Will the Fridge Make a Comeback?
After reading parts of the MLB Rule Book recently, I found there isn't anything that prohibits a fielder (First, Second, Short, or Third) from blocking their base - like a Catcher blocking home plate - to prevent a runner from returning safely to base.

When runners get a lead from First, what usually happens is that the First Baseman stretches as far as he can with his foot on the bag, and then tries to do a swipe-tag on the runner sliding into the bag. This almost never works. But once in a while, the runner will slide into the First Baseman's foot, never touch the base, and get tagged out.

As infrequent as this is, I've never seen it called Interference against the First Baseman.

If that's not Interference, why not block the base completely? Why give runners even half a chance to get back safely?

Runner's Interference is one of those things that are very hazily defined in the MLB Rule Book (the call involving A.J. Pierzynski of the White Sox a few weeks ago comes to mind).

Under what circumstances would Umpires call Interference against an Infielder for blocking his base? I've never seen it called against a Catcher when blocking home plate against a runner trying to score, with or without the ball.

I suppose this presumes the ball and the runner arrive at the base at approximately the same time, but the question remains - how much of the base is the fielder allowed to block?

If blocking the base is legal according to MLB rules, perhaps fielders could squat in front of their base and make the area available for the returning runner the size of a postage stamp. (Maybe First Basemen could wear Catcher's gear to prevent injuries on such plays).

But if it's legal, then maybe The Fridge could make a comeback as a late-inning defensive replacement! Urlacher would be even more intimidating! It might also make "rabbit runners" obsolete!

Whaddya think?

Blocking the Bases ala Refrigerator Perry
Mood:  quizzical
After reading parts of the MLB Rule Book recently, I found there isn't anything that prohibits a fielder (First, Second, Short, or Third) from blocking their base - like a Catcher blocking home plate - to prevent a runner from returning safely to base.

When runners get a lead from First, what usually happens is that the First Baseman stretches as far as he can with his foot on the bag, and then tries to do a swipe-tag on the runner sliding into the bag. This almost never works. But once in a while, the runner will slide into the First Baseman's foot, never touch the base, and get tagged out.

As infrequent as this is, I've never seen it called Interference against the First Baseman.

If that's not Interference, why not block the base completely? Why give runners even half a chance to get back safely?

Runner's Interference is one of those things that are very hazily defined in the MLB Rule Book (the call involving A.J. Pierzynski of the White Sox a few weeks ago comes to mind).

Under what circumstances would Umpires call Interference against an Infielder for blocking his base? I've never seen it called against a Catcher when blocking home plate against a runner trying to score, with or without the ball.

I suppose this presumes the ball and the runner arrive at the base at approximately the same time, but the question remains - how much of the base is the fielder allowed to block?

If blocking the base is legal according to MLB rules, perhaps fielders could squat in front of their base and make the area available for the returning runner the size of a postage stamp. (Maybe First Basemen could wear Catcher's gear to prevent injuries on such plays).

But if it's legal, then maybe The Fridge could make a comeback as a late-inning defensive replacement! Urlacher would be even more intimidating! It might also make "rabbit runners" obsolete!

Whaddya think?

Looking Back on '07

Playing for the Cubs in the postseason is a tough row to hoe. Yet Mark did more than pull his weight, going 3-9 & putting in his usual solid work in the field. Overall, it was not a bad season for the subject of this blog. With a .293 average & 72 RBI in just over 500 at-bats, he has proven that his '06 performance with the Rangers was no fluke, & that he is capable of putting up productive numbers as an everyday major-league player. If the Cubs can just find a permanent position for him so that he does not get moved around so much, he is likely to perform even better.

Anyway, Mark had a better season then I did, as my hectic schedule did not permit me to update or improve this site as well as I had planned. I hope to use the offseason to make some additions, especially more links. Maybe one day I will find a suitable photo of Mark in a Cubs uni (believe it or not, there are few out there) to replace the Rangers photo that is still up on some of the pages (I hate not to have any up at all). So if you're reading this, thanks for visiting, & come back soon.

 Mike B.

Webmaster

Beginnings

On behalf of ... well, me, I would like to welcome you to the Mark DeRosa.com Community Blog. 

There. It's open.

The rest is up to you, for I've decided to launch this as an open blog, which means that anyone can post after registering (for free). I am the moderator of the blog, which means that I reserve the right to delete any entry that contains threats, personal attacks, or trollish crap with no redeeming value to this site or to society as a whole. Use a little profanity if you want; after all, this is the Internet. Just don't try to base your writing style upon it. Trust me, it won't work. There can only be one Norman Mailer.

Remember, the subject of this blog is Mark DeRosa and related topics. For the sake of your fellow posters, stay focused!

These same simple rules apply to commenters as well as posters.

Other than the moderation and the occasional post, I plan to start by taking a hands-off approach to this blog and just seeing what happens.

So have fun. Be clear. Respect each other. I'll see you down the page.

MHB