THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

So, Zimmer wants to be all ‘old school’, and Girardi wants to inject some common sense into the game.

I don’t care much one way or the other. I guess I’d want to examine the issue, to see if there is a practical and effective way to legislate against these home plate collisions.

It’s not the question of home plate collisions that’s the issue between Girardi and Zimmer (which we can also discuss as something separate if you like).  It’s that there should be different attitudes on the part of the runner, but not the catcher!, when it comes to playing during exhibition.

The catcher is the one who crosses the line.  Once he crosses that line, the runner can respond in kind.  That’s basically Zim’s stance and mine.  Girardi is saying that the catcher can continue to do his stuff, but now the runner has to not play the same way.

I’d have to see the video and even then, there might not be a clear-cut answer, but I tend to side with Girardi.

It would make sense if catchers were to use ST games to practice blocking the plate.  That is an important skill which is difficult to learn.

Bowling over catchers is not much of a skill that needs to be learned. 

Now, if it is a matter of safety for the runner, then that’s fine, but I think that there are ways not to bowl over the catcher without risking injury.  How about just slow down and go around him or stop and be tagged out, just like you see all the time in real games?  Again, I’d have to see the video.

I just don’t think the catcher and runner are on equal footing here, no pun intended.  Not even close.

And yes, Girardi being an ex-catcher makes him more qualified to speak on this matter in the way he did, since he knows what runners can and can’t do if they want to.

The difference of course is that one player started the “chain” of a collision (the catcher), but the other one “consummated” it.  At worst (for Girardi), he can say that his catcher made a mistake (by blocking the plate), but that the runner did not have to actually crash into him (in a ST game). Two wrongs not making a right.

The more I think about it, I think that the catcher is withing his rights practicing what he is supposed to do, in a ST game, but that the runner is not.

Then again, it might just have been the runner not thinking, acting on auto-pilot (which is what he is supposed to do, right?), sort of thinking (or not thinking at all) that this is a “real” game.  There is certainly nothing wrong with that.  I don’t think too many people would get upset if a fielder dove for ball in a ST game, risking injury, would they?

#3: Interestingly, the play began because the Yankees’ centerfielder (a minor leaguer I’ve never heard of) laid out for the ball. And missed. By a mile. He pulls up and lets the ball dunk in for a single, and the play at the plate never happens.

What I’ve never understood is why you can block home plate, but not 1st, 2nd or 3rd base.  It seems to me that it’s the catcher who is getting in the way of the runner.  Maybe we could say that a baserunner would be wise to slow down in that situation in a spring game, but I don’t think it’s an obligation.  You can practice blocking the plate much better in drills than you can in a game environment because the chances to do so are not that common. 

I guess I see it two ways.  The first is that you’d think a baserunner would slow down to avoid injury to himself in spring training let alone an injury to another player, but it’s the catcher who put himself in the path of the baserunner so it’s hard for me to blame anyone other than the catcher.

How many times does a catcher get in the path of he baserunner when he doesn’t even have much of a chance of getting him out?

MGLs #3 is spot on.

I remember B James noticing that the amount of contact which is deemed acceptable is proportional to the perceived importance of the runner. Home plate is more important than other bases, etc. But how much is home plate worth in a ST game? Very little, unless you are a marginal player who thinks you have to impress the manager with your toughness and desire, etc. Well, I hate to tell that player--if that’s all you have, with no bat pop or gold glove--bravely crashing into a catcher is not going to be enough to make the team. And if you are perceived to have gone over the line, it might end up working against you.

Still, for me this is just an opportunity to examine the rules regarding home plate plays. I lean towards the side of legislating for less physical contact.

I’m in favor of eliminating these collisions at the plate. They serve no real purpose other than injuring catchers. For example, what was accomplished by Pete Rose clobbering Ray Fosse, except to end Fosse’s career? Leave that sort of thing to the NFL.

