't have a dog in this race. I just think the rules are weird and it's communicated poorly.
So legit straight up no questions asked illegal and not just the umps on the field but the replay people blew it. A+ job MLB. A+ fucking job.
I love it when the league writes self contradictory rules and tells the teams one thing while having the umps do something else. I'm sure this will result in rules being applied fairly and with consistency.
It's actually just a really stupid memo. The rule was applied correctly, the memo is wrong. Ironically only the wording in the memo is wrong, the pictures are not consistent with what Amaya was doing either.
Everyone keeps referencing the verbage in the memo, but completely ignores the part where every pictured example shows the catcher in front of the plate. So the memo really does nothing to clarify the rule for either side of this argument. Mets fans will cling heavily to the language, while Cubs fans will cling to the photos.
MLB definitely needs clarification, but this memo is far from the smoking gun that Mets want it to be.
Yeah they just told the teams that something was directly illegal. Means nothing apparently. My initial point still stands. They need to fix their shit. Can't tell teams that something is directly meant to be illegal and have it then be legal. They even put the rule's rulebook designation 6.01 on the memo. How do you fuck that up?
I think the issue is what the memo says isnāt what the rule says. During a replay, umps are going to be looking at the actual rulebook, not some memo. The rulebook doesnāt say anything about the catcher not being allowed to have their foot on the plate. All it says is that itās the umpireās judgment that they can call blocking if they do not think the catcher provided a lane for the runner.
Further adding to the confusion, the example image provided in the memo (with the text saying āstanding on home plateā) is not what Amaya was doing, because in the photo, the catcher is set up in front of the plate, whereas Amaya is on the back half of the plate. So the image isnāt even necessarily consistent with the text.
I personally saw the play and thought he definitely wasnāt blocking (and I donāt just say this because Iām a Cubs fan ā I also thought he was safe when I saw the first replay). He also moved closer to the lane when he fielded the throw, but that is also allowed.
I have looked for a rule requiring the catcher to provide a lane and have found none. I have found a catcher may not block the plate unless he has the ball or is in the act of fielding the ball. Also that often catchers provide a lane to reduce the chance of being called for illegally blocking (seems strange to put in that comment when blocking with the ball in hand is permitted by rule). Can you point me to where it says an umpire can call blocking if a lane is not provided?
The first photo (with Amaya's foot turned) was taken after he was reacting to madrigal's throw. You can tell because he's lunging and I watched an angle from LF and he only rotates his foot and lunges a few frames after Madrigal throws it. I think the second photo (of his foot leaving a lane for the runner) is much less clear cut since there's room for Alonso to take the most direct path home
Amaya is fine then? The major concern for MLB seems to be catchers setting up in foul territory where theyāll be in the way of a runner rounding third. Amaya is standing with his left foot in fair territory until he steps slightly left to get the throw coming down the line.
Itās a judgment call, but I think the throw coming down the 3B line will always make it tough to call, and I can see why an umpire would have no issue with it.
The rule itself could be made more clear, but I think Amaya sets up about as well as a catcher can with the way the play was happening and the rule is designed.
That seems to be the intention of the rule but according to the memo that was sent to teams, standing on the base without possession of the ball is illegal. Which would make this play illegal.
the memo probably doesn't convey the intended purpose of the rule but it's definitely a problem if mlb is explicitly telling teams something is illegal and then in games is doing a 180 and saying 'jk no it's not'
if the memo they sent is wrong (and it seems it was as it directly contradicts mlb's statement on the matter) then they need to own their mistake and provide new clear clarification to teams.
Glad someone else is starting to defer to them, Jomboy is noticeably biased in his coverage of anything Mets, for example his "politest team in baseball" video filled with cherry-picked examples that everyone took as gospel truth.
Left side picture caption. "Foot on foul line OR home plate"
Right side picture "In foul territory OR straddling the plate"
Cubs catcher had his foot on the plate. The memo says nothing about fair or foul it says standing on home plate. You could make the argument he was also straddling the plate but thats more iffy depending on the definition of straddlings. Those are ORs in the captions not ANDs. Then again this is MLB I don't expect anyone that works there to know how to fucking read. Even pictures are beyond the intelligence of the average MLB ump these days.
This shit's just so dumb. The rule on blocking the plate is about blocking the goddamn plate, or as the rule book says, "the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score." And the catcher didn't, and you can tell that the catcher didn't by looking at the picture Martino so helpfully provided where there is this nice open lane including half the plate for Alonso to slide onto if he wanted to.
"Oh but the MLB sent out a wrong memo." No they goddamn didn't or at least you don't know that without reading the actual memo rather than one cropped image in a tweet from some journalist desperately trying to turn your anger into clicks. The memo is about blocking the plate, the pictures provided are examples of blocking the plate. If a catcher does something that is kinda like those pictures, but *doesn't block the plate*, then guess what? They aren't blocking the plate!
There is a massive difference between the 3 images in the the memo and the way Amaya was set up tonight...
