E107 - Home Plate Collision Overturn Causes Bruce Bochy's Ejection by Umpire DJ Reyburn 

I agree. I am for a rule that prevents home plate collisions, but this is overly nuanced, because it involves judgement on whether the catcher needed to occupy any portion of the plate. Well replay review team, that's easy for you to judge when you slow down the play. You try receiving a 70 mph throw while checking that your feet don't touch the plate. The catcher should be given more leeway with receiving the throw. I would suggest a standard of not blocking over half the plate when receiving a throw. That allows the catcher a fair opportunity to clear part of the plate while still focusing on receiving the throw. He simply needs to be on one side of the plate; he doesn't have to focus on avoiding the plate altogether. And it'd still mean the catcher must allow the full plate when he's not adjusting to the throw - because the catcher can afford to check his exact positioning in that situation.

@@DAK4Blizzard I understand that NY wants to prevent catchers from abusing the rule in a way that would let them block the plate when fielding the ball (as in a situation where the catcher didnt have to move as much to receive a throw but did anyway to block the runner), but this is just too much. Like David said, they took an excellent baseball play and disallowed based on a technicality. I also understand the attempt to remove judgement calls from replay ("stick to the letter of the law and all replay calls will be the same" but that is not the case anyway, especially with home plate violations). Allowing replay officials to interpret and judge situations individually might be opening pandora's box, but the way it is right now they're not making themselves friends either. I have an out here in this video every time. Good call on DJ for seing that close tag!

Agreed, great throw, then Heim did everything right, the runner still had the clear path to the base. Then DJ made a great call. So sad...

@@johannesney2132 Ironically, I think the rule as written allows circumstances for catchers to fully block the plate when fielding the ball. (For example, the catcher is a few feet in front of plate, the throw is directly to the plate, so the catcher shifts and blocks the plate to field it.) I accept that some judgement is probably necessary. I think it's fair to judge whether the catcher needed to move to field the ball. By setting a standard on how much of the plate can be blocked, it's a check against the catcher "faking" a move in order to fully block the plate. That standard also eliminates the subjective variable of "Did the catcher need that body part blocking the plate to field the ball?" It becomes an objective variable of "How much of the plate did the catcher's body block?" The one big complication I can think of is how to determine the fraction of the plate blocked when the catcher isn't on the plate. I'd say it could use a comment guiding that process. I'd suggest the start of the home plate circle (currently 13 ft from the back of the plate) can be the threshold for referencing how much of home plate is blocked, and the standard can be whether the catcher is on both sides of the 3B lines when receiving the throw. (If he is, that's considered blocking over half the plate.) If the catcher is further up the 3B line from that point, the current rules apply: he can block the entire path to the plate if he's moving to receive the ball. And yes, we're in agreement the runner should've been out here.

Well said

No one wants to see a catcher get plowed over at the plate, well maybe Pete Rose, and any player that does should be immediately banned from the game. The interesting thing is that this rule came about in a result of the Buster Posey collission and would have done NOTHING to prevent that. Posey was in the correct position in front of the plate, then turned to make the tag once he thought he had caught the ball. It's also worth nothing that even when attempting to make the tag he was STILL in fair territory and NOT blocking any access to the plate. It is 100% obviously that Cousins was NOT going for home plate, but rather targeting Posey directly.

He repositioned to the back of the plate when the throw was clearly going to be off, He kept the foot on the back of the plate, which shows how he was 'leaning' due to the throw and not in front of the plate due to the throw. Not sure what else he could have done.

It is the part that was open.that was the issue.

i mean the ejection was textbook, its the call that was incorrectly applying the rule. but you cant come out to argue replay, reyburn called him out

@@tw1nn319 Of course, but the fact is, the reversal is bullshit, because if you're going to do that, then, as I said otherwise, you have to run the catcher too -- and not only that, but then state he has no legal right to field the ball.

Vegas.

