If by "not really blocking the plate" you mean standing directly on the path from third to home, then yeah, he wasn't blocking the plate. Ferchrissakes, Lawrie's foot stirs up the chalk of the third base line at the moment of contact.

And if by "throw a forearm shiver" you mean curl up your arms next to your body so's not to break them, then yeah, he threw a forearm too.

Well, you probably shouldn't stand directly between third base and home plate, then.

(Coke to Dale H.)

That gif is completely pointless to see what the hell was going on.

After hearing Yankees fanboys go on and on about how Tex's play where he knocked the catcher out of the game and possibly the major leagues was COMPLETELY FINE, I'm not buying much of anything other than slow-motion video at this point.

I'm guessing some writer has an axe grind. The throw home was bad. It drifted high but the catcher was standing in the baseline and got smacked for standing there.

I saw nothing wrong with what Lawrie did during the play or after it.

Three observations from the video, not the gif.

I don't think he was blocking the plate as much as that was where he had to go to catch it.

Lawrie's play was kind of cheap, but sadly within the rules of the game. The view from behind the catcher up the first base line shows he kind of veered to ensure a collision. I agree it wasn't a forearm shiver.

I think the ump got it right. I don't think Lester ever tagged him with the glove.

Lawrie's play was kind of cheap, but sadly within the rules of the game. The view from behind the catcher up the first base line shows he kind of veered to ensure a collision. I agree it wasn't a forearm shiver.

I think the ump got it right. I don't think Hester ever tagged him with the glove.

I agree with all of this. Given that home plate collisions are accepted, Lawrie made a reasonable choice; if the throw had been a little more on-line it would have been a "normal" collision play (full disclosure: Jays fan).

FWIW Gregg Zaun and Buck Martinez both thought it was fine, but apply whatever grain of salt for being Jays broadcasters one thinks is appropriate.

Predictably, Lawrie got up and started acting like he had done something special before jawing at the Angel dugout when Mike Butcher took exception.

You mean acting like he had scored a run, on a high adrenaline play, in a close game?

This play was just a mess...on the Angels telecast, the Jays third base coach was waving Lawrie home as soon as Kendrick kicked the ball into short center field. Lawrie stopped...went back to third, and stared at the Rasmus, who was about 20 feet from the third base bag. Rasmus headed back to second, and Lawrie headed for the plate. Aybar had time to double pump as he realized Lawrie running, but he left his throw high and up the line. A better slide by Lawrie and he is home easily....or if he actually paid attention to his third base coach, he scores with out a throw.

I saw nothing wrong with what Lawrie did during the play or after it.

Neither did Mike Scoscia, for the record.

FWIW Gregg Zaun and Buck Martinez both thought it was fine, but apply whatever grain of salt for being Jays broadcasters one thinks is appropriate.

Neither did Mike Scoscia, for the record.

Three catchers, seems like a concensus.

I don't think he was blocking the plate as much as that was where he had to go to catch it.

Lawrie's play was kind of cheap, but sadly within the rules of the game. The view from behind the catcher up the first base line shows he kind of veered to ensure a collision. I agree it wasn't a forearm shiver.

I think the ump got it right. I don't think Lester ever tagged him with the glove.

I agree with points one and two, though I don't really think the play was cheap so much as it was stupid, since he scores easily with a slide. I think he was out,though. I haven't seen a closeup or any enhanced replays or anything, but the replays I say while watching the game showed (at least to my eyes) that he got him on the back, and that Lawrie never touched the plate the first time by. At the very least the ump screwed that up. Of course, that dude screwed up a lot of things in that game.

You mean acting like he had scored a run, on a high adrenaline play, in a close game?

On an error, in which he had both screwed up the signals from his third base coach and failed to execute an easy slide, on a play in which he was actually probably out, in the sixth inning of a game in which his team eventually got slaughtered. Maybe save the theatrics for a time when the other team has fewer than nine outs left (assuming the author's recap is accurate. I wasn't paying attention to Lawrie and Butcher at that point).

in the sixth inning of a game in which his team eventually got slaughtered.

