MLB seemingly is not following it’s own guidelines about catchers blocking the plate.
SNY posted an alleged memo that MLB sent to teams during spring training that seemingly contradicts the umpires’ controversial no-infraction ruling on the play at the plate that secured the Cubs’ 1-0 win over the Mets on Wednesday night at Citi Field.
The image, from an alleged “Collisions at Home Plate Presentation” memo, lists three catcher setups that are illegal when he does not have the ball and puts the catcher “in jeopardy of a violation”: having a foot on the plate or foul line, straddling the foul line and being in foul territory while straddling home plate.
The Baseball Rules Academy YouTube page, claimed to be run by former MLB umpire Ted Barrett and Reds broadcaster Chris Welsh, also includes the same image from a January posting.
SNY included two screenshots showing Cubs catcher Miguel Amaya with his foot on the plate, which would seemingly violate the first scenario mentioned in the alleged memo.
An overhead video from SNY also clearly shows Amaya on the plate before tagging Pete Alonso, who slid head first but was ruled not to have beaten the relay from Nick Madrigal on Jeff McNeil’s fly out to left.
MLB’s replay center, though, deemed Amaya’s setup “legal.”
“After viewing all relevant angles, the replay official definitively determined that no violation of the home plate collision rule occurred,” the statement said. “The catcher’s initial setup was legal and he moved into the lane in reaction to the trajectory of the incoming throw.”
Mets manager Carlos Mendoza did not agree with the call, calling it “bulls–t” on the field.
“They send out a memo in spring training what’s legal and what’s illegal and it’s clearly on that email — that memo — that we got that catchers are not allowed to have their foot in front of the plate,” Mendoza said. “On top of the plate, they cannot straddle without possession of the baseball. He was very clear that the guy had his left on top of the plate without the baseball. I think they got the wrong call.”
The official rule in question is 6.01(i)(2), which states: “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 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.”
A comment attached to that rule, though, may be what influenced the ruling.
“A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or
impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score,” it reads. “A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate. In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a runner attempting to slide.”
Amaya maintained he did not violate any rule.
“I was 100 percent sure from what I felt and what we did,” Amaya said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “And they made the right call.”