PDA

View Full Version : Tim McCarver's rule to protect the catcher. . .


JermaineDye05
04-24-2010, 07:59 PM
For those of you who missed the Sox game or haven't seen the comments in the gamethread and post-game thread, McCarver's rule is as follows:

Base-runners should be automatically called out and ejected if they make contact with a catcher above the shoulders.

This is McCarver's way of protecting catchers like they do quarterbacks in the NFL.

So what are your thoughts?

veeter
04-24-2010, 08:03 PM
I think it's a stupid idea. First off, it is, and always has been part of baseball. Secondly, it rarely happens. Catchers can keep thier masks on also. Now, when a runner plows into the catcher when he's not within five feet of home plate, he should be fined and suspended. (Torii Hunter)

WhiteSox5187
04-24-2010, 08:26 PM
I think it's a stupid idea. First off, it is, and always has been part of baseball. Secondly, it rarely happens. Catchers can keep thier masks on also. Now, when a runner plows into the catcher when he's not within five feet of home plate, he should be fined and suspended. (Torii Hunter)

This is a good idea.

JermaineDye05
04-24-2010, 08:47 PM
This is a good idea.

Agreed. McCarver's is just so ridiculous.

voodoochile
04-24-2010, 08:58 PM
I don't have a problem with a suspension or fine if they rule the runner intentionally went at the catcher's head. I think that's common sense with today's heightened awareness about concussions and the long term damage they can do, not to mention the potential to seriously damage the spine and neck.

I don't have a hard time with a good hard body blow and running through the man holding the ball, but I don't see why the runner should be able to launch themselves at the catcher's head at full speed. There isn't another sport in the world that allows those kind of shots.

Again, I don't want it to be a game time decision, but a major suspension and/or fine if it's deemed it was done intentionally when reviewing the film is fine by me.

slavko
04-24-2010, 10:15 PM
He may have taken one too many head hits himself.

CLR01
04-25-2010, 01:57 AM
I don't have a problem with a suspension or fine if they rule the runner intentionally went at the catcher's head. I think that's common sense with today's heightened awareness about concussions and the long term damage they can do, not to mention the potential to seriously damage the spine and neck.

I don't have a hard time with a good hard body blow and running through the man holding the ball, but I don't see why the runner should be able to launch themselves at the catcher's head at full speed. There isn't another sport in the world that allows those kind of shots.

Again, I don't want it to be a game time decision, but a major suspension and/or fine if it's deemed it was done intentionally when reviewing the film is fine by me.


This.

JermaineDye05
04-25-2010, 02:06 AM
I don't have a problem with a suspension or fine if they rule the runner intentionally went at the catcher's head. I think that's common sense with today's heightened awareness about concussions and the long term damage they can do, not to mention the potential to seriously damage the spine and neck.

I don't have a hard time with a good hard body blow and running through the man holding the ball, but I don't see why the runner should be able to launch themselves at the catcher's head at full speed. There isn't another sport in the world that allows those kind of shots.

Again, I don't want it to be a game time decision, but a major suspension and/or fine if it's deemed it was done intentionally when reviewing the film is fine by me.

This.

Yeah, it just seems nonsensical to make it an in-game decision. It would be a judgment call like the ground rule double, to not only call a guy out automatically but also EJECT him on judgment by the umpire has makings of a whole lot of momentum changers. The only way it wouldn't be a judgment call would be if they expanded instant replay to include this and I really don't think we need to slow the game down anymore.

jabrch
04-25-2010, 02:48 AM
Is there a particular problem McCarver is trying to solve?

doublem23
04-25-2010, 06:17 AM
Is there a particular problem McCarver is trying to solve?

The problem is that people haven't been paying enough attention to Tim, so he needs to say something outlandishly ridiculous to get back in the public eye.