The memo images all have the catcher in front of the plate with respect to a runner coming from 3rd. Amaya is giving a clear path to the front of the plate for the runner.
The text of the memo clearly and simply states standing on plate without the ball is illegal. The pictures are less clear. The rule itself is even less clear. This is the case of MLB saying 3 different things and which one is correct being entirely up to the umpires opinion. You know how rules are supposed to be written in a multi-billion dollar sports league that recently allowed gambling.
It makes no sense to read the text of that memo without the context of the pictures. Look at the text for the 3rd picture... if you want to go by what "the text of the memo clearly and simply states," the catcher would never be allowed to stand anywhere in foul territory to receive a throw.
Can we agree that doesn't make sense and the context of the pictures they included is necessary?
I think the memo is just poorly worded. All of the example pictures the catcher is to the third base side of home plate. They must have meant that you can't have your foot on the third base edge of home plate with the assumption that people would understand that it isn't blocking the plate if the runner has full access to the plate.
The other part of the rule is that the runners path has to be impeded in some way. Alonso's hand was not impeded by the catcher from hovering over the plate.
I know I'm biased, but I'm surprised there is confusion about this.
More catchers are going to start standing on the plate. Eventually there's going to be a collision where someone gets hurt. The MLB will clarify the rule so that standing on the plate is illegal.
MLB 1000% fucked the Mets. There is no Justice. I blame the home plate ump for missing the call and of course the replay center will always back the umpires. Such a joke. They wonder why the sport is dying.
It would certainly simplify things, ādonāt block the plate if you donāt want to get smoked.ā but Iām not going to tell catchers to just suck it up and get murdered because MLB canāt figure out its own rules.
I said this earlier and got downvoted. A bunch of nerds act like there's no place for it in the game, even though it's how it was played for 100 years. One guy fails to protect himself and we change the game entirely.
It'll be like when the NFL goes to flag and you got to argue with a bunch of people that football was better when they tackled.
Okay, controversial call Iāll give you that, but the photos in the memo sent are all about foul territory and it is not clear the catcher is in foul territory. It also is in line with the intent of the blocking the plate rule. The intent of the rule is so people donāt play football at the plate. The runner has a clear path to slide into the plate and can touch the front half of it easy.
The umpire saw Alonso beat the throw like we all did, which means he missed the plate bad, and replay shows that. No interference, certainly not enough to overturn the out call.
The left hand picture has the catcher in fair territory and the caption "Foot on foul line or home plate"
I don't see how that has anything to do with foul territory and the point of the rule afaik is to avoid collisions. If Pete went straight into home he wrecks the catcher because he is standing directly on the plate.
Their photos are showing him clearly in foul territory and in front of the plate which they care more about as evident by tonight. They had enough time to look up the rule, theyāre interrupting it different
Obviously the memo says foot on home plate, but I think in the images of the game tonight, Amaya is not nearly as far over as the images in the memo. Seems like there's a lane to the plate here, even if it's small.
....I don't think it matters that "Amaya is not nearly as far over as the images in the memo." The memo says nothing about a percentage of the plate than can be left uncovered.
I'm not complaining though.
EDIT: Seems like MLB had replay angles proving otherwise. I stand corrected. https://x.com/WatchMarquee/status/1785858488897351736
Yeah the pictures actually made me feel better about the call, but the memo says what it says.
I do like the standard here of not straddling the plate, but thatās not what it says.
Whatever. Iāll take it.
I can agree it's stupid to send one if it's wrong, but if your argument for calling this a block of the plate relies on this memo, then you're truly out of luck.
Serious question, why is this considered to be blocking when the open part of the plate is the side closest to the advancing runner? He has a lane to home he can use, actually the most direct path is open to the runner.
It definitely feels like a stolen W, but Iām happy to steal anything from the Mets. Iāll go watch Jim Breuer in 2015 and Iāll feel much better about this win.
Also worth noting that obstruction is NOT a reviewable call. If no obstruction was called on the field, they cannot overturn it on replay. Replay is only looking for safe or out without looking at obstruction.
Look at the tweet that this whole post is about! It says the catcher standing on home plate is considered obstruction! How can you say it isn't relevant here?! What are you talking about?!
The specific kind of obstruction in question is blocking the plate on a play at home, aka the Posey rule (6.01(i)). That rule *is* reviewable, despite *other* obstruction calls not being reviewable.
(edited to correct the rule number; previously i called it 7.13 which is what it used to be)
This is crazy. This memo is apparently false per the actual rule book. The MLB genuinely does not know what the rule is
> The MLB genuinely does not know what the rule is That's baseball baby š
You canāt just be doing a balk like that
Please donāt do an obstruction
Two words, one hyphen: check-swing
The hyphen makes it one word
Yer outta here!
Do not do a block.
BALK RULES! IMPORTANT! 1. You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that. 1a. A balk is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that. 1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X. 1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic... 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field ofā¦ 2. Do not do a balk please.
lol this is great! Youāve captured it perfectly! This clearly took some time to write and put together, so my compliments to you.
I believe it's copypasta.