I would propose a rule change. Put a chalk line across the thirdbase line fifteen or twenty feet away from the plate. If the runner crosses that line and the catcher touches the plate with the ball in his possession, the runner would be out. If the catcher does not have the ball and blocks the runner’s access to the plate, the runner is declared safe by the ump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/sports/baseball/09yankees.html?ref=baseball

The catcher says:

“It’s part of the game,” said Cervelli, who turned 22 on Thursday and played last season at Class A Tampa. “It’s O.K.”

The runner says:

He said that Cervelli’s left foot was blocking the plate and that he probably would have been out had he tried a hook slide. “With the time I had there, my options were slide and be out or see if I could pop the ball loose,” Johnson said. “From my point of view, my job is to score the run and I’m not the type of guy who usually does that.

The only guy who has a problem is Girardi. 

Players all the time complain about how dirty other players are.  Even Billy Wagner will talk like a p-ssy about college kids bunting on him. In this play, both affected players said it was ok.  No reason to think they are being anything other than sincere.

Chuck/7: your rule change is similar to what we have in softball.  We have two special no-contact rules:

1. at 1B, we have a double-bag, with one bag in fair territory, and another touching it in foul territory; the batter/runner doesn’t need to touch the same base as the 1B, as he touches the bag in foul territory.  In effect, it’s a rectangular base, not square.  When you think about it, why NOT have that?

2. Down the 3B line, you have a “commit” line that is about 30 feet from home plate.  Once a runner crosses that line, he has no choice but to go home.  The play at the plate now becomes a FORCE play (catcher only needs to tag the plate to get the runner out).  Furthermore, the runner is prevented from sliding into home plate.  After all, what would be the point in sliding?  It would be just like a play at 1B.

I like both these rules, since they reduce greatly chances of injury, and it makes the job much easier on the umpire in the second case, as he is no longer looking for the tag in the midst of the flying dirt.

As I said in the other thread, I am not much of an advocate for tinkering with baseball rules, but if I had to change one, it would simply be to enforce an interference/obstruction rule at home plate, with the umpire using his discretion.

The reason it occurs at home plate and not 2nd or 3rd is because you can overrun home plate.  The two reasons it does not occur at first (well, not the only reasons), even though it easily could, is that first is not as important, as someone else above said, and because there is usually no force play at home (and the blocking of the plate does not usually occur when there is a force).

Basically, umpires could and should enforce the interference and obstruction rules at home plate exactly the same way they would enforce it if a first baseman tried to block first base without the ball or if a runner tried to knock the first baseman over while crossing the bag.

There is no need for extra lines or even any extra rules. The rules are already there - they are just not enforced.  In the interest of safety, someone a long time ago should have told the umps to start enforcing those rules at home plate. 

In fact, rather than have third base coaches wear helmets (a silly over-reaction), it would be a lot smarter to enforce a “no blocking or running into the catcher on purpose” rules.

One other reason that knocking over the catcher evolved, I would think (other than the base is so important), is that catchers cannot easily hold onto the ball, especially in the old days, so runners figured that it would be easy to dislodge a ball (which it still is).  If you try that at first base, you are not going to be successful very often.  Plus, of course, it (running into the fielder) is just not practicable at first because the first baseman has no protection and MANY injuries would occur, whereas the catcher injury is still relatively rare (although not THAT rare - it is just that a major knockdown itself is relatively rare).

The “enforce the rules” is just wishful thinking.  It doesn’t happen, and won’t happen.  Discretionary “intent” and discretionary calls are something the umpire would prefer not to have.  Especially if it’s to decide something as important as a tradeoff between a run or out.  It’s not like a ball/strike, or even a play at 1B.

A commit line is very unintrusive, and practically useful.  There is not a single downside to that rule, other than “tradition”.  The NBA and NHL and NFL don’t have to put up with the b.s. that baseball has to put up with, with rules, stats, and “purity of athletes”.  I blame Field of Dreams.