You're blaming him for not being psychic?

I generally loathe collisions, and Lawrie seems like a guy I wouldn't much like, but absent a slo-mo replay that shows something else I'm not seeing I just don't think this was that bad or "dirty."

I don't think he was blocking the plate as much as that was where he had to go to catch it.

Ultimately, that's a distinction without a difference. The runner is entitled to the baseline, and if the fielder gets in his way (be it deliberately or inadvertently), it's fair game for the runner to knock him over.

You're blaming him for not being psychic?

I'm blaming him for allegedly acting like a douche in a game where, even after the play, his team was still losing, and a game that still had more than three innings left to play.

Lawrie may have reached a bit to get Hester but not so badly that I found it especially wrong. He should have slid (and it looks like he was being told to by the preceding runner) but with Hester coming across to catch the ball I can understand him sort of steeling himself for a collision.

Incidentally I don't see where Lawrie was "acting like he had done something special". The jawing at the Angel bench is inappropriate but I'm guessing he did not start talking until the Angels did but he wasn't waving his arms or anything, at least on the replay I saw. He touched the base then looked like he was walking toward his dugout.

I think he was out,though. I haven't seen a closeup or any enhanced replays or anything, but the replays I say while watching the game showed (at least to my eyes) that he got him on the back, and that Lawrie never touched the plate the first time by. At the very least the ump screwed that up. Of course, that dude screwed up a lot of things in that game.

It's certainly possible that the reviews available during the game were more plentiful than the one shown at MLB.com, but I didn't see any angle where the glove touched Lawrie. It looked to me that Lawrie made contact with Hester's ulna, but the glove remained above him throughout the collision.

Ultimately, that's a distinction without a difference. The runner is entitled to the baseline, and if the fielder gets in his way (be it deliberately or inadvertently), it's fair game for the runner to knock him over.

I kind of covered that with the next sentence.

And actually, it doesn't matter whether he's in his way. Baseball convention has evolved to allow the runner to knock the catcher's ass over over regardless whether the catcher has given the runner a lane to the plate. The problem is the continued stupidity of MLB to allow these violent collisions at this one, and only, base. It's dangerous, pointless, counter to the rules played by these guys growing up and counter to the way the game is played anywhere else on the diamond.

As long as MLB foolishly allows catchers to block the plate/runners to blow catchers up, then determining whether this guy's hit was clean or dirty is what's pointless.

Re: 16

I agree with those last paragraphs, about how stupid and dangerous it is to allow baserunners to leave the baseline to collide with catchers. But it is also accepted at one other base: 2nd base, when breaking up a double play. They allow the baserunner to slide WAY out of the baseline, taking out the the pivot man that is not trying to interact with the baserunner at all. In fact, that pivot man is actively trying to avoid a collision, yet the baserunner can go after him!

Both are ridiculous, and do nothing but add injuries.

I agree with those last paragraphs, about how stupid and dangerous it is to allow baserunners to leave the baseline to collide with catchers. But it is also accepted at one other base: 2nd base, when breaking up a double play. They allow the baserunner to slide WAY out of the baseline, taking out the the pivot man that is not trying to interact with the baserunner at all. In fact, that pivot man is actively trying to avoid a collision, yet the baserunner can go after him!

But at second, the baserunner is required to slide. The rolling style block* as practiced by Hal McRae has been outlawed. That's a substantial difference with what is allowed at home.

* Or anything else where the runner leads with the upper body.

It's certainly possible that the reviews available during the game were more plentiful than the one shown at MLB.com, but I didn't see any angle where the glove touched Lawrie. It looked to me that Lawrie made contact with Hester's ulna, but the glove remained above him throughout the collision.

It looked to me like Hester's wrist got Lawrie's back. If all that is require for the tag is leather, it looked to me like he got him.

If all that is require for the tag is leather, it looked to me like he got him.

That is all that's required. I just never saw an angle where the mitt touched the body.*

* Acknowledging that I only saw the video clip on mlb, which may not have shown the relevant angle. And, acknowledging that two people can watch the exact same video and come to two distinct conclusions.