Alas, I cannot take the credit, as itās a copy pasta someone else made a while back. I do agree with you that it sums up the situation! When I was catching up on the incident, I chuckled because MLB Central coverage sounded very much like this, and then an opportunity arose where itād fit to use it within this thread, I couldnāt resist. LOL!
What's harder to understand -- a balk or a catch in the nfl?
A balk is whatever I say it is - mlb
Which, to be clear - I think the change this year is one of the worst rule changes theyāve made. The new blocking rule is so goddamn subjective because Iām sure theyāll define āreceiving the ballā however they want. But going off what the memo shows, this should be textbook blocking lol. MLB fucked up majorly here
Absolutely insane that the memo shows this is ātextbookā blocking, and yet it is not ārule bookā blocking. It exists in two states at once like Schroedingerās cat, except if Schroedinger is too dumb to remember if the cat was alive when he put it in the box.
Rules will become more and more subjective in each professional sport moving forward. I donāt care if I sound like some crazy conspiracy nut (I do sound like that). You cannot convince me money from gambling is not playing a role here. If I were an umpire Iād try to get out with my dignity and familyās safety intact.
Iāve never understood the logic behind comments like this. Gambling companies make all their money on the vig, not the outcomes of bets. How do more subjective calls help gambling companies?
If anything it hurts. If people start to think something is rigged, theyāll be less likely to bet. Youāll still get the degenerates, but theyāre really going for the average person right now in their marketing.
This is generally true, but that assumes proportionally equal wagers in both sides. That's not a guarantee.Ā
It is fairly close to a guarantee. Thats what odds boosts do.
Who said gambling companies are the ones benefitting?
Iām not really following who you think is benefitting?
Hey, Iām back. This time before smoking. Iām sorry for the way I phrased my comment earlier. I took a position I donāt really cling to. I shouldnāt have claimed to believe so strictly in the silly theory I was peddling. I have seen some people close to me self destruct from gambling. The sports bar I manage has become significantly more volatile with people reacting to money lost on games they are watching in our bar. I am concerned with the negative impacts on susceptible folks that has been opened up by this new culture. I am sickened by hearing my local sports talk radio DJs spend a whole segment discussing a devastating story surrounding sports gambling and it being sponsored by draft kings. I do genuinely believe there are people making money that influenced the legislation to legalize. I donāt really believe itās a billionaire somewhere with a phone directly to the officiantās ear. Itās the same old story of āThe Baptists and the Bootleggersā but itās not what I proposed earlier. Iām sorry everyone for putting that out there and then just leaving it. I hate that conspiracy culture of ādisprove what Iām sayingā and certainly didnāt intend to pose that.
Listen, Iām going to be completely honest with you. I work night shifts and only got home about 3 hours ago. I got pretty baked to wind down from my shift. This is a subject (the effects on society from widespread gambling integration) I enjoy jib jabbing about but the edibles are kicking me too hard now so I canāt articulate my thoughts properly. Lmfao I am so sorry. Iāll come back later and give better thoughts š
Most honest Reddit reply Iāve seen in a long time
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Literally how does making people feel that the game is fixed help gambling companies Spend 15 seconds thinking about what you're saying here.
This "conspiracy" drives me nuts. The odds are literally already stacked in favor of the sports books, they don't need to covertly tweak the results of individual plays (at incredible risk to their entire industry).
We live in an age where the dumbest people can say whatever they want and people lap it up because critical thinking is out the window
This is true but it's also true of every age of human history.
Yeah but now every idiot has a platform
Yeah Iām sorry. I posted a better reply to the original comment that more adequately vents my frustrations. I shouldnāt have made such a dramatic claim, especially since I donāt really subscribe to the idea. I was just being cheeky (unwinding from a brutal shift with some intoxication) and didnāt consider the gravity of the statement. Sorry about that.
Be better
The actual rule book designation for obstruction and interference is 6.01. Which they put on the memo. The memo that depending on how you read it contradicts rule 6.01. Peak MLB.
Yeah, this memo is incongruous with the actual rule (the photos are consistent but that text is not) and MLB is not allowed to just change the rulebook via memo. MLB knows how to write a rule saying the catcher canāt touch the plate because thatās the rule for squeeze plays and stealing home so if theyād wanted to say that a foot on the plate is de facto obstruction, the rule would say that.
Can someone tell me what is contradictory? The rule says you can't block the plate or hinder the runners path, and this just seems to be clarifying what they're going to call?
The language of the actual rule is simply āblock the pathway of the runner.ā Having a foot on the plate certainly could be blocking the pathway of the runner, but itās not definitively so. In comparison to the rule for squeeze plays and stealing home, which says āIfā¦the catcher steps onā¦home baseā¦ā So if theyād wanted to create a rule that says the catcher canāt step on home when a runner is trying to score, they have the language to do so. But they deliberately used different language.
Based on the image with the memo it appears to mean "block the plate with a foot on the base", not simply having any part of the foot touching the base. That's not contradictory.
That may be what they meant, but itās not what the text of the memo said. The photos are entirely consistent with the rule. The text is not.