Just as you say that “enforcing the rules” won’t happen (and I disagree), there is NO WAY that baseball messes with the game by adding lines and things like that…

Bill James has a long take on the subject of blocking the plate & unenforced rules in one of the historical abstracts; very entertaining, as i recall, complete with police-state analogies to evoke the dangers of selective rule enforcement....as I recall, he argued it was much worse than it is now back in the 70s and 80s…

The way I see it is from the view of what has happened in other sports.  And, in all sports, giving discretionary selective power to the referee is always a problem, when you don’t have to.  And, in every other team sport in the world, except baseball, the leagues have no problems with tinkering with rules, or making wholesale changes. 

The NHL for example removed the center line altogether, a drastic change.  The changed the lines around the goalies net, another drastic change.  They have video review that happens out of their Toronto operations, not by the refs on the ice or in the arena.  The NBA added a three point line, a drastic change.  In all sports, if they need to add a line, they will.  If they need to add a referee, they will.  If they need to make life easier for a ref, they will.  If they need to protect their players from senseless confrontations, they will.  Except MLB.  There are no bench-clearing brawls in hockey.  None.  There are in baseball.

MLB is mired in this romanticism that simply doesn’t exist in other sports.  They want their utopia, their Iowa.  And, that’ll be their downfall.  It simply doesn’t exist.  Baseball is a beautiful game that transcends MLB attempts to exploit it.

If we were to invent baseball today, the commit line would be there, the double-bag at 1B would be there, beanball wars would be gone, and the pace of the game would be such that there’d be little downtime.  Eventually, MLB will move toward changes in rules that other leagues adopt.  There’s no way they’ll move toward changes in rules that requires more discretionary calls on the part of the ump.

Baseball is more like other sports, than it is unique.

The commit line and double-bag at first are to protect recreational players.  If you play properly, there is no need for these.  I have seen too many amateur first baseman almost get their achilles shredded because they don’t know how to play first.  Professionals should be able to know not to put their whole foot on first.

A commit line is ridiculous in a professional contest.  Maybe the batters should have complete armor in case they are hit by a pitch.  Oh wait, many do.

Contact at the plate is a long known possibility.  If Girardi does not want his players injured he should tell his catchers not to block the plate and also don’t block pitches in case one takes a funny bounce and the outfields should shy away from the wall and infielders should jump out of the way at second in case they get slid into.

You play games against other teams to the fullest, otherwise just play instrasquads or do not charge customer like they are real games.

Checking from behind in hockey was always a well-known possibility and tolerated practice when the scorer was parked in front of the net.  No more.

Running into the goalie was a well-known possibility and tolerated practice.  Until goalies got fed up enough.  Now, no more.

Goalies wearing masks?  Coaches told goalies no way, that if they were men, they would not wear masks.  No more.

Players wearing helmets, face shields, and extra body armor?  Real men didn’t do that, was the accepted practice.  No more.

And this is hockey, where the physical play is encouraged.

The viewpoints expressed in this thread and this blog against any kind of drastic rule changes for MLB is, in my view, completely based on the way the traditional aspects of baseball has entered the public pysche.  Drastic rule changes of any kind in any sport to protect any player is always looked at, and encouraged.  Not baseball.  Any such attempts are shouted down as ridicule.  Welcome to the NHL, circa 1950.  Eventually, MLB will wise up, just as every other sport has.

And say goodbye to that brick wall.  It’ll eventually go away.  There’s no way that a new ballpark will ever have one.  Tradition, schmadition.  Unless Topol will be singing on that ivy-covered wall, tradition will die.

The corollary to rule changes expressed here is equivalent to the non-statheads being exposed to new stats, as described here:
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/

Funny thing is, I don’t think this is so much a revolt against new statistics as it is an aversion to change; in my father’s day old men complained about how the younger players couldn’t get down a bunt. In our day, old men complain about on-base percentage and WHIP (never mind Eqa or neutral wins or Win Shares or other works of the devil).