It was kinda of mentioned, but if the runners path is impeded it counts too. Looking at how close the play was on the field, the judgment of the rule in this instance is that if the runner didn’t have to swing back to get the open plate he would have been safe, which is true (again, considering how close the play was with the runner having to change trajectory proves this). Hence the conclusion is: he’s safe if the ball is thrown on target, which means the catcher wouldn’t have to switch sides, which impeded the runner, which allowed the tag to happen before the runner got home. If you understand the basic rules and the judgement calls it makes 100% sense. I still don’t agree though lol, these rules are crazy

@@killa2488 there is also the rule that the catcher can move to field the ball and since he was in possession of the ball impeding doesn’t count.

MLB hates the Texas Rangers. Their history bears it out. Always the whipping boy.

@@reybat4969 I already mentioned he caused the runner to change paths, hence it being too late for him to establish. Please read my comment next time

Yep, his initial position.. correct. Ball hops and causes person to move... correct... add to it, the catcher stayed at the BACK of the plate and ceded the entire front of the plate to the runner. More then correct, it should be textbook.

@@ingiford175 I'm agreeing with both of you. ADD to that that the point of replay is to overturn clear errors! Clear and convincing errors. This was FAR from that. It was an amazing play. And the rule itself allows for judgement by the umpire on the field, which they correctly used!

bochy is going to likely get fined to add insult to injury

Agreed, Bruce Bochy will get fined/suspended for this.

This is why I can't stand the way the game is played today! Overturning that call is a JOKE!!! Over paid fools in New York!

@@EdwardPickard-i4i I guess we know where Angel is ??

His entire foot is on the plate and its not a force out

And the catcher was at the back of the plate. if the catcher took the front of the plate, I might agree with the overturn, but the catcher did everything right in my opinion.

Yeah, I don't understand this one at all. Bad reversal

It wasn't necessary, at all, for the catcher to keep his foot extended onto and covering part of home plate while waiting for the ball. There's no requirement to touch a base or home plate if it's not a force play. A tag was needed. The catcher did what was reasonably convenient for him to reposition himself for the catch and then the tag. Unfortunately, the new rules don't allow the catcher to act in a manner that's reasonably convenient for the catcher, because it's a safety rule that should reduce collisions and injuries and perhaps also a rule to encourage aggressive base running and scoring. ***I think the runner should've been out. But this is my explanation for how they might justify the overturn -- if the league doesn't issue a clarification or revision as a result of this play.

​@@danielj6880 I agree with your assessment. I do think the rule lacks intentionality. I don't think most fielders would have 100% awareness of their feet when trying to square up a throw in anticipation of a runner and tag. Here the catcher hops over the plate indicating he knows the plate is a no go zone but leaves part of his foot on the plate. It's not like other catchers who drop the shin guard as the ball is coming. I can't see the "changing base path" since the runner (especially one as savvy as andrus) always alters path based on fielder. Runners are lauded for moving INTO the path of the ball when a throw is behind them in order to get in the way. The runner here could be moving inside in hopes the ball hits them. My opinion is as is, it's a tough overturn, but there should be even more clarity on receiving throws.

Part of the game at catcher is maneuvering - instinctively - to force the runner to make adjustments. I consider this play by Heim a masterful maneuver to force Andrus to alter his approach - WITHOUT BREAKING THE RULE. He did not block access to the plate. What was he supposed to do, not square up naturally to receive the incoming ball? Was he supposed to think, Andrus is coming on the third base side of the plate and wants to touch that side of it so I better reach way out to my left to hopefully catch the ball on a bounce and then try to make a completely awkward, off-balance tag just so Andrus can have an easier route?

Vegas. Look at the bets

It’s intended to fuck over the Rangers. The MLB never wanted the Senators 2.0 to happen and now they have that vestigial team in the Rangers left over…

​@@TigerWoodsLibidolmao what

@@dylancampbell8064 They were the sad replacement team in DC starting in 1961 and failed there as the fans tore up RFK stadium in their final game there. They moved to DFW and continue to be a sad and downtrodden franchise that has one of the longest WS title droughts ever and the longest for any expansion team.

Excellent post. I was in row 11 section 115 when Buster was injured and lost for the season. It was a merciless football move into a catcher who was not blocking home plate, and did not have possession of the ball. Baseball was changed in that moment. The pendulum will most likely swing back to a more reasonable rule interpretation. You are correct, and have the best post I have read so far. A rule meant to protect catchers has protected baserunners.