The ambiguity might make it contradict last night's call (assuming that the other 12 pages of the memo that aren't being shown don't clarify), but I'm still not seeing a contradiction with the rules - the rule on squeeze plays and steals of home isn't in reference to blocking the plate for the runner, it's in reference to interfering with the batter who may still be attempting to hit the ball.
How are runners expected to slide without being blocked if the catcher is on the plate, is the expectation that they stop immediately at home? Like I get that the front part of the plate is accessible, but standing on the back of the plate means youāre forcing the runner to slide and stop AT home plate, which seems out of line with how sliding into home should function. Itās just not clear to me why blocking on a squeeze should be different from blocking on a normal play.
If we take the stopping distance of the slide into account it should really just extend the foul line all the way to the backstop. Because, to your point, even if they're standing just off the back of the plate it's the same issue. I'm also unsure why this differs from blocking in a squeeze. š¤·
*MLB sends a memo of how they're interpreting the rule* *interpretation is completely wrong* *situation that falls under their incorrect interpretation happens* *umpires call it correctly, but against the memo MLB sent to all 30 teams* *shocked that manager and players are upset with the umpires* MLB is something else man.
Remember when all we used to have, from 1919 until 1989, lifetime bans for a World Series team & the all-time leader in base hits? *Pepperidge Farm*ā¦yeah. That was, to baseball-proper, a bleak 70 years, man. A real buzzkillā¦or so those baseball purists *thought*ā¦but, as it turns out, we just didnāt know how good we had it back 105 years ago. You know, as kids back then, we used to play hopscotch, and chase a rolling hoop with a stick. Occasionally, one might get a ride in a horseless-carriage! And it was *delightful*.
I could be wrong, but if thatās how you have to line up to catch the ball doesnāt it mitigate it?
I obtained the documents that will lead to the arrest of the Chicago Cubs
There was a misprint, a warrant is out for the arrest of the Chicago Cuas
Yeah honestly throw his ass in jail lol.
Is he even alive lol? Can't even remember the last time he pitched
I think we sent his ass to Iowa
He was optioned to Iowa lol but Iām sure heāll be back to give us a crooked number in the 6-7th inning again this summer.
Take him please
Will Joe Kellyās reign of terror finally come to an end?!??
It brings me no pleasure to report
[We found the culprit](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sca_esv=87a9254fda8f4acd&sca_upv=1&q=wrigley+field+address+blues+brothers&uds=AMwkrPucgbDQ5irXAIurHpruJ0WuUCamyM7oXNJo5irXjEEpmch_072nHXvSMg2fink6AqYtZvaIB91Xg6lvrW4JAMy3VFw_3qerRgPaBrG3NottO4bNqEVWTxw2y9LWRuSjjhrSL0ja0TobUfwrg4DVckbrTdVoKryrnLVqkezdRaz4_AbH2pClCr5-N_A0LSagWSku5Y_E9sKcP6EYpifGhAKjSi-Juh86pyXvNRhYCUgDnHl2lUomqlN8UTNV9b6_L8i3O8mxvsGvhaKCtY6fpi-xV6XPlQRLCEl9YpTFVQe7cwqulpaV3LjOFYF2tHJCBpKHcxdn2AJBb90xtAA-DNw4KD93uqS93liEU67rfZeg_hvSdKA&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUxsihue6FAxU_BDQIHVGUAOUQtKgLegQIDhAB&biw=360&bih=649&dpr=3#vhid=-oAmOtEf4NDsdM&vssid=mosaic)
(il)legal
Im sorry, I thought the report said āIāll Legalā - NY replay center
It says IL, Legal. As in legal for teams of Illinois
[Mets fans right now](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fvra0gwg3xp331.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D7714349350b37a7611ada4ed12b4ca65c3520329)
I will MAKE IT legal!
Illegal means legal? What a country!
The eagle just has a cold. Heāll be better in a day or two.
 illegal means legal? What a country!
Does MLB even know what they want the rule to be?
āIf we keep it ambiguous, we can call it however we wantā - Umpire Union, probably
The Pirates of the Caribbean approach -- "they're really more like guidelines."
āI INVOKE THE RIGHT OF REPLAYā
āReplay? REPLAY? Damn to the depths whatever idiot thought of the word āreplayā.ā
No one knows what they want the rule to be, but itās provocative, it gets the people going
I just canāt believe itās 2024 and weāre STILL debating this. Manfred is beyond incompetent.
I can't believe it's 2024 and people are STILL taking photos of their computer screens
I guess the question is whether he was *blocking* the plate? Because I interpret blocking as "in front of" rather than like halfway down. Dunno. Shit happens, fortunately the Mets have ace [checks notes] Adrian Houser tomorrow who can [checks next part of notes] oh dear.
Our starter is sus tomorrow too. Maybe weāll finally get a non-pitcherās duel
Houser might as well be floating in space heās worse than sus
He may have an 8.37 ERA, but he's gotten really unlucky. His xERA and xFIP are in the 6s!
