Buster Posey Runned Over

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
I have watched it several times as well. What I see is this. The runner veers inside before Buster even has the baseball. And while Buster is in the process of setting up to catch the ball. He is clearly not blocking the plate when the runner veers to the inside to take him out. A slide to the backside would have allowed him to score without taking out the catcher. Now thats what I see. I see a runner who has made up his mind he is going to hammer the catcher.

Everyone has an opinion. Yes you can plow the catcher at the ML level of play. And I am one of those people that simply believes it should be used as a last resort. In this case I do not believe it was. And that is why I see it as a cheap shot. Others are free to believe what they want to believe. No problem we all have our own opinion.

I see that also. My opinion is same as yours.

I don't think it would be fair for sportcasters to call Cousins out, that's why they are not doing so, because the play is allowed, but I will bet they have a lot more to say off camara about what he did.

Major League has hundreds of Scott Cousins in the game, not many Buster Poseys. Their is a certain respect that the Poseys get that others don't. I really don't think that Cousins intended to cause the damage he did, more to get attention from a run at the plate. Unfortunetly he didn't think it would be negative.

I guess I feel cheated, have seen Posey play since college and it was evident then he was special. I am not sure many realize catchers like him don't come around that often.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff: If he avoids the contact and is somehow tagged out, what will his manager and teammates think? Will the decision makers think he is soft? Or will they think he is willing to do anything it takes?

Bad set of circumstances, the worst case scenerio...but bottom line this is the ultra competitive culture of pro ball...the same culture that has pitchers throw at batters for a range of understood but unspoken reasons. You can change the rules, but can you, or do you want to change the culture?

44
.

My son is known as a hard-nosed player but no one has EVER called him a dirty player. These following pictures I am going to share are of him from pro ball and the college summer leagues. I can assure everyone that he was high-fived by every coach and player on the team after these respective plays but I am against the rules that allow these collisions in the first place.

From pro ball:


From the college summer league:

CD,
I don't see the catcher being blindsided. Isn't that the issue. That is what made the play "cheap" or "dirty".

JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
CD,
I don't see the catcher being blindsided. Isn't that the issue. That is what made the play "cheap" or "dirty".

JMO.

I agree with you TPM. I am arguing to take the collision play out of the game. No more blocking the plate, no more bowling the catcher.

I can see why 70% fans voted not to change the rule, although I personally don't like it.

Perhaps there needs to be clarification, as to what is acceptable and what is not. It has nothing to do with sissyfying the game. Their is a lot of stuff that goes on that we don't even know about. Teams send messages to each other back and forth without anyone really getting hurt, I personally have no issue with that.

I just believe that there are some written and unwritten rules that are part of the game, and for me blindsiding is not one of them.

PGStaff posted a link to an article that quotes a different article. His link has a phrase in the title (which Jerry accurately captured) of "no need for rules changes".

But that's not what Ray Fosse said. From the original article by John Shea:

"The game has been around more than 100 years, and now they're going to start protecting catchers?" Fosse asked. "I can't see anything that can be changed. In high school, you can't run over a catcher. But that's high school. This is professional baseball. The idea is to score runs. If the catcher has the ball and he's standing there, the runner has to stop? Is that the protection?

"I can't believe anything can be done, and I don't see how you could regulate something like that."

That's different than "no need". And those of us who have watched FED or NCAA baseball know that it is possible to regulate these collisions, and to sharply reduce the frequency of potentially injurious incidents. Probably Ray Fosse hasn't watched many college games in the last few years, and so doesn't know the practical application of rules designed to reduce the number of collisions.

It will take a change to two behaviors that are currently allowed in pro ball: Catchers do sometime blocks the plate, and runners retaliate by crashing into the catcher. Sometimes runners crash the catcher even when he isn't blocking. If we require runners to attempt to avoid, and penalize obstruction at the plate, there will be far fewer collisions. We'll still have train wrecks when the throw carries the catcher into the runners path, but it will put a stop to intentional collsions.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
PGStaff posted a link to an article that quotes a different article. His link has a phrase in the title (which Jerry accurately captured) of "no need for rules changes".