@@rayray4192not only protected baserunners but has made it almost literally impossible for a catcher to do their job as a fielder in that spot.

@@cushmfg yes sir. Catchers need to get smart and play the rules makers game. Stand in front of home plate and sweep tag. It’s exactly what Posey was doing when his season was ended by a vicious tackle. MLB acted swiftly and with too much restriction for catchers. The rule was suppose to restrict runners, not catchers. The pendulum will swing back. Bochy was Posey’s manager when he was injured. He himself was a catcher. He has some influence. His public statement is powerful. Big owners own the rules committee. The pendulum will most likely swing back to a more reasonable interpretation of the rule.

At this point, the MLB might as well have the rule say, the catcher has to have the ball before the runner rounds third base, or else the runner has to score, since catchers can't seem to do anything right since this stupid rule was announced and is constantly being misinterpreted. The runner should be the ONLY one that rule applies to since they're the ones who can cause the impact and injure either themselves or the catcher. If a catcher has the ball and is in your running lane, you're going to be out, and the lowering of a shoulder to slam into the catcher in an attempt to force the ball out is a bad show of sportsmanship. You got beat, accept it with grace.

@@Baldeagle-tw2nv I feel like the simple, straightforward way to address this is to just say that the runner is awarded home if the catcher - without possession of the ball - blocks the "front" of home plate. I would consider that to be the half of the plate closest to third base, not the flat edge facing the mound. Then couple that with a sliding rule that's similar to what there is on double play balls, and you're good. The dangerous play is a catcher putting their body out in front and the runner coming through full steam. Eliminate both of those and even if there's a collision, it'll be considerably less risk of injury to either party. As well, it puts the onus on BOTH parties to play safe, instead of "the catcher must be perfect" being the only consideration.

I think New York saw the other hand get in first.

i mean the argument is that if he had his original lane that was taken away from him on the outside of the plate, the milliseconds he was out would've mattered and he would've been safe having to not waste milliseconds on slightly changing his direction. not saying I agree

How is that bad running? The catcher said you come from the foul side, that's the side that's clear to you and then, no, I changed my mind, that's a bad base running, you should have come by the fair side.

He gave him a lane then took that lane away. Not difficult to understand.

"Great throw". Arguably a better throw would have been to inside of home plate where the catcher originally set up, and then the outside of home plate would have been clear for the runner sliding in. One of the issues with rules like this is that players are trained to play in a way that causes conflict. Baserunners are trained to run between the fielder and the catcher so as to make it harder for the catcher to catch. Catchers are trained to set themselves up on the most direct line and force the player to go around. For a "non-contact" sport there is a great deal of "playing chicken" with the other team and going right up to the edge of what you can do without causing actual contact. With a rule change like this it is no surprising there are additional instances where it isn't clear what the desired behavior is.

​@ericblair5731 the ball hit the ground and bounced, you can't control which direction the ball bounces. I garuntee that the outfielder's intent was to bounce the ball towards homeplate on the fair side, where the catcher was, the ball bounced foul and the catcher responded to catch the ball. If it had gone further left and the catcher moved left even more the base runner STILL would've changed lanes to be AWAY from the catcher. Based on your interpretation it would be an overturn even though the catcher left both lanes, because the base runner decided to change lanes at the last second. Runners will ALWAYS change lanes last second to try and fake out a baseman or catcher, it's stupid to call interference when there's enough time for a runner to see how something developed and adjust accordingly.

I also saw the bat and thought the same thing. Maybe the catcher should have taken time to move the bat out of the way also? 🙄

On so many levels a bad call. He obviously had to move, and was right to move, the ball bounced right at him, he wasn't positioning to block and then reaching out to catch, he was positioning to catch! Next, the point of replay is for clear and convincing errors, not lawyer nitpicks. Because the rule repeatedly allows for umpire judgement, how in the HELL does NY overturn this as a clear error. The ump used judgement! And made a good call.

you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but calling a batter-runner out for running to first in fair territory even if he doesnt interfere with the play? I could NOT disagree with you more!