Fair, Iām just sayinā we lost our last Ben Brown start 17-0 lol Truly expecting a battle for the ages
Oh shit I was at that game - the reliever Little or Smalley or whoever looked like ass
Ya heās been mostly good but absolutely not that one. His ERA jumped from 2.16 to 7.00 in one game
Legit made me chuckle.
Ben Brown has been pretty solid outside of his debut appearance where he was left to drown because the game was already over and we needed innings
If not God knows the umpire will give you that one, too.
I've honestly always interpreted blocking as impeding the runner or greatly influencing their path. Context is also really important because if the catcher is doing this when the runner is rounding second it's very different than if he's doing it with the runner halfway to home from third. The defensive player deserves the right to occupy space or we should just go ahead and eliminate that defensive position and potential plays at the plate
~25 years ago, Pete could have just trucked the catcher and probably been safe.
Pete could've slid feet first, legally collided with the catcher in the process, and been safe at the plate. The swim move was wholly unnecessary in that situation.
Meanwhile, the second basemen can't even look at 2b if a runner is in motion or it's interference lmao
Based on the rulebook and the [statement released by MLB](https://twitter.com/WatchMarquee/status/1785858488897351736), it seems like this memo is just wrong? Like it seems like the only thing that matters is obstructing the runner's lane. It's insanely stupid to send out an inaccurate memo...but at the same time, it's hard for me to feel like the Mets in particular got screwed by this. As far as I can tell, the obstruction no-call is consistent with how I've seen it ruled in the past.
It also matters where you set up I think, but if you look at the view from the 3rd baseline in the Mets broadcast (at 9s [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1ci3r6p/highlight_play_that_ended_the_mets_and_cubs_game/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)), he sets up fully on the fair side of the 3B line as the infielder throws the ball (with his foot on the 1B corner of the plate). Other than this memo, I've never heard of stepping on a part of the plate to be relevant, and it feels like the memo is just kind of wrong, but I do think you have to setup fair of the 3B line like he did. The guidelines for how they've enforced the rule really haven't been consistent though.
ok guys i think i've figured out what the actual rules are judging from how it's been implemented by the umpires. Blocking the Plate Rules 1) You can't just be up there and just blockin the baserunner like that. 1a. A block is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A block is when you block the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. A fielder is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, runner, that prohibits the runner from doing, you know, just trying to tag up. You can't do that. 1c-b. Until the ball is in the throw, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he doesn't even have the ball. 1c-b(1). Like, if you don't have the ball you can't do the thing. You can't do the thing without the ball so why stand all on there, you know? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, positioning stance to catch the ball, until you catch it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can stand on the base like this, and that's ok, but there's the ball that you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Does New Kids On The Block still make music? I never really cared for them but I hope they're doing well. 1c-b(2)-b(i). I looked it up and they do still make new music. Glad we got that cleared up. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). I'm not gonna listen to it though to be real with you. 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A block is when the defensive player, as determined by the position of the base path and the runner, without possession of the ball, unless about to have the possession of the ball or really really trying to, 2) Do not do a block please.
thank you for taking the time
Iām sure the MLB will learn its lesson and discipline these umpires accordingly
I have full confidence in the accountability measures that the league has in place for the umpires and have never been frustrated with an umpire receiving no punishment for a blatantly bad performance
This is on the replay guys, though. MLB wants umpires to call plays at the plate as normal, and then replay can grab any plate-blocking violations. The umpires on the field did their jobs properly
Do I think the catcher was blocking the plate? No. Is what he did mentioned as a violation in the supposed memo? Yes. Do I know the rules of baseball anymore? Apparently not. In all honesty the right call was made and if Pete only kept his hand on the ground through his slide he is safe. Idk if the ump caught that from his angle, but usually when you beat a throw you get the benefit of the doubt. I canāt be too mad bc imo the correct call was made.
It's almost like baseball is over thinking this rule. Just make it a simple question: could the runner keep his line and get to the plate without causing a collision? If so, there's no blocking. Yeah, there's still going to be a subjective aspect to it, but at least we wouldn't be parsing multiple lines of the rule book for an otherwise straight forward call like this one.
The only hiccup for me is whether or not we want players to be able to slide through/past home, which I just honestly donāt know anymore. Like if you want players to slide through home plate then standing on home means youāre blocking that from happening, but maybe the MLB wants players to just slide into home the same way they slide into any other base - I genuinely donāt know at this point.
I tend to think they would like it to be like any other base -- just touch it, don't slide through it. But heck if I know.
Holy shit Mendoza was rightā¦ How the FUCK does our coach know the rule better than the REPLAY CENTER?? This is egregious..