But that's not what Ray Fosse said. From the original article by John Shea:

"The game has been around more than 100 years, and now they're going to start protecting catchers?" Fosse asked. "I can't see anything that can be changed. In high school, you can't run over a catcher. But that's high school. This is professional baseball. The idea is to score runs. If the catcher has the ball and he's standing there, the runner has to stop? Is that the protection?

"I can't believe anything can be done, and I don't see how you could regulate something like that."

That's different than "no need". And those of us who have watched FED or NCAA baseball know that it is possible to regulate these collisions, and to sharply reduce the frequency of potentially injurious incidents. Probably Ray Fosse hasn't watched many college games in the last few years, and so doesn't know the practical application of rules designed to reduce the number of collisions.

It will take a change to two behaviors that are currently allowed in pro ball: Catchers do sometime blocks the plate, and runners retaliate by crashing into the catcher. Sometimes runners crash the catcher even when he isn't blocking. If we require runners to attempt to avoid, and penalize obstruction at the plate, there will be far fewer collisions. We'll still have train wrecks when the throw carries the catcher into the runners path, but it will put a stop to intentional collsions.

Totally agree. High school and college baseball are excellent versions of the game imho and neither has suffered in excitement by "regulating" the collision.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Totally agree. High school and college baseball are excellent versions of the game imho and neither has suffered in excitement by "regulating" the collision.

I feel the NCAA and FED rules have done wonders towards this end; if OBR were to add it I think it would have the secondary effect of nearly (if not totally) eliminating the illegal collision at the lower levels.

From the San Jose Mercury News sports blog:

"I left him a lane, but he chose to come at me", Posey said.

"Posey also said while he didn’t want to “villify” Cousins, he “had a choice to slide or come at me, and he came directly at me.” Posey would like MLB and the MLBPA to look at plays like this and possibly make a rule change. He said he feels fortunate he only ripped up his leg, and didn’t sustain some kind of back or neck injury that could’ve put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life."

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
From the San Jose Mercury News sports blog:

"I left him a lane, but he chose to come at me", Posey said.

"Posey also said while he didn’t want to “villify” Cousins, he “had a choice to slide or come at me, and he came directly at me.” Posey would like MLB and the MLBPA to look at plays like this and possibly make a rule change. He said he feels fortunate he only ripped up his leg, and didn’t sustain some kind of back or neck injury that could’ve put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life."

Great point by the "kid" and another reason why people love Posey.

Why does EVERY 1st and 3rd base coach in ALL of baseball now wear helmets? Because Mike Coolbaugh is dead. Ironically, a helmet would not have saved Coolbaugh but why does a catcher (or someone egged-on to collide into them) have to wind up in a wheel chair before we change this unecessary rule?

.
Interesting...

Tonight/just now...Giants game....Man on third...dribbler to Lincecum...throws home...Whiteside (the Giants Replacement catcher)...gives the runner a wide lane to slide in...and he scores on a close play. Whiteside crowds off some of that space and the runner is likley tagged out. Bochey comes out, gets tossed.

44
.

Saw the same thing, observer44. It looked like Whiteside might have been told to be safe. Bochey was fired up.

Bright side the kid called up, Brandon Crawford (a local kid from Pleasanton) to fill in at shortstop got a grand slam on his first major league hit.

.
Now on in the bottom of the eighth on a single to left...Prince Fielder (known for this)comes barreling into Whiteside who this time is in the way, takes a blow and potentially saves the game.

I wonder if the coaching staff suggested to Whtiteside after the earlier play that he cover a little more of the baselne this time...hmmm...

And it looks like no one told fielder that he was supposed to find a lane..

And so it goes...

That's the culture...both ways.

44
.

Fielder just tried to take out Whiteside at the plate, but Whiteside was standing and able to back away after tagging him out. Whiteside had the ball while Fielder was about 10 feet from the plate. Fielder had his arms crossed for a big time slam.

.
Watched the replay and it was still a pretty hefty coliision...you are so right Tool....Fielder in with crossed arms and loading up..you might even say looking for contact, going after whiteside...but Whiteside was up on his feet and taking the charge (moving backwards slightly)...absorbed the blow...made a potentially epic collision look pretty minimal...an excellent play on his part.

Interesting, no outrage on the part of announcers or teams.

44

quote:

Originally posted by observer44:

Interesting, no outrage on the part of announcers or teams.

44

Shouldn't be surprising. Good clean hits. You pretty much get the outrage on the cheap shots, like Cousins'.

