Suddenly, Tiger Wang's injury doesn't look quite so bad.

Ouch.

That's terrible.

Molina showed plate umpire Tim McClelland he still had the ball, holding it in his right hand, before collapsing in front of the plate.

Gamer!

Yadi is the grittiest scrapper who ever did hustle. If my neck was being stretched across the length of home plate my first thought would not be, "Am I still going to record this out?"

Yadi is the grittiest scrapper who ever did hustle. If my neck was being stretched across the length of home plate my first thought would not be, "Am I still going to record this out?"

That's why you work the Fry-O-Lator and he's a professional baseball player.

Now that's unfair, I only wish I worked the Fry-O-Lator.

Molina showed plate umpire Tim McClelland he still had the ball, holding it in his right hand, before collapsing in front of the plate.

DAMN! That may be the most badass thing I have ever read on Baseball.


Have a quick recovery Yadier, and know that this has placed you on the heights of Baseball toughness.

Any Molina would have done the same.

I'm seeing Alfred, with a little Chinese guy throwing firecrackers. . .

that's right up there with that Astros game a few weeks back when Valverde took a liner off his face, then stayed in to finish the inning. That was badass.

He did not appear to be moving as the cart left the field.

Bryan Alsworth's comment upon hearing this was, "Molinas generally don't move anyway. I don't see how that's a diagnosis of anything."

Molina showed plate umpire Tim McClelland he still had the ball, holding it in his right hand, before collapsing in front of the plate.

That's hockey guy tough.

Alfred Molina would have grabbed the ball with one of the mechanical tentacles welded into his body, using the other one to ensnare Bruntlett to use as a hostage against Tobey Maguire.

He's no Buck Martinez.

Good news, btw. Bernie Miklasz is reporting that it's a mild concussion. Molina will be kept in the hospital overnight to make certain.

Bernie Miklasz's Pressbox

I'd like to give a little love to the Cardinal fans. I looked around a bit and didn't see a negative comment about the Phillie baserunner who plowed into Molina. I thought it was a hard, clean play that was caused by a poor throw, rather than poor catching or over-aggressive baserunning.

I thought it was a hard, clean play that was caused by a poor throw, rather than poor catching or over-aggressive baserunning.

No one on the Cardinals side, not even TLR, is blaming Bruntlett - it wasn't his fault. We'd rather blame Chris Duncan anyway.

Was watching the game when this happened. Scary, scary injury and one hell of a play by Yadi. The replay would make you think severe concussion, but I feared neck injury. Thank God it doesn't appear to be that. Get well soon.

Oh, and not a dirty play at all.

It was dirty, but I think all plays where guys attempt to run over the catcher are dirty.

Sooner or later somebody's going to break some catcher's neck and leave him paralyzed, and then baseball will finally outlaw the home plate collision. Hell, the NFL doesn't even allow its players to lay hits on defenseless opponents, which is what happens sometimes at plate collisions.

The moral of the story, which I think we've all learned the past few years: Uncle Bud's Baseball doesn't do anything until an outraged media firestorm forces them to.

Molina showed umpire Tim McClelland he still had the ball, holding it in his right hand, before collapsing in front of the plate.

Thanks to this overdramatization, the replay I just watched was a little underwhelming. He's lying there, already plowed into the ground, and lifts his forearm up 6 inches with the ball still in his hand. The quote makes it sound more WWE-ish.

Great play and incredibly tough for him to hold on, full marks for that, but come on.

20. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 15, 2008 at 10:57 PM (#2820917)
It was dirty, but I think all plays where guys attempt to run over the catcher are dirty.
21. Justin Zeth, dog Posted: June 15, 2008 at 11:05 PM (#2820923)
Sooner or later somebody's going to break some catcher's neck and leave him paralyzed, and then baseball will finally outlaw the home plate collision. Hell, the NFL doesn't even allow its players to lay hits on defenseless opponents, which is what happens sometimes at plate collisions.

The moral of the story, which I think we've all learned the past few years: Uncle Bud's Baseball doesn't do anything until an outraged media firestorm forces them to.

Great thread until #20 & #21. Fun-haters!

Hell, the NFL doesn't even allow its players to lay hits on defenseless opponents, which is what happens sometimes at plate collisions.

Blind-side sacks, hits on receivers running crossing routes, crack-back blocks on kickoffs ... I'd say those qualify. Then again, I hate the NFL, so perhaps I'm biased.

Blind-side sacks, hits on receivers running crossing routes, crack-back blocks on kickoffs ... I'd say those qualify.

Don't forget that in the majority of cases of someone hitting a defenceless opponent, the worst case penalty is 15 yards. Given that a guy can take his opponent out of the game/season, this doesn't really seem like a significant deterrent. The equivalent in baseball would be something like "Okay, so you killed the catcher. How about in your next at bat, we start it at an 0-1 count."