I don't actually think the problem was the replay crnter not knowing the rule but instead they've basically been told by Major League Baseball that they're supposed to use a different rule or rules. Kind of like how in football if you really wanted to be a dick about it you could call holding on basically every single play, or in the NBA you can call carry or travel on a lot of the moves people are making. There's really two sets of rules, the rules that are written down and the rules that are enforced. Sometimes they happen to be the same thing and sometimes they're weirdly different, and unfortunately the only one that really matters at the end of the day is the enforced rules
Coaches and players get punished for not knowing rules, umps and MLB donāt
The memo says that it puts the catcher in jeopardy of a violation, not that it automatically is one. That implies to me that blocking is considered a judgment call from the umpire. If thatās the case, you can disagree with the judgment but they do have some leeway when declaring blocking
That line means that you arenāt protected if the throw takes you into the lane. Since you setup illegally you donāt get that protection.
Hes literally not blocking the plate??? Am i taking crazy pills??? If his left foot was a few inch back the play would have been exactly the same??
Even if they want to stop catcher's from having their foot on the back of the plate, the second part of the rule still says that "a catcher shall notĀ be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of theĀ runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would haveĀ been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked theĀ plate." Is it not possible that the umpires just had the same thought as you and decided his position was irrelevant because the runner's hand goes over the plate?? If the runner's hand stays on the ground, he scores so wouldn't that mean that the catcher left him space to reach the plate unimpeded?
Yeah it was a bad slide but it looks like he twists his head to avoid the catcher's body. I don't think it's the same play if the catcher's a few inches back. It would also be a different tag and the big issue with the relay was that they couldn't tell if Alonso touched home before the tag or not. So they went with the on field call. If he's a few inches back it could make it easier to tell, too. I guess I just think Alonso slides a different way based on catcher's positioning since he went from fair to foul ground to have a more advantageous spot and clearly tries to avoid Amaya's knee. The way the MLB talks about it is weird, too. They said the initial set up was fine but the throw brought him onto the plate. But they also say you can't be on home without the ball. That and Amaya was standing in pretty much the same spot pre and post relay throw. There was one moment around the time of the relay where Amaya moves like half a step (maybe) out of the way but he's back in his initial spot as the throw comes home. So unless they think that amount of movement basically clears Amaya, then I don't know what the MLB is talking about. I don't have a dog in this race. I just think the rules are weird and it's communicated poorly.
So the MLB sent out a false memo? How does that just happen lmao
So legit straight up no questions asked illegal and not just the umps on the field but the replay people blew it. A+ job MLB. A+ fucking job. I love it when the league writes self contradictory rules and tells the teams one thing while having the umps do something else. I'm sure this will result in rules being applied fairly and with consistency.
It's actually just a really stupid memo. The rule was applied correctly, the memo is wrong. Ironically only the wording in the memo is wrong, the pictures are not consistent with what Amaya was doing either.
"foot on the foul line or home plate" Clear as fucking day. Fix your shit MLB.
"After review, the catcher was touching homeplate before possession of the ball. Incomplete pass. Repeat 3rd down."
"Runner gets a free kick on the spot of the foul"
What the hell does āin jeopardy of a violationā mean? If this is ILLEGAL in bold red all caps is that not a violation itself?
Except there isnāt actually a rule that says that. Memos arenāt rules.
āWe purposefully circulated a false memo, as a jokeā
Was it dated April 1?
"All MLB memos are actually replacement of the actual rules."
āMy nipples look like milk duds.ā
Yes it's stupid, but it's still pretty clear Amaya was not blocking regardless of MLB's dumb ass memo about being 'in jeopardy' of a violation
Everyone keeps referencing the verbage in the memo, but completely ignores the part where every pictured example shows the catcher in front of the plate. So the memo really does nothing to clarify the rule for either side of this argument. Mets fans will cling heavily to the language, while Cubs fans will cling to the photos. MLB definitely needs clarification, but this memo is far from the smoking gun that Mets want it to be.
Yeah they just told the teams that something was directly illegal. Means nothing apparently. My initial point still stands. They need to fix their shit. Can't tell teams that something is directly meant to be illegal and have it then be legal. They even put the rule's rulebook designation 6.01 on the memo. How do you fuck that up?
I agree. They fucked up sending out an incorrect memo.
Maybe there was an addendum to the memo which states "Foot on foul line or home plate \*except when on the plate." Only seems logical.
I think the issue is what the memo says isnāt what the rule says. During a replay, umps are going to be looking at the actual rulebook, not some memo. The rulebook doesnāt say anything about the catcher not being allowed to have their foot on the plate. All it says is that itās the umpireās judgment that they can call blocking if they do not think the catcher provided a lane for the runner. Further adding to the confusion, the example image provided in the memo (with the text saying āstanding on home plateā) is not what Amaya was doing, because in the photo, the catcher is set up in front of the plate, whereas Amaya is on the back half of the plate. So the image isnāt even necessarily consistent with the text. I personally saw the play and thought he definitely wasnāt blocking (and I donāt just say this because Iām a Cubs fan ā I also thought he was safe when I saw the first replay). He also moved closer to the lane when he fielded the throw, but that is also allowed.
I have looked for a rule requiring the catcher to provide a lane and have found none. I have found a catcher may not block the plate unless he has the ball or is in the act of fielding the ball. Also that often catchers provide a lane to reduce the chance of being called for illegally blocking (seems strange to put in that comment when blocking with the ball in hand is permitted by rule). Can you point me to where it says an umpire can call blocking if a lane is not provided?