What is the rule at other bases? Can the runner try to dislodge the ball or bowl over the fielder to prevent the ball from being caught? Why shouldn't the rule be the same regardless of which base it is?

Jimmy is so right, no outrage because the catcher had the ball and he saw it coming.

Interesting watching the Marlins game, when Cousins came up they didn't defend him but said the play was legal.

No one said it wasn't, it was just cheap.
Got to send those guys an email.....

I've now watched the video carefully. Guess I don't see anything so wrong other than the terrible result.

The Collision

Please pause just before the throw touches Buster's mitt. At that point Cousins is at least two full strides from the plate. Even before that Cousins saw the play and he had to know the ball was going to beat him easily. He had to think he was going to be an easy out. Yes, Buster is in front of the plate but he is in the process of catching the throw, covering the plate and making a tag. If Buster actually catches the throw Cousins is a very easy out unless he does what he did IMO. There is no way that Cousins could know that Buster didn't have the ball in his mitt.

Very unfortunate, but at the risk of being hated, I would rather have my player do what Cousins did in that same exact situation. He did what he thought he needed to do, willing to get the job done, score an important run. Once again had Buster caught the throw, Cousins was an easy out at the plate, very little chance to score with any slide. Also if you pause at a point before the actual contact you will see that this was not a blindside. Buster did give him the plate, but he was going to take it away before Cousins actually got there.

That said, I wouldn't be against a rule change if it eliminated these collisions. We love Buster, we even picked him as an Aflac All American and he wasn't drafted until the 50th round out of high school. I hate seeing him get injured, but Buster didn't use proper technique on that play and Cousin's (not knowing the ball was on the ground) did what he determined was his only chance to score. The only thing wrong with all this is possibly the rule that allows it. I'm all for safety! Until then it will always be part of the game at that level. Blocking the plate is also very much part of the game and it is an important skill for catchers. A runner that is not willing to run over a catcher in these situations will not gain the respect of his teammates and organization.

Anyway, rather than vilify Cousins for trying to do his job, I'm praying that Buster comes back strong.

IF THIS SOFT TALK CONTINUES PRETTY SOON WE WILL BE PLAYING IN SHORTS

So, now we can add Astros' catcher Humberto Quinteras to the DL. He got runned over, last night. The play was 'clean' and, yes, he had his knee down.

quote:

IF THIS SOFT TALK CONTINUES PRETTY SOON WE WILL BE PLAYING IN SHORTS

Yep, because requiring batting helmets made such a negative impact on the game of baseball.

quote:

He got runned over, last night. The play was 'clean' and, yes, he had his knee down.

Yeah, he looked like he was standing right on top of the plate. The rule says the baserunner can plow him in that case. Not a fan of the rule, but that's the way it is currently.

It looked like he slipped which may have put him in that position too.. Unfortunate..

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
What is the rule at other bases? Can the runner try to dislodge the ball or bowl over the fielder to prevent the ball from being caught? Why shouldn't the rule be the same regardless of which base it is?

Well several years ago when Albert Belle was still playing I saw him blow up a second baseman on a tag. He wasn't ejected or any kind of punishment.

He was on first and a ground ball pulled the second baseman into the line. He set up to tag Belle and he brought both arms up into his cheast. He lifted him off the ground and put him on his back. He had enough time to veer off, stop or just give himself up but he lit that second baseman up.

Not sure how this really applies to the Posey and now the Quinteras situations.

Antzdad is this the play you're referring to? I'm thinking it is.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6601995

If so I'm thinking this is a whole different set of situation than the Posey one. In this video it looks as if Quintero slips with his left foot which causes him to fall down. He's giving no path to the plate for the runner. Plus the ball gets there at the exact same time as the runner. I can't tell if Quintero had the ball and lost it or if he never had it at all.

As you said his knee was on the ground which is what caused his injury. This is exactly how Posey got hurt by being on his knee.

This is what I'm talking about being careful about creating rules in the heat of the moment. Two plays that (IMO) are totally different that pretty much end up with the same outcome - a collision that leads to hurt players. Cousins was a cheap shot but what the guy in the video did wasn't a cheap shot. He took the only avenue he had.