Tangotiger

I wouldn’t say that “every other team sport in the world” has no problems with tinkering with the rules. Soccer, perhaps the biggest team sport in the world is SERIOUSLY adverse to implementing even the most minor of changes to the game.

There are no bench-clearing brawls in hockey.  None.  There are in baseball.

You’re seriously joking about this, right?

No bench clearing brawls.  Instead players are allowed to smash each other into a wooden board and plexiglass and start fistfights in the middle of the game/ice.

But no bench clearing brawls.  They really need to loosen up in hockey a little…

The smashing of hockey players against the boards is no different than in the NFL.  Physical play is part of hockey as it is in football.  It’s not required in baseball.

Fisticuffs barely exists in the playoffs.  It will eventually be legislated out in the NHL altogether, as it is in Europe.  Since most of the fights involves at least one goon, all you have to do is get rid of the goons.  Setting a playing time marker, like “60 minutes played per fight” would wipe out goons tomorrow.  (A goon will typically play 5 minutes per game, as opposed to a regular shift of 14 minutes for a forward and 20 for a defenseman; a goon usually has 10 to 20 fights per season.) So, a goon would need to play 12 games of 5 minutes each to get into 1 fight. Regardless, goons will disappear eventually.  This is a good example of entrenched tradition regarding fighting in the NHL.  As much as people will stand to their feet to watch a fight, it will no longer be part of the NHL at some point.

Bench clearing brawls don’t exist in the NHL.  They do in MLB.

***

Really, if I was proposing rule changes in the NFL or NBA, there would be little to no resistance.  “Baseball” makes things different.

***

As for soccer, they made serious changes with the shootout.  What rule changes have been proposed that have been shot down?  Something to do with offsides I imagine?

At any other place on the field, a baserunner who initiates contact with a fielder is out, right? If you’re breaking up a double play, you can’t go out of your way to take out the infielder, although you’ve got some leeway in the basepath. Not sure why it’s OK to take aim at the catcher.

Tango, I agree with you about checking being part of the physicality of the game, but you don’t see any irony in comparing baseball to hockey, when hockey is generally considered to be the worst of the major sports in terms of “unnecessary brutality” (fist fights)?

For a second, I really thought you were being facetious.  Letting hockey players get in fist fights without throwing both of them out of the game and giving them each a 10-game suspension (or whatever) is ludicrous.

I am so glad that they don’t do it much in the playoffs!  Next thing you know, they’ll be apologizing after a particularly rough check, but only in the Stanley Cup finals!

International hockey rules don’t tolerate fighting, and neither does European hockey.  It’ll get there soon enough in the NHL.  But, that’s the point.  Fighting is so entrenched in the NHL for decades that it will finally be legislated out, just like they got rid of bench-clearing brawls. 

Btw, at the end of playoff series in the NHL, they line up to shake hands.  As tough and hard as they play, they still have the sportsmanship to shake their opponents hands.  Baseball?  Please.  Tradition is that they cry on the bench and sulk.  Hockey players do that too, but they at least shake their opponents’ hands.

Time for a tradition that makes sense.  Running into a catcher doesn’t make sense.  Throwing at a batter’s head with impunity doesn’t make sense.  At least in an NHL fight, both guys are on an equal footing.  They both have a choice. 

Let’s legislate away p-ssy behaviour.  ARod swatting at a glove?  P-ssy.  Running into a catcher?  P-ssy.  Throwing a ball at a hitter’s head?  P-ssy.  Constantly trying to pickoff a runner and you’re not even close to getting him?  P-ssy.

Create the “no p-ssy” rule.  I’d like to see someone rule against having that.

Tampa and Yanks brawl today.  See, if you had the “no p-ssy rule” this wouldn’t be happening.  Best thing for these guys is to give them boxing gloves and have it out for 3 rounds.