Regardless of the rules and call, great explanation.

So people complained that there should be instant replay to get the calls right. Now there’s instant replay and they get calls right. Still - people whine and complain.

@@frig5956 They didn't get it correct.

The irony is that it was Bruce Bochy's SF Giants, specifically poor positioning by Buster Posey and subsequent broken leg, that led to this rule's creation.

@@frig5956 Reply incorrectly overturned a correct call. That's a problem. What are you whining about?

@@frig5956 I have no personal interest in this game so the outcome doesn’t matter to me. Maybe the rule is killing it off. Seems the on field ump had it correct and replay interpreted the rule differently

And the rule I thought was for catcher protection, don't run over catcher!

Add fuel to it, look up Tatis Jr. throws out Margot, Rays @ Padres June 18, 2023 and that I would have called him out but NY said he was not blocking/guarding a ball from right field.

you cant change directions at 90 degrees and maintain momentum. his route was proper, that's how you "round" the bases

There’s never a need for that turn to be so wide. If done properly, the widest part is as the runner approaches third, not after.

@@bethhentges respectfully i dont think youve ever played baseball

@@tw1nn319Some of us played at a fairly high level. It only takes about half the 90 feet to readjust. Ideally a path about 4 feet inside the line is plenty for adjustments at the plate. and no, being 10 feet past the foul line 15 feet from the plate is neither proper nor intelligent. In fact, if you want to possibly disrupt the throw legally, the closer you are to the foul line, the better.

@@tw1nn319 You’re wrong about that.

i feel the fucking same dude - except as the comments here have shown there is about 1 in 100 that somehow think that was on the catcher - for the life of me I cannot understand their viewpoint though.

If you use the presence or absence of contact as an indicator when applying this rule, it incentivizes runners to initiate contact, which defeats the purpose of the rule. I get that NY is trying to judge whether there *would have* been contact had the runner maintained his path, but I think we all agree this approach is hurting the game. There's got to be a better way.

The rule is in place because a franchise lost their best player for the season in May after a brutal collision.

Make it as soon as they round third base, that way the MLB has their super high scoring games and makes pitcher ERAs into a complete joke.

He denied his initial lane by obstruction

@@arley2246 So? The catcher is permitted to make a legitimate attempt to field the throw, and that's exactly what the catcher did. By rule, that's not a violation.

Couple questions: Why such a wide turn and still 5 feet in foul territory close to home plate? Why not slide feet first? Slide feet first and you may dislodge the ball. Risk of injury is higher sliding head first. Off topic, but I’m interested in your thoughts. Is this poor base running?

@@rayray4192 To me it’s terrible base running. The turn should never be that wide.

@@bethhentges yes, thank you. Shortest distance is a straight line. Willie Mays would have slid feet first and scored easily.

MLB wants more runs scored so that's the way these reviews are going to lean. Might as well say the runner is automatically safe when they round third and start running home.

I am a Texas fan but I believe they got it right. He moved over too early. If he had waited until the ball bounced it would be different. I don’t like it but it’s how the rule is worded so it’s the right call.

@@geoffselby6260the fact is, he HAD to move to field that ball. The ball was going to the right, so he jumped to the right to field it. Absolutely doesn’t make sense. The rule says the catcher is not violating the rules if they are blocking the plate in a genuine attempt to field the ball. He moved in a genuine attempt to field the ball (evidence, he caught the ball perfectly after he moved). There is nothing in the rule about waiting until the hall hops. Nothing. You made that up.

@@jacoblancelot4337 not necessarily the bounce. It’s more of a timing thing. I used the bounce to reference what the timing would have been. Basically because he was reset prior to the ball getting there it’s considered early. I don’t agree with the rule itself because you’re right, he had to move to field the throw.

Exactly. Because if the throw was correctly in the direction of the catcher, runner would be safe.

The runner would have been safe if he learned to run the bases without such a wide turn.

@@bethhentges He was there because half of the base was blocked. The foul side was all that he was given. Then, taken.

Someone should check to see if they're playing bets on the games they're reviewing also. The rise of legal sports betting gives officials even more incentive to fuck up calls and lean a specific way.