If MLB is going to pass a rule to help protect catchers in Posey's situation they need to make sure they word it carefully so that it won't apply to the Quintero situation. That is what the NFL did when I think it was Tom Brady hurt his knee when the defensive lineman lunged for him while he was on the ground. Brady stepped into his throw which straightened his knee and the contact blew it out. I didn't see that as a cheap shot but just a freak accident that has completely changed the game. I guarantee (although they probably won't admit it) there are defensive players holding back because they don't want to get a penalty to hurt their team.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

Yeah, he looked like he was standing right on top of the plate. The rule says the baserunner can plow him in that case. Not a fan of the rule, but that's the way it is currently.

Which rule is that, exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
What is the rule at other bases? Can the runner try to dislodge the ball or bowl over the fielder to prevent the ball from being caught? Why shouldn't the rule be the same regardless of which base it is?

The rules do not differentiate between bases and the plate.

The interpretation provided to MLB umpires is:

"While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using
his arms or forearms, etc.-to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well (see Section 6.3, specifically Play (4)).

Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct."

What is different is tradition.

quote:

Which rule is that, exactly?

Now I have to wonder with the rule you posted below why it's allowed. If I'm reading that correctly, running over the catcher is not supposed to be allowed?

That's what I mean.. the rules (as I understood them) allowed a runner to plow a catcher in MLB. If that is not the case, then why do they continue to allow it to take place? If the umpires were blatently allowing a rule to be broken, wouldn't MLB step in and do something about it?

yes, coach2709, Quintero said he stepped on the bat.

I get where you're coming from about changing rules. I don't think it will happen. MLB may say things like "under consideration...winter meetings", but, as in other parts of our lives, things will stay the same 'because that's the way it is'.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

Which rule is that, exactly?

Now I have to wonder with the rule you posted below why it's allowed. If I'm reading that correctly, running over the catcher is not supposed to be allowed?

That's what I mean.. the rules (as I understood them) allowed a runner to plow a catcher in MLB. If that is not the case, then why do they continue to allow it to take place? If the umpires were blatently allowing a rule to be broken, wouldn't MLB step in and do something about it?

The enforcement of many interpretations is controlled by the players union and management. The umpires make some calls the way MLB wants them made. As has been said by someone in this thread, this is what MLB wants, or at least thinks it wants. Things change....look at balk enforcement. A while back MLB mandated to the letter balk enforcement. It lasted one season before they told the umpires to back off. Same thing happened with Sandy Alderson and the strike zone.

Bottom line, MLB management and the players union will be ones to change the enforcement of the rule or create a new rule. I believe protection of managements investment and the players concern for their financial security will bring about a change.

quote:

I can't tell if Quintero had the ball and lost it or if he never had it at all.

I'm not real sure that it matters with regards to rules, but Quintero never had the ball. I'm not sure he ever touched it even... when I saw the video, it looked like the ball hit the runner in the hip and then went toward the backstop.

This gets more interesting the more I learn about it. so from the rule Jimmy posted, trucking a catcher isn't allowed. But the league wants to allow it. Why not just bowl over first basemen to keep them from catching the ball or knocking it loose?

I doubt they would allow that.

But the interesting thing is all along people have said the play on Buster was allowed by the rules, but it sure seems that it's not.

Buster Posey Runned Over

Why do I laugh every time I read that?

Whatsamatteru don't read no hardly good english?

Don't pay it no nevermind.

Coach May, I follow what you were saying the other night. I have to filter things through my football (not football-sized) brain, first. Yes, I see many instances when guys take shots at vulnerable players and I think to myself Wow, he didn't have to do that. Not the same as 'defenseless player' or 'unnecessary roughness'- there are rules against that- just a guy with his head turned the wrong way or the guy going out of bounds, that gets greased because somebody's eyes lit up and saw an opportunity to punish their opponent; not hurt them, just ring their bell. I, too, question that kind of stuff, even some of my own actions way back in the 1900s.

But those types of things go along with the violent natures of contact sports. Baseball is, for the most part, not a contact sport. On the surface, I see it more as a gentleman's game. These home plate collisions seem so out of place to me.

AntzDad thats exactly how I see it as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The enforcement of many interpretations is controlled by the players union and management. The umpires make some calls the way MLB wants them made. As has been said by someone in this thread, this is what MLB wants, or at least thinks it wants. Things change....look at balk enforcement. A while back MLB mandated to the letter balk enforcement. It lasted one season before they told the umpires to back off. Same thing happened with Sandy Alderson and the strike zone.