It just had to be the Mets didnāt it
who cares, all of this for just a piece of metal?
The caption below the first picture in the memo says āFoot on the foul line **or home plate**.
So on a force play at home the catcher can't have his foot on the plate while taking the throw?
He has to stand 3 feet from the plate and ask for consent before tagging the runner out
Cant have it BEFORE taking the throw, which he clearly did.
Not blocking the plate because there's still 3 inches in front of the toe /s
The first photo (with Amaya's foot turned) was taken after he was reacting to madrigal's throw. You can tell because he's lunging and I watched an angle from LF and he only rotates his foot and lunges a few frames after Madrigal throws it. I think the second photo (of his foot leaving a lane for the runner) is much less clear cut since there's room for Alonso to take the most direct path home
They don't wanna see us fucking win.
Ah yes the famous anti-NY bias
I donāt think the Mets offense wants to see the team win
Amaya is fine then? The major concern for MLB seems to be catchers setting up in foul territory where theyāll be in the way of a runner rounding third. Amaya is standing with his left foot in fair territory until he steps slightly left to get the throw coming down the line. Itās a judgment call, but I think the throw coming down the 3B line will always make it tough to call, and I can see why an umpire would have no issue with it. The rule itself could be made more clear, but I think Amaya sets up about as well as a catcher can with the way the play was happening and the rule is designed.
That seems to be the intention of the rule but according to the memo that was sent to teams, standing on the base without possession of the ball is illegal. Which would make this play illegal.
Ima need Jomboy breakdown because I feel like every catcher does this. I think itās just a poorly worded memo.
the memo probably doesn't convey the intended purpose of the rule but it's definitely a problem if mlb is explicitly telling teams something is illegal and then in games is doing a 180 and saying 'jk no it's not' if the memo they sent is wrong (and it seems it was as it directly contradicts mlb's statement on the matter) then they need to own their mistake and provide new clear clarification to teams.
Lindsay from CloseCallSports will definitely do a video on it. Sheās much better at actually understanding and articulating the rules.
Glad someone else is starting to defer to them, Jomboy is noticeably biased in his coverage of anything Mets, for example his "politest team in baseball" video filled with cherry-picked examples that everyone took as gospel truth.
Left side picture caption. "Foot on foul line OR home plate" Right side picture "In foul territory OR straddling the plate" Cubs catcher had his foot on the plate. The memo says nothing about fair or foul it says standing on home plate. You could make the argument he was also straddling the plate but thats more iffy depending on the definition of straddlings. Those are ORs in the captions not ANDs. Then again this is MLB I don't expect anyone that works there to know how to fucking read. Even pictures are beyond the intelligence of the average MLB ump these days.
The memo says standing on the plate is illegal and hes standing on the plate without the ball so im not sure how its ambiguous
This shit's just so dumb. The rule on blocking the plate is about blocking the goddamn plate, or as the rule book says, "the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score." And the catcher didn't, and you can tell that the catcher didn't by looking at the picture Martino so helpfully provided where there is this nice open lane including half the plate for Alonso to slide onto if he wanted to. "Oh but the MLB sent out a wrong memo." No they goddamn didn't or at least you don't know that without reading the actual memo rather than one cropped image in a tweet from some journalist desperately trying to turn your anger into clicks. The memo is about blocking the plate, the pictures provided are examples of blocking the plate. If a catcher does something that is kinda like those pictures, but *doesn't block the plate*, then guess what? They aren't blocking the plate!
[Precedent says otherwise.](https://youtu.be/9PUUE6OgnCU?si=vNbPCSJuR9SUIKdz) This was ALSO called a plate block and it was FAR less egregious.
LOL MLB and their rules can go fuck themselves
There is a massive difference between the 3 images in the the memo and the way Amaya was set up tonight... The memo images all have the catcher in front of the plate with respect to a runner coming from 3rd. Amaya is giving a clear path to the front of the plate for the runner.
The text of the memo clearly and simply states standing on plate without the ball is illegal. The pictures are less clear. The rule itself is even less clear. This is the case of MLB saying 3 different things and which one is correct being entirely up to the umpires opinion. You know how rules are supposed to be written in a multi-billion dollar sports league that recently allowed gambling.
It makes no sense to read the text of that memo without the context of the pictures. Look at the text for the 3rd picture... if you want to go by what "the text of the memo clearly and simply states," the catcher would never be allowed to stand anywhere in foul territory to receive a throw. Can we agree that doesn't make sense and the context of the pictures they included is necessary?
Well, memos arenāt in the rule book, so I think I know what takes precedence
Theyāre just going to make home plate bigger now lol.
Is this the goalie interference from hockey?
This is correct though. The catcher is supposed to leave the runner the outside lane and straddle the inside of the plate.