This is what Mike Scioscia said when asked if he had an issue with what Lawrie did:

"Not at all; I think it's a hard baseball play. Lawrie sensed the timing was against him and he's a competitor, he's going to go try to dislodge the ball and see if he can't be safe."

Incidentally, I agree with SoSH.

As for whether he was safe, I think it's too hard to tell. Either call was reasonable, but the ump was right there and made the call right away; I'm guessing he just missed with the glove.

What did Lawrie do after the play that was so objectionable?

known red-ass Brett Lawrie

What the hell does that even mean?

It means the writer does not like Brett Lawrie.

What the hell does that even mean?

In his private life, he's into adult baby fetish sex, AKA paraphilic infantilism. It's a reference to diaper rash.

Man, John Hester? What the heck does Hank Conger have to do to get starts at catcher?

Is calling someone a "known red-ass" considered insulting? I would think most players would consider such a thing to be complimentary.

Is calling someone a "known red-ass" considered insulting? I would think most players would consider such a thing to be complimentary.

And is it even debatable in the case of Lawrie? I would have thought the slammed helmet reaction earlier this year would have cemented his carmine anus status.

Depends, I guess. I take 'red-ass' as an euphemism for calling a guy a 'dick'. Jeff Kent was a red ass and he was a big ol' dick.

Depends, I guess. I take 'red-ass' as an euphemism for calling a guy a 'dick'. Jeff Kent was a red ass and he was a big ol' dick.

I think of Dustin Pedroia, who is probably my favorite active player, as a red ass. I think it is more of a positive euphemism than "dick" which is not entirely different. AJ Pierzynski is pretty similar to these guys but he is more "dick" than "red ass" in my mind. YMMV

Paul LoDuca was flattered by being referred to as Captain Red Ass. I sort of view it as being the kind of blue-collar, no nonsense, hot-headed ####### that you'd love to have as a teammate and hate if he was on the other side. So ... sort of a half-compliment.

As for the play, that's undoubtedly dirty fellas. The only reason that the catcher was up the line and prone is because, as pthomas points out in #7, it wasn't a clean and uninterrupted play. Lawrie took off on a delay from third and the catcher was probably caught with his pants down a little bit.

Bottom line is that Lawrie was in safe without killing the catcher, probably knew it, and hit him harder and higher than he needed to, on a play that is considered "legal" by baseball but which doesn't really add anything to the game except injury. A collision like that is a throwback to a "good old days" which never existed.

I think "red-ass" is sometimes used as an insult, but it's the "known" that pushes it over the top. Practically anything can be an insult if it starts with "known". Known Democrat. Known Republican. Known adult. Known dragon. And so on.

Three catchers, seems like a concensus.

I believe a group of catchers is referred to as an "interference."

Rick Burleson was known as a "red-ass". Ornery.

The gif sucks. The play didn't look that bad, but I'd like to see Lawrie from about 20 feet out before contact to tell. It looked like the catcher was fine after the contact.

I've made my opinion on collisions known. I'm a known liberal re: crashing catchers in or too close to the basepath on close plays. If the runner is trying to score, and the run means something, and the catcher is in the way, to paraphrase Cosell, "DOWN GOES YOGI!!"

As for the play, that's undoubtedly dirty fellas. The only reason that the catcher was up the line and prone is because, as pthomas points out in #7, it wasn't a clean and uninterrupted play. Lawrie took off on a delay from third and the catcher was probably caught with his pants down a little bit.

Seems like there's plenty of doubt to me, buddy, since most of those who play the game seem to disagree with you.

I don't see how the delay figures into it at all. The catcher was in the baseline, and by baseball tradition is fair game. It doesn't matter why he's there.

Yeah, the only thing wrong with this play was the call. But it was a tough one, and I had to go frame-by-frame to verify that the wrist of the glove did touch him and that Lawrie missed the plate during the collision.

Lawrie is a talented kid, and a legitimately crazy person.