The NFL is really only interested in protecting QBs (and starting QBs at that). Everyone else can get crippled, and the league doesn't particularly seem to care.

Note: And I have this view while actually being a fan of the league.

Oh, no, don't forget, they also fine guys that lay on dirty hits as much as $75,000, or roughly what the average NFL player spends per month on the guys that keep his cars shiny.

Yeah, I know the NFL ain't serious about it, but at least they have a theoretical rule that says hey, you can't do that. That MLB players are allowed to get a nice 90 foot running start and cream the catcher, who is often not ready for the impact, mystifies me. Not saying I hate it as a spectator. Me, I'd say let 'em run each other over on all the bases. But somebody's going to get badly hurt sooner or later, and then they'll outlaw it.

The NFL is really only interested in protecting QBs (and starting QBs at that). Everyone else can get crippled, and the league doesn't particularly seem to care.

Well, considering quarterbacks are the only players on the field who are regularly, ferociously and legally hit from behind by players much larger than them, while in a stationary position not the least bit suitable for self preservation, the NFL damn well ought to do more to protect its quarterbacks than it does other players.

This wasn't a case of a player running over a catcher with the ball in hand, or a catcher blocking the plate without the ball. It was bang-bang. I think home plate collisions are getting out of hand, but this wasn't a case of that.

Well, considering quarterbacks are the only players on the field who are regularly, ferociously and legally hit from behind by players much larger than them, while in a stationary position not the least bit suitable for self preservation, the NFL damn well ought to do more to protect its quarterbacks than it does other players.

I agree that they should protect them, but the degree of protection is at best minimal. Kill a QB? Not a helmet to helmet? 15 yards, my good man. Please take your place in the 4-3.

That MLB players are allowed to get a nice 90 foot running start and cream the catcher, who is often not ready for the impact, mystifies me.

I realise that this wasn't the case today, but most of the absolute monster hits that I've seen catchers absorb over the years have been the result of illegally blocking the plate. If you start enforcing the rules on that, then most of the issue goes away.

Today, there wasn't really anything that could have been done to avoid the hit other than Bruntlett pulling up and conceeding the out. I don't think that would have gone over particularly well.

That MLB players are allowed to get a nice 90 foot running start and cream the catcher, who is often not ready for the impact, mystifies me.

If they're not ready for impact, they shouldn't be in the baseline. You seem easily mystified.

Rule 7.06:

The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

A literal reading of the rule says that a catcher must always catch the ball first, and then move into the basepath. That rule is certainly not enforced.

Good, then any time there's a collision, the runner should be ruled safe by merit of interference, right?

No, I know we're now discussing the situation where the ball arrives well before the runner, and the catcher has the ball and is waiting for him. Well... why's a better allowed to drill the catcher in that situation, but not, say, the second baseman?

Actually, maybe he is allowed to drill the second baseman, but second basemen are smart enough to move out of the way while applying a tag, I don't know. It always seemed to me like it would be quite simple for a catcher, receiving the ball well before the runner arrives, to step aside and just touch the runner with his glove. But I guess that's not the manly thing to do.

Any reading of the rule says that a catcher must always catch the ball first, and then move into the basepath. Any idea when this changed? For example, on the cover of James' New Historical, Cochrane has the ball and is diving into the basepath.

It says the catcher must be fielding the ball. If he's set up to catch the ball, and a throw is obviously about to be made or has been made, he's fielding the ball.

Actually, maybe he is allowed to drill the second baseman, but second basemen are smart enough to move out of the way while applying a tag, I don't know. It always seemed to me like it would be quite simple for a catcher, receiving the ball well before the runner arrives, to step aside and just touch the runner with his glove. But I guess that's not the manly thing to do.

+1

It always seemed to me that it would be good policy for the catcher to take a page out of the matador playbook: "Come and get me Mr. Baserunner... Ole! Gotcha! ... Silly baserunner."

There's also the cases of Jamie Burke and Johnny Estrada who stood directly in front of the plate (the closest part of the dirt to the pitcher's mound) as the ball came in, providing a nearly clean path for the runner, only to take a flying forearm to the head from Torii Hunter/Darin Erstad and get seriously injured. The catchers didn't get any protection there and the runners were called safe despite the interference, so it's hard to see why catchers should change their ways until the rules are properly enforced.

Stuff like this puts me in mind of the time I saw Al Nipper (I think it was) take a sharp one-hopper right to the cup, scramble to get it and throw to first, then collapse in helpless agony. It was hilarious.

Actually, maybe he is allowed to drill the second baseman, but second basemen are smart enough to move out of the way while applying a tag, I don't know.

They've solved that by second basemen not actually having to tag either the runner or the base, as the case may be. Not a satisfactory solution, IMO.