You say the no p***y rule (I hope your wife does not read your posts!).  Baseball people (like LaRussa) think just the opposite.  They think that throwing at batters, bench-clearing brawls, and running into the catcher are the tough, manly things to do…

Then he’s a p-ssy!  A tough manly thing to do is to face someone on equal or lesser (for you) terms.  Having a baseball and throwing it at someone is what a bully does.  Running into someone who is standing still (who must also hold onto a ball and can’t give you a shoulder block) is what a bully does. 

In the NFL and NHL, it’s two guys skating or running toward each other, each hoping to make at least equal to or better contact.  Those are real men.

What I like about golf players is that they are true sportsmen.  How about Federer v Sampras, and Federer overruling the umpire on a call in Sampras’ favor?  Now that’s a sportsman.

Baseball players?  Please.

P-ssy:
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0312/mlb_a_duncan_slide_400.jpg

OK - after catching up I have the answer.

No more tag outs in baseball.  This way as long as the fielder touches the bag with the ball in his possession before a runner gets there the runner is out.

And since the fielder cannot tag the runner, the runner can overrun every base just like first.  This will require a commit line as suggested or a runner could just stand between bases.  Also the SB would be likely eliminated - statheads rejoice!

The batter will get a screen in front of him so that pitchers cannot hit them, intentionally or otherwise.  Security gates at all entrances to the field so that only the umpire can let players onto or off the field (like the scorer’s table in basketball - leave the bench and you get tossed - remember the NBA playoffs last year?).

What else?  Change the ball to a very soft composite so in the off chance someone gets hit, it will not hurt.  Pitchers get innings/pitch limits by rule so that managers cannot abuse them.  No lead offs so that there cannot be “unnecessary” pick-offs.  Everyone gets to play at least 3 defensive outs or one at bat.  Some of these rules sound familiar?

Amatuer players need protection because of the great difference in the ability of those involved.  Professional players do not need the same protections as the difference is less pronounced.  Perhaps by this argument the DH makes sense since most pitchers have a vastly inferior ability on offense than most others.

Fighting is eliminated in college, international and Euro hockey by rule of stiff punishment.  The same elements that lead to fighting are there (checking).  If fighting is the issue, MLB needs harsh punishments for getting involved.  Running into the catcher is part of the game at the pro level, live with it.

If Girardi doesn’t like his catcher getting barrelled over in a spring game, put a pink jersey on him, add a commit line and all the rest.  Or just like in the NFL preseason - sstarters hardly play to avoid injury.

Actually, the runner can overrun the base without it being a force play.  Let’s say you put a commit line at every base that is 15 feet from the base.  Once the runner crosses that line, it becomes a force play at the base.  If the runner overruns 2B, he can be tagged out going back to 2B.  Unless of course you put a commit line on the other side of the base as well (maybe at 5 feet)!  In which case, you have a commit zone, similar to the “3-second key” in basketball.

But hey, let’s stick with the “p-ssy swipe tag near the runner as he slides for an out” rule instead.  That one makes so much more sense.  As is the “slide step before getting the ball DP to avoid the p-ssy runner” rule.

Here’s a video of Duncan’s slide: http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=7497ca94-3c64-4057-81b1-7f38203c8d84

It was definitely late, but not nearly as bad as the picture in #17 looked.

Late?  That’s about a late a slide as you’ll ever see.  And very hard too.  Sorry, but I think the picture makes it look tame by comparison.  It was late, hard, and he had his spikes way above the knee.  P-ssy runner is what he is.

Beyond baseball’s general and long-standing inertia, MLB’s also in an extremely reactionary mode right now regarding rules/customs changes. A tie All-Star game in front of Selig in his park? Not anymore, because this time it counts. The Mike Coolbaugh tragedy? Helmets for the base coaches.

IOW, to take collisions at home plate as an example, I doubt we’ll see anything happen unless there’s an incident that makes Pete Rose/Ray Fosse look PG-Rated.

