If Stephen Drew’s attempt to score the tying run in last night’s game had taken place on Monday, the Yankees and Rays might still be playing. However, a memo issued by MLB executive vice president Joe Torre earlier in the day altered the enforcement of baseball’s controversial rule 7:13 (see below for full rule text) and likely resulted in Drew being nailed at the plate. But, did the umpires and replay officials get the call right, and does Torre’s memo really provide the clarification it intended?
In the missive from Torre, which was obtained by ESPN, umpires were instructed to give a catcher more leeway to block the plate without the ball, provided he hasn’t “hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score.” The impetus for this adjustment was to prevent runners, who otherwise would have easily been thrown out, from being awarded home on a technicality. As Braves’ manager Fredi Gonzalez told ESPN, “If you’re out by 40 feet … let’s not call that guy safe.”
The rationale behind Torre’s memo makes perfect sense. If the catcher is standing in front of the plate, but the runner still isn’t in the picture, the position of his feet should be irrelevant. Rule 7:13 was intended to prevent catchers from impeding the runner; it wasn’t meant to create a no standing zone in front of the plate. But, how long is the leash? Can a catcher continue to put up a wall until just before the runner is ready to touch home plate, or must he yield the right away when the runner gets within a reasonable distance (what is a reasonable distance)? Last night’s controversial call hinges on the answer to this question.
In Exhibit 1, we see Drew and the ball approaching, while catcher Ryan Hanigan straddles the plate. At this point, there is no potential violation of Rule 7:13. Hanigan has provided a path and Drew is running on a direct line to home.
Exhibit 1: Drew and the ball approach home plate.
A few frames later, Hanigan drops his leg across the plate without the ball in his possession, effectively cutting off Drew’s path to home. At this point, Drew has just started his slide, but now has no access to the plate. Does this qualify as an impediment? Let’s take a look at how the rest of the play developed.
Exhibit 2: Drew begins his slide; Hanigan readies to receive the ball.
Exhibit 3: Hanigan’s right leg is planted in front of the plate without the ball.
Hanigan doesn’t catch the ball until Drew is about three feet away from the plate, much closer than the “forty feet” referenced by Gonzalez. In a still frame, Drew looks dead to rights, but remember, Hanigan still has to control the ball in his glove (which he eventually does with his bare hand) and apply the tag. Had Drew been allowed a path to the plate, he may have been able to slide through it before Hanigan had time to drop the glove on him. Of course, we’ll never know because, with his access impeded, Drew’s slide took him toward the fair side of home plate.
Exhibit 4: Drew begins to slide on the fair side of home plate.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but Drew was forced to deviate from that route. As a result, when Hanigan finally applied the tag, Drew had slid almost completely across the home plate area, and his lead foot was inside the left handed batter’s box.
Exhibit 5: Drew is tagged out, although his legs extend past home plate.
Exhibit 6: A close up at the point of the tag. Drew has clearly been forced away from the plate.
Here’s what we know. Ryan Hanigan blocked home plate with his right leg before he had the ball. On Monday, that would have been a clear violation of Rule 7:13. Yesterday, however, Hanigan’s positioning took him into a gray area. Did Torre’s memo give him the right to block Drew’s path, or was it intended for plays in which the runner wasn’t so close to home plate when the catcher assumed his blocking posture? Unfortunately, there is no guidance in Torre’s memo to answer that question. Instead, it is left as a judgment call.
Torre’s memo sets two criteria for finding a catcher guilty of obstruction. The first is whether or not the catcher prematurely blocked the runner’s path without the ball. In this case, and under the new interpretation, that’s open to debate. What’s clear, however, is the impact Hanigan’s position had on Drew. It’s hard to argue that Drew wasn’t impeded when the video clearly shows how far he had to diverge from his original straight line to home. That’s moot if Hanigan is deemed to have properly blocked the plate, but it nonetheless fails the second test laid out in Torre’s memo.
The case I’ve laid out is far from conclusive. Although it seems to me that Hanigan both improperly blocked the plate and impeded the runner, others might disagree. And, chances are two sets of replay officials may as well. In other words, while Torre’s memo was intended to clear up confusion, it seems to have simply added another layer.
I’ve long advocated for the elimination of collisions at home plate, and, as Torre noted in his memo, the implementation of Rule 7:13 has done just that. But, will it continue to deter bone crunching impacts at home plate now that the restrictions placed upon catchers have been relaxed? Remember, Rule 7:13 prohibits a runner from “deviating from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher”, but that only eliminates contact when the catcher isn’t standing in his way. Torre’s tweak gives catchers more leeway to do just that. Now, the question becomes, how will runners respond?
Because the earlier implementation of the rule prohibited the catcher from blocking home plate without the ball, there was no need for runners to barrel into them. However, if Hanigan’s actions become commonplace, those attempting to score may decide to take a more forceful approach. Exhibit 2 provides a perfect illustration. At the point depicted in the screenshot, Hanigan is blocking the plate without the ball when Drew begins his slide. Because Rule 7:13 only prohibits contact caused by runners adjusting their route, there’s no reason why Drew couldn’t have simply launched himself into Hanigan. After all, Drew was running in a direct line, and Hanigan was standing in his way without the ball.
Would a replay official or the umpires on the field still call a runner out for “initiating contact” with the catcher, even if the latter was obstructing without the ball? Perhaps, but, then again, maybe they wouldn’t. If the alternative is to slide into an out because access to home plate has been blocked, there’s little risk in trying to dislodge the ball. The worst case scenario is still an out, but there’s also the possibility of the runner being declared safe.
If I had to do it again I’d probably do it the other way (and run him over) because of the outcome”. – Stephen Drew, quoted by LoHud Yankees Blog
The main motivation for Rule 7:13 was to protect catchers and base runners from unnecessary injuries, but Torre’s memo mitigates that benefit by creating more confusion and adding an incentive for runners to err on the side of contact. This isn’t the first time that major league baseball has had to modify Rule 7:13, and it likely won’t be the last. At some point, the sport should be able to come to a common sense consensus that prioritizes safety while clearly defining what catchers and base runner can do when they meet at home plate. Perhaps a marking could be added to the field, which, when passed by the runner, would remove the catcher’s permission to block the plate? Maybe catchers should simply be prohibited from dropping their leg parallel to the ground? Whatever the approach, there has to be a better way than continually altering the interpretation of the rule with nebulous caveats. In the meantime, hopefully no one gets hurt.
7.13 COLLISIONS AT HOME PLATE
(1) A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.
Rule 7.13(1) Comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.
(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.
Leave a Reply