Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler
Did you not see the play? Did you want McClelland to jump between the runner and catcher and start pointing to where he saw the touch. Safe or out signal is all that's needed. No theatrics necessary.
When McClelland delayed his call, I thought he was waiting for Holliday to touch the plate or Barrett to tag him after he retrieved the ball. When he gave the safe signal, it told me all I needed to know.
|
Yes, I saw the play (live and on several replays). I thought his mechanics were quite good actually, timing was great. I thought he was waiting to make sure Barrett held onto the ball. When he gave the safe sign, that's all I needed to know.
No, I didn't expect him to jump into the middle of the play and point to where he saw the touch. I said pointing to the plate (no indication of being in between runner and catcher) might have quieted the objections we've seen so prevelent on this board (which are apparently the same as those seen in the rest of the baseball world right now).
Further, the discussion has been made about Mc's mechanical stylings - I was simply stating, in reply to the question, that in this case, a point at the plate first would have sold the call a little more. No need for theatrics, he's not shooting for an Oscar. My exclamations were to emphasize what the added mechanic would have done for the play. You have to realize that probably only three people HEARD the call, the rest of the world is going on what they SAW him call. There is a lot to be said about what people see in your call - it can prevent discussions that need not take place, and also give people the impression of what is actually happening (rather than leave it up to speculation).
Never once did I state Tim Mc did anything wrong, or could have done something better. A question was asked, and I answered it with my opinion.
Thanks for playing.