To MLB’s credit, though, they have made an attempt to decrease HBPs by encouraging umpires to issue bench warnings when they occur. (Of course, when they do so, it’s often met with fierce derision by the players, managers, and color commentators...)

Though I object to the p word as a backhanded slur on my sex, I agree with the rest of Tango’s comments. About both the play at home and Duncan’s slide.

There’s a difference between hard play and plays that have a high risk of injury, or even a low risk of serious injury, to another player. I think throwing a fastball at someone’s head should be criminal, but then I was an impressionable kid when Billy Conigliaro’s face was smashed. I don’t like big guys deliberately taking out little guys on second (though the size difference has decreased through the years, the positional vulnerability remains), not even trying to hide their intent. Umpires rarely call it. There are a few other things like that, that could be handled, but won’t be in my lifetime.

The p-ssy word is probably on par with the d-ck and assh-le words, wouldn’t it?  I don’t think it is meant to say he’s a “girlie man”.  Now, anyway.  Maybe when it was first conceived, it was.  We use it often enough in my circle of friends (guys and gals).

Okay, I stand corrected. Here’s another video of the slide, this time without the blue graphic on the bottom obscuring Duncan’s legs. His left foot never touched the ground. Indefensible.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080312&content_id=2421390&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I’m gonna go on record here as saying that I am not real comfortable using the p word and I won’t use it anymore.

“That was a blatant attempt to hurt Aki, and it was set up,” Maddon said. “It was planned, it was premeditated. I mean, I don’t know what’s the difference between that and a high stick in hockey. But it was that bad.”

Funny.  For the people who think I go overboard with my hockey analogies....

And he’s right, it’s a high stick with intent to injure.  There’s one high stick where you are reckless with it (holding it up, without intent to injure), and that gets you 5 minutes in the box.  That’s the equivalent of giving the other team one goal 50% of the time.  And one goal in hockey is the equivalent of 2 runs in baseball, so that’s like giving the other team 1 free run.  That’s huge.

The other high stick, intent to injure, gets you the 5 minutes, game misconduct, and suspension.

Would Duncan have done what he did if his team had to give up a run, or play with a man down for an inning?

I’d call him the p-word, but see below…

***

As for the p-ssy word, we can adopt a different one: 5-ARD.  That’s the shorthand for the technical term “5-alpha-reductase deficiency” given to males born with no genitalia.  Of course, if I do that, I risk marginalizing the readers in our audience so afflicted.

Hmmmm… it seems there’s no safe way to denigrate a person’s strength of character without resorting to denigrating someone else’s sense of being.

Should we just call these guys cowards?  So, that’s what they are.  I’m all in favor of rules designed to eliminate cowardice plays in any sport and encourage sportsmanship.

I can definitely get behind a no-coward policy. My big problem with the DH is letting pitchers throw at batters without ever having to face a pitcher for retribution.

I’m just a little sensitive to the whole concept that the worst thing a guy can call another guy is a girl, or some part of a girl. I think there’s a difference between calling someone a p***y when they don’t have one and calling someone a d**k when they do.

At the same time, if a girl calls a girl a p-ssy and a girl calls a guy a d-ck, doesn’t she mean the same thing as the guy?

That is, uttered by a guy or girl, a d-ck is someone who is a jerk.  And a p-ssy is someone who is a coward.

If on the other hand this would be transposed, that a girl who calls a girl a d-ck really means that the girl is a coward, then you’d have a point regarding the cross-gender insult.

I think the word is used differently in our experiences. I haven’t heard p used exclusively for coward. It’s a catchall for denigration, but of a type that implies girliness. Cowardly would be in there, but so would wearing the wrong shirt, and general nerdiness that leaves a man without the right outlook on life.

I don’t know much about other women’s usage, since in my circle, I’m the only one who swears like a sailor. The occasional hell, damn, and f are about all I hear. But I spend most of my time with men anyway.

Another interesting discussion. Thanks.