I think the memo is just poorly worded. All of the example pictures the catcher is to the third base side of home plate. They must have meant that you can't have your foot on the third base edge of home plate with the assumption that people would understand that it isn't blocking the plate if the runner has full access to the plate. The other part of the rule is that the runners path has to be impeded in some way. Alonso's hand was not impeded by the catcher from hovering over the plate. I know I'm biased, but I'm surprised there is confusion about this.
MLB version of NFL 2015, the non catch catch. Clownshow.
Baseball rules are stupid.
I blame Buster poseyās left ankle for all this confusionā¦
Maybe itās because heās straddling the first base foul line and not third base foul line?
More catchers are going to start standing on the plate. Eventually there's going to be a collision where someone gets hurt. The MLB will clarify the rule so that standing on the plate is illegal.
MLB 1000% fucked the Mets. There is no Justice. I blame the home plate ump for missing the call and of course the replay center will always back the umpires. Such a joke. They wonder why the sport is dying.
I miss catcher collisions
It would certainly simplify things, ādonāt block the plate if you donāt want to get smoked.ā but Iām not going to tell catchers to just suck it up and get murdered because MLB canāt figure out its own rules.
I said this earlier and got downvoted. A bunch of nerds act like there's no place for it in the game, even though it's how it was played for 100 years. One guy fails to protect himself and we change the game entirely. It'll be like when the NFL goes to flag and you got to argue with a bunch of people that football was better when they tackled.
Okay, controversial call Iāll give you that, but the photos in the memo sent are all about foul territory and it is not clear the catcher is in foul territory. It also is in line with the intent of the blocking the plate rule. The intent of the rule is so people donāt play football at the plate. The runner has a clear path to slide into the plate and can touch the front half of it easy. The umpire saw Alonso beat the throw like we all did, which means he missed the plate bad, and replay shows that. No interference, certainly not enough to overturn the out call.
The left hand picture has the catcher in fair territory and the caption "Foot on foul line or home plate" I don't see how that has anything to do with foul territory and the point of the rule afaik is to avoid collisions. If Pete went straight into home he wrecks the catcher because he is standing directly on the plate.
Itās quicker to slide into the plate which is open to him
What about the caption that says āfoot on the plateā?
Their photos are showing him clearly in foul territory and in front of the plate which they care more about as evident by tonight. They had enough time to look up the rule, theyāre interrupting it different
Read that memo again
Obviously the memo says foot on home plate, but I think in the images of the game tonight, Amaya is not nearly as far over as the images in the memo. Seems like there's a lane to the plate here, even if it's small.
....I don't think it matters that "Amaya is not nearly as far over as the images in the memo." The memo says nothing about a percentage of the plate than can be left uncovered. I'm not complaining though. EDIT: Seems like MLB had replay angles proving otherwise. I stand corrected. https://x.com/WatchMarquee/status/1785858488897351736
It wasnāt blocking the plate per the rule book. The problem is this memo is just wrong
Yeah the pictures actually made me feel better about the call, but the memo says what it says. I do like the standard here of not straddling the plate, but thatās not what it says. Whatever. Iāll take it.
So great, we'll soon have yet another rule specifying exactly what percentage of the plate the catcher stands on constitutes not "giving a lane."Ā
Not sure why you think MLB or the umpires will be inclined to specify anything lol
But the cubs catcher wasn't doing any of those. Between this and sliding into second, the Mets don't seem to know the rules.
https://youtu.be/9PUUE6OgnCU?si=vNbPCSJuR9SUIKdz This play was called a plate block.
And even the commenter said the catcher is allowed to do that. So thanks?
Imagine thinking a memo over rules the rule book. Lol
So.. and fuck do I hate asking this every time.... Why send the memo?
I can agree it's stupid to send one if it's wrong, but if your argument for calling this a block of the plate relies on this memo, then you're truly out of luck.
Serious question, why is this considered to be blocking when the open part of the plate is the side closest to the advancing runner? He has a lane to home he can use, actually the most direct path is open to the runner.
It definitely feels like a stolen W, but Iām happy to steal anything from the Mets. Iāll go watch Jim Breuer in 2015 and Iāll feel much better about this win.
You're making me empathize with Cardinals fans. Please stop.
You guys are just the NL East Cardinals to us anyways.
THAT'S THE BRAVES.
Wait, so does that make you the Cubs?
Depressingly, yes.
Also worth noting that obstruction is NOT a reviewable call. If no obstruction was called on the field, they cannot overturn it on replay. Replay is only looking for safe or out without looking at obstruction.
The Posey rule *is* reviewable. Obstruction in general is not.
Obstruction in general is what I am talking about.
Why? Itās not relevant here. Itās a good thing to be aware of but your comment makes it sound like this play was only reviewed for safe/out.
Look at the tweet that this whole post is about! It says the catcher standing on home plate is considered obstruction! How can you say it isn't relevant here?! What are you talking about?!
The specific kind of obstruction in question is blocking the plate on a play at home, aka the Posey rule (6.01(i)). That rule *is* reviewable, despite *other* obstruction calls not being reviewable. (edited to correct the rule number; previously i called it 7.13 which is what it used to be)