- YES, the change is necessary to reduce injury – 37%
- NO, home plate collisions are part of the game – 58%
- WHO CARES? It doesn’t matter much to me either way – 5%
Personally, when I first heard that this rule was being considered I was quite against it for two reasons:
- It seemed disingenuous to me that for years collisions were an accepted part of the game, until a high profile player was injured. It wasn’t until Buster Posey was injured that the outcry began supposedly in the name of players health, but it seemed to be more because now players were deemed too valuable a commodity to their teams, and the MLB revenue stream.
- I was concerned that they would start a trend to emasculate the game, and the relevance of one of the most defining plays on the field that displayed the competitive sacrifice players were willing to make to win the game for their team.
I’m actually very surprisingly pleased with the rule as it was ultimately designed. It does not take away the possibility of protecting the plate, only the intent of either the runner or catcher to purposely try to injure the other. All said and done, as I read the rule it should not affect the intensity or importance of the play at the plate, or even the possibility of contact, only the predetermined intent to injure another player.
Thanks for your votes on this question, and hope you will share your opinion on the new fan poll about which new Padres player will have the greatest impact this year!