1) I think putting a dash or asterisk in a swear word is a pointless exercise in modesty. Everyone knows what is meant and is offended to whatever degree he or she is going to be offended.

2) Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I’m with MGL in being uncomfortable in use of the word “p-ssy” in this forum.[As far as I’m concerned, the cat’s out of the bag in this thread.] It’s not a word I use (I use many others), but there’s no reason this site shouldn’t be accessible to an interested 11 year old.  And I agree with jlc about two things - in my experience it means weak and unmanly, not specifically cowardly. Not wearing the wrong shirt or being nerdy but in particular, giving up easily. Secondly - the words d-ck and p-ssy are not symmetrical. You want a lawyer who can be a d-ck. You don’t want a lawyer who can be a p-ssy. The male term is not wholly negative.

(Editor’s note: the reason that you can’t spell out the full word is that my blog software marks the post as spam, forcing me to moderate it in the queue.)

I guess this is the most appropriate blog to say it.  I just got an email with this subject line:
“Twins take it up the ass”

Am I the only one that thought that this email was about Minnesota playing a horrible game?  Too much baseball for me.

Joe’s post 41 was marked for moderation, so I had to introduce the characters in the key words to pass it by the filter.

Normally, I go to the Canadian sites for my hockey fix.  But, the American sites don’t presume that you know what “icing” means, so I’m going to first link this article (in which the story is that a player breaks his leg and was in surgery for several hours):
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2008-03-20-icing_N.htm

And then quote icing:

Through the years, general managers have discussed whether the NHL should embrace the international rule of allowing the referee to signal icing as soon as the puck crosses the goal line. That would eliminate the need for the defenseman and forward to race after the puck at high speed. Right now, the defenseman has to touch the puck first to get the icing call. If the attacking forward touches the puck first, icing is waved off.

Basically, if you are in your own zone, and finally managed to steal the puck, and you shoot the puck down ice, the faceoff will come back into your own zone (i.e., no rewarding of cowardly play), unless one of your teammates can get to the other end of the ice and touch the puck first.  So, there’s a race to the puck.

Now, what’s supposed to happen is that the two opposing players have a race to the puck.  What usually happens is that the team that dumped the puck will try to go for the body, and prevent the icing from happening.

Anyway, that’s the landscape.  In hockey, the power brokers are the GMs, and most of them are former players.  So, they know the game, and are not like we are, or like most of baseball GMs.  Here are their solutions:

1. No touch icing, like in international play.  As soon as the puck crosses the goal line at the other end of the ice, it’s icing.  Fans are prevented from seeing a race for the puck, and with automatic icing, you get more stoppages.

Essentially, a “commit line” for the puck.

2.

“I prefer touch icing. The race is an exciting play for our fans, and the forward frequently wins that race,” Anaheim Ducks GM Brian Burke said. “If this type of contact is causing injury, then make it an automatic minor, assess majors where applicable, and suspend players who injure defensemen.”

3. The same guy also said:

Burke has proposed turning it into a race for the goal line. “This way, we retain the race, but eliminate the potential for injury,” he said.
...
Risebrough said he would support just allowing the issue to be decided by a race to the goal line, without touching the puck.

Essentially, a commit line for the players. Rather than a race for the puck, it’s a race for the line.  As long as the defenseman beats his opposing player, icing is called.  That protects the defenseman from the behind the back hits, which no one in hockey likes.  (Very cowardly.)

4.

Said Detroit Red Wings GM Ken Holland: “My imaginary line would be across the (faceoff) dots. Even if they call it wrong, everyone on the ice has time to adjust.”

Again, a commit line for the players, but instead of it being the goal line (some 10 feet from the boards, and tough enough to stop on a dime once you cross the line), he’s suggesting the line be at the faceoff dots, some 30 feet from the boards, and easy to stop before you get to the boards.

