Rizzo Cheap Shot?

[KMayUSA6060]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/wa...anthony-rizzo/

What do you think? I, personally, hate the "no collision" rule. With that being said, this was an illegal hit according to the rules. Seeing the catcher out in front of the plate (towards the mound), it was a cheap shot in my opinion by Rizzo.

What do y'all think?

[Leon]

Rules aside he is the catcher. I don't think there should be a no-hit rule in that position either. Catcher tries to block plate and runner tries to smash catcher. It's part of the game. I am not saying you intentionally try to hurt people but that is part of the game at the plate, to me.

[packs]

The new rules are confusing to me. I guess the catcher was giving Rizzo a lane to slide in, but he's directly in front of the plate. I thought a catcher had to move completely to allow a runner to slide?

[D. Bergin]

Didn't look malicious at all to me. Rizzo looked like he was shaken up a bit himself. I think the throw and the position of the catcher caught Rizzo a bit by surprise and he basically didn't know what to do with his own body when he got to the plate.

Was a bit clumsy if anything.

[ooo-ribay]

So sick of the Cubs.

[drmondobueno]

Where the baserunner visibly changed his path to the base. Same with Rizzo.

Played enough of the game to understand the play and the damage that can be done. Remember Rose and Fosse?

The Cubs can justify it anyway they choose. The guys playing the game will make their own call.

[RTK]

Stupid rule, consider yourself the runner on a bang/bang play, what do you do? Stop running, slow down? The point of the game is to score runs. They're trying to sanitize the game too much.

[clydepepper]

I'm a fan of Rizzo's but he clearly made a step to the left from a direct path to the plate which put he in position to collide with the catcher and not touch the plate whereas if he had used a traditional (or even head-first) 'hook' slide, he could have the plate to himself and avoided contact altogether.

I thought it was pretty obvious, and, if we are looking to protect the catchers as we do the middle infielders, Rizzo should have been called out.

[pclpads]

From replay, looked like Rizzo intentionally veered away from the plate to collide with Hedges. Had he slid outside the plate and swiped it with his left hand as he passed by, I don't believe Hedges would have been able to reach him for the out as he did at the point of collision. My bigger question is why Mgr. Green didn't instruct his pitcher to bury one the next day in Rizzo's ribs. Not to start a war, just a message to Maddon and Rizzo. Oops, forgot, it's the Double AA Pudres.

[packs]

But isn't the fact that he had to veer anywhere or could have slid somewhere the issue? Hedges has to give him a clear line to the plate, he shouldn't be positioned in such a way that Rizzo would have to avoid him to get to home.

[stlcardsfan]

If the catcher has the ball you can hit him. If he is waiting for it you can't. I see Rizzo veer slightly off line, but not that bad. He didn't hit him that hard, just caught him in the leg and I am guessing the catcher is fine by now. I'm OK with the play.

[pclpads]

Rizzo had a clear lane to the plate. Hedges wasn't blocking the plate, but out in front of it. Rizzo mowed him down in fair territory, not on the base path.