Bottom line, MLB management and the players union will be ones to change the enforcement of the rule or create a new rule. I believe protection of managements investment and the players concern for their financial security will bring about a change.

I believe you are correct, this is a perfect example of protecting your investment, so I believe it's going to happen (change). Probably should have been done long ago, sometimes it takes what happens to a special guy like Posey to facilitate change.

Funny about the balk rule, we were watching a pro game and the pitcher actually, according to the rules, balked at almost every other pitch. Afterwards I heard that since this is the pitcher's "normal" mechanics, the umpires in that league do not consider it a balk.

Dino, that is perhaps the most overwrought post I have ever read on this site.

Ditto Rob. I started to respond but then thought better of it.

lol everyone on this Memorial Day. Peace to my "lost friends."

Rob, thank you for calling me out with the perfect word, "overwrought". This thread on Buster Posey was way overdone and it's just the kind of topic killer it needed.

Rest in peace.

quote:

Originally posted by PA Dino:
Rob, thank you for calling me out with the perfect word, "overwrought". This thread on Buster Posey was way overdone and it's just the kind of topic killer it needed.

Rest in peace.

Why is it overdone, because you do not see things the way some others do?

Why should you, will you ever have a player that has reached that level, that has worked his butt off for years and years only to have a devastating injury happen that someone else willfully caused?

Big difference between Jsoh Hamilton hittiing a wall and Cousins intentionally plowing into Posey.

You may not see it that way, you may accept it as that's part of the game, others may not.

JMO.

quote:

What is the rule at other bases? Can the runner try to dislodge the ball or bowl over the fielder to prevent the ball from being caught? Why shouldn't the rule be the same regardless of which base it is?

If a runner does any of the above to an infielder, guaranteed they will get beaned.

The rule is the same for all the bases. The fielder can't block a runner's path if he doesn't have the ball [or in the process of catching it] and the runner can't do anything to prevent a fielder from fielding a ball.

Frankly, its still an advantage for the catcher to make the runner go around him due to Obstruction being a judgment call. Lots of those plays are two players trying to occupy the same space at the same moment.

Buster Posey runned over is bigger issue than we know about.
I heard Tony being interviewed on MLB, and his take, makes sense. You treat it like any other base and give penalties (out or suspensions) if rules are broken. It was pretty surprising to hear an old schooler with that philosophy.
Giants GM trashes Cousins, then retracts, lots of emotions due to something that could have been avoided.

.
Interesting that the Bay Area press is soundly critical of Sabean and his comments...calling for the Giants to move on, focusing on the push for another title...

44
.

quote:

The fielder can't block a runner's path if he doesn't have the ball [or in the process of catching it] and the runner can't do anything to prevent a fielder from fielding a ball.

If this is the rule, Cousins should have been called out at the plate, right?

.
Johnny Bench comments...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/...source=ESPNHeadlines

44
.

Cousins receiving death threats, lots of people see this differently which IMO will lead to carification of the rule or a change.

Does anybody give this play as much thought if it involved Olivo instead of Posey?

.

Receiving death threats? Yikes!

Relax people. Send him something he can use.

Run around the Posey?



What can make this rosy?

"Coupons, coupons!"


We all chow down!

.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
Does anybody give this play as much thought if it involved Olivo instead of Posey?

It always hurts when you lose a catcher, but it hurts more when you lose a catcher who dominates offensively as well as defensively.

One thing I can't get over, Cousins missed the plate apparently, Posey wreathing in pain, Cousins bends down to Posey, but makes sure that he touches the plate at the same time.

Not sure if the call was safe before or after that, anyone know?

One more way of looking at this--what if it had been Puljos doing the sliding. I have a feeling there would be a lot more people saying it was just a rugged play by a hardnosed player. That's exactly the way it was looked at in 1970 on the Rose/Fosse play. When its the kind of player hanging on by the skin of his teeth its a little easier to call it a dirty play. I looked at the film closely and it looks like Cousins is moving to his left at the same time Posey is moving to his left. I do however see a lane for a possible hook slide but in the fraction of a second the decision has to be made, I think a non established player like Cousins almost has to opt for the collision or he'll lose all respect with his teammates if he is out while avoiding it.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
IF THIS SOFT TALK CONTINUES PRETTY SOON WE WILL BE PLAYING IN SHORTS

What do you mean pretty soon? Remember the White Sox wearing shorts in the early 1970's under Bill Veeck's ownership. I can't believe Woody didn't post a picture of that!