***

Hockey revels in their contact sport, and would not take lightly to removing such rules that prevents hits.  When even the most ardent pro-hitting, anti-European hockey man (Don Cherry) agrees with no-touch icing…
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Minnesota/2008/03/20/5060796-ap.html

Wilson, Don Cherry and other like-minded hockey people have lobbied for years to institute no-touch icing, the same rule used in international play and several minor leagues.

... it’s apparent that at some point, you have to sacrifice the hitting, for the health of the player, even at the highest level of professional sports.

Knocking the ball out of the catcher’s mitt is on the same level of icing.

Deplorable, and all the hockey world has said as much:
http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/42805

That’s in junior hockey.

It was not a bench-clearing brawl, but it was an all-ice brawl.

The goalie in red is the son of Patrick Roy (who is also his coach).  Roy might be the greatest goalie of all-time.

His son is a bad goalie, and he went after an NHL-level prospect goalie.  That goalie (Nadeau) knew that he didn’t want to get thrown out of the game.

The two Roys only got 5 and 7 games suspension.

And here’s Patrick Roy lying about what he did or said to his son:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHgPB3-IwLI

He clearly directed him, but in the interview, he was saying “I was talking to the Fans on top… I told my son no {waving his hands}” ... the interviewer says “Stop it, Pat” ... Then Roy says “That’s my version, you have yours”.

Red Fisher is one of Canada’s most respected (and long-time) sports writers:
http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=401667

Tough words, but also nice story at the end.

Gordie Howe, one of the toughest players to ever play the game, as well as being one of the 5 best ever to play:
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=358385

Howe cringes sometimes when he watches modern hockey. He feels players don’t have the respect of each other that once existed and it has led to some serious injuries. He said opponents would call out before they checked you, so you’d be braced for a hit.
...
“Then, there would be times when someone would get hit during a game, wouldn’t like it, wouldn’t get a chance to retaliate on the ice, so they’d hit the guy on the train. There were plenty of fights on the trains. You could make a movie of that era.”
...
I thought Montreal was closest to Detroit for fan passion in my day. I hit Rocket Richard hard one night and they booed all through the game. Then, when I got off the ice, there were a thousand fans clapping for me and waiting for autographs.

“When the game is on, the other teams’ fans rooted against us. But after the game, someone is always standing in the cold waiting for an autograph and I was glad they asked.

“Lindsay was always thinking up good business ideas. He paid a photographer 15 cents a card to take our pictures and put them on small trading cards. I’d get 500, sign them and hand them to the kids.”

You never hear from former MLB players about changing rules, but in hockey, it happens all the time:
http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.wsptruth28/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home

...former NHL player Scott Mellanby suggested ideas for improving offence: After a penalty is called, drop the puck in the offensive zone; call icings during power plays; and after each period, switch the team benches to require defencemen to skate the farthest distance to reach the defensive zone.

There’s no reason that the penalized team should have an option that the nonpenalized team has… it’s ridiculous.  And forcing a faceoff in the offensive zone is brilliant.

Never thought about the benches, but that’s why you get input from the guys who played.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/News/2008/04/14/5284191-ap.html

Holding his stick upward, Avery waved it side to side to block Brodeur’s vision in a newfangled method of screening. Brodeur gave him a whack, but that was hardly a deterrent.

“I’ve played for 15 years in this league. I’ve been watching games for 33 years. I had never seen that in my life,” Brodeur said. “I don’t think that kind of behaviour should be done in front of the net, but there is no rule for it.”

That was true Sunday, but not Monday. The NHL moved quickly to eliminate this activity by making an on-the-fly rule interpretation.

“An unsportsmanlike conduct minor penalty will be interpreted and applied, effective immediately, to a situation when an offensive player positions himself facing the opposition goaltender and engages in actions such as waving his arms or stick in front of the goaltender’s face, for the purpose of improperly interfering with and/or distracting the goaltender as opposed to positioning himself to try to make a play,” Colin Campbell, the NHL director of hockey operations said in a statement.