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
One more way of looking at this--what if it had been Puljos doing the sliding. I have a feeling there would be a lot more people saying it was just a rugged play by a hardnosed player.

I agree. I'm not questioning what Cousins did, because he's allowed to do it. It's unfortunate someone got hurt, but "It's part of the game." I'm asking "Why is it part of the game?" Baseball's permission to blow up the catcher never made sense to me.

.
.

"I can't believe Woody didn't post a picture of that! "

Sorry Three Bagger...I was at the mall shopping for comfortable summer wear.






.

Anyone happen to catch the Stanford-IL game on ESPNU last night.

At one point Morgan Ensberg (who I think makes it pretty hard to watch a baseball game by the way-awful) comments on what a great job of baserunning that an IL player did. Something like "This is great rounding third and looking for the ball".

I am like huh rounding third and looking for the ball? What for you are simply going to bust it as hard as you can into home and slide if necessary who cares where the ball is at that point?

Then he goes on to elaborate as the play by play guy was lost as well and says well you need to know if the ball is coming in so you know if you need to run over the catcher or not.

Umm..wasn't I watching a college game but besides that do you think that pro ballplayers are looking for an opportunity to blow up the catcher? Seems like risk of getting yourself hurt as the runner would make that a last resort type of play for most guys.

quote:

One more way of looking at this--what if it had been Puljos doing the sliding. I have a feeling there would be a lot more people saying it was just a rugged play by a hardnosed player.

Pujols wouldn't have done it.

I think it is the last resort. I doubt runners round third with the idea of a collision at home plate, but they see something between third and home, say oh (bad word) and decide, in an instant, that crashing the catcher is their best chance to score.

The risk of injury is much greater to the guy who is standing still than the guy with a head of steam. Ask any NFL quarterback.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

One more way of looking at this--what if it had been Puljos doing the sliding. I have a feeling there would be a lot more people saying it was just a rugged play by a hardnosed player.

Pujols wouldn't have done it.

I tend to agree Bulldog. Pujols wouldn't risk getting hurt IMO.

Interesting that twice in the last week Mike Napoli for the Rangers was out by 20 feet at the plate. Both times he slid. Both times catchers clearly thought they were about to be trucked moved back exposing the plate. He slid both times and was safe both times. Ump got one right to win the game vs. Royals.

Napoli strikes me as a pretty hard nosed guy and he obviously made the decision that he is not going to run a fellow catcher over in that situation. Even if it means winning the game.

I felt that the hit was probably dirty, but I'd give the benefit of the doubt that the player didn't realize in the heat of the moment that Posey was that far in front of the plate and wasn't going to have time to shift over to block.

BTW, Ensberg also made a pretty strong point that Jeter's faking getting hit that time was bush.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
The risk of injury is much greater to the guy who is standing still than the guy with a head of steam. Ask any NFL quarterback.

Ha!! Very true

At first glance, seeing it in slow motion with the angle from the playing field, I too thought it might have been on a questionable play. I won't get into all the arguements about the rules, unwritten rules, etc. that have been debated here. However, I would ask all of you to go back and watch the play at full speed from the 3rd base angle. It developed so fast.

Posey committed a costly catching sin by being on his knees, then as the ball arrives and the runner is practically on top of him he attempts to bend back - while still on his knees - into the path of the runner. Just because most of us happen to like Posey, for good reason, that is not an excuse to villify Cousins for something that is part of the game as it is currently played. And to reiterate, Johnny Bench himself - the greatest catcher ever - said that "Posey put himself in a terrible position".

quote:

Just because most of us happen to like Posey, for good reason, that is not an excuse to villify Cousins for something that is part of the game as it is currently played.

I don't think there was all that much vilifying of Cousins here as there was musing about whether this is how the game should be played.

I'll think it is OK to truck a catcher out of the baseline to prevent him from handling the ball when they allow runners to take out stretching first basemen while running to first.