And BEATING it! If Barrett had caught the ball, Holliday would have been out. He didn't do his job, so we'll see ya in Peoria next Spring.

Everyone has commented on McClelland's habitually slow mechanics. But as my mentor Carl Childress has told me many times, there are two plays that can be called immediately - with no chance of reversal - safe at first and safe at home. If the runner actually touched home plate, there is NO reason to delay. He is safe - now and forever - regardless of whether the catcher tagged him or the ball got away or whatever.

Indeed, which is why McClelland, who for a tad too long, looked like a deer in the headlights.

From the newspaper article -
"Barrett was quoted after the game on the incident: "I've never, ever second-guessed Tim McClelland at home plate. And when he told me he was safe, there was no argument in my mind.""

Wish I got that kind of respect from the folks I work for....;)

JJ

You're comparing Carl to Tim McClelland?

You must have misunderstood Carl.

There is a safe call at first that can be reversed: Runner beats the throw but misses the bag. The umpire makes the safe call. But if F3 appeals before the runner gets back to the bag, the umpire then makes the out call. Carl knows that.

It really doesn't matter if some amateurs don't approve of McClellands timing. It's the way he has always worked. He didn't change it for this call.

Get over it.

Ok, McClelland is so cool. Me, I got a big, immediate, no doubt safe call in me if I thought he touched the plate in the bottom of the 13th of such a big game. His so cool approach leaves doubt in those of us who saw the game on TV, saw replays, and still haven't seen a touch.

It's not only we amateurs that disapprove of the Lassez-faire style of McClelland. The ballplayers comment about it, and the broadcasters really hate it. Of course, they see it as Tim not being enthusiastic about his job, as well as throwing off their broadcast timing for balls and strikes.

Players? Which players?

The only one who might have mattered was Barrett, and as JJ pointed out earlier, it didn't seem to bother him.

From JJ's post:

From the newspaper article -
"Barrett was quoted after the game on the incident: "I've never, ever second-guessed Tim McClelland at home plate. And when he told me he was safe, there was no argument in my mind.""

If the catcher has no issue with it, who gives a rats a$$ if a few amateur umpires think they can school McClelland?

Uh, you missed my point apparently.

I said ballplayers. No one ballplayer in particular. I was certainly not talking about Michael Barrett. Other players at other times throughout the years. Other broadcasters at other times throughout the years. This is not the first time the subject has come up.

I don't have the quotes all cataloged in my mind. I couldn't tell you who said what. It's just that I have heard rumblings from several players and broadcasters at one time or other about Tim calling things way too slow, and not appearing enthused in his job. I know that it is a misperception, but a perception nonetheless.

I understand this will be painful for you but for the good of this fine community of umpires gathered here, trusting in your Senor status and rock solidness of person tha you are, I must report.

Barrett is an Atlanta ballplayer, one of my Boss' trainees. Dad Barrett came to Boss in Michael's sophomore year,

http://tinyurl.com/2rcvaf

as a last resort. The kid was super-duper talented, never a SS, and Boss suggested to his coach, James Beevers, "F2".

Barrett's personality fit but his deserved rep as a moron who fights for little reason, let us say $$$ haven't changed that.

The report we get from Dad is the exact opposite of the public profiling one. At least the no-longer-kid has realized how to play the TV game.

Pass along my respects to Mr. Childress, roundly reviled here for asserting new and innovative looks at stodgy, Old Guard umpiring.

I don't know what video you watched but F2 Barrett's fist job is to deny the plate. He did. The next is to take advantage, he did not.

Kuhn is a liar and is standing up for no one but himlself..

No I didn't misunderstand Carl. The immediate safe call at first and at home both are made AFTER the runner touches the base. He can not be called out on that play regardless of the fielder's actions. Unless there is subsequent action - like the runner making an attempt (or a feint) to advance to second base. Of course if he misses the base, he is liable to be put out on appeal.

Okay, then you just weren't clear. Your post, "there are two plays that can be called immediately - with no chance of reversal - safe at first and safe at home", was pretty all encompassing.

Wow. 8 pages of whogivesaflip.

Garth B;

You are right. My original post should be modified as follows:


Thank you for pointing out my assumption.

This thread goes round and round, but there's no escaping one thing:

I've seen replay after replay and not one has CONCLUSIVELY, 100% shown me that the runner missed the plate.

On every replay, though, the ball ends up on the ground.

The whole controversy is a media invention and I can't believe serious officials would be swept up in it.

This is because you just want to blindly support the umpire like a sniffer and never say one word against any MLB umpire under any circumstances.

If you can show me where the runner actually touched the plate (he didn't), then I will buy this argument. I have seen replay after replay from every camera angle and not one has CONCLUSIVELY, 100% shown me that the runner touched the plate. That is what is required for a runner to be safe. A touch of the plate.

The umpire has to actually see the runner touch the plate or assume that he did not. McClelland has never once ever said "I saw Holliday touch the plate." He does not come out and say this for one reason: He never saw Holliday touch the plate. The replays don't have to prove that Holliday didn't touch the plate. The umpire is supposed to be watching the touch of the plate. That's why he gets paid the big bucks. If I hear one time where McClelland comes out and says definitively that Holliday touched the plate, then I'll be happy to drop the subject. But he won't, because he can't.

Sure, the ball ended up on the ground. But Barrett picked it up and tagged the runner, who had yet to touch the plate. The on-deck hitter yelled at Holliday to go back and touch the plate, so it looked to him like he never touched the plate.

Barrett and Black and everyone else is not going to publicly say anything against McClelland's call. Of course not. They have to play again next year. Do ya think they want to have an umpire pissed at them every time they see him? They're not going to say sh!t about the call. "Good call, Tim." That's the "official" response from the Padres.

Again, McClelland's call did not cost the Padres the Wild Card. They had plenty of opportunities to wrap it up long before the Monday one-game playoff. That game should not have even been necessary. The Padres fans with any intelligence are blaming the Padres, not the umpire.

The default position on this play MUST be that the runner touched the plate unless positive otherwise.

Unless, of course, you are a Jerry Coleman sniffing San Diego homer. :D

I don't know Steve. First, I'm sure you've heard some grumblings from some players about Tim, and I won't argue that point...But frankly, its my belief that if you stay around in the bigs enough, every umpire will have more than one person whine about them.

Frankly, I don't think players are qualified to evaluate umpires...but with that said, and since you are taking about "players", Steve...in Sports Illustrated's most recent poll of MLB players (that they do every few years or so) that asked them to "name the best umpire in MLB"..Tim McClelland was not ranked #2, he was not ranked #68 and he was not ranked anywhere between those two numbers. Rather he was #1.

470 MLB players actually responded to that survey, which is a very large sample size (although I'm no statistician).

Thus, I think you've missed the boat on this one, Steve.

But that's o.k...as great as it has been to be a Boston sports fan this past month (Sox, Pats, BC and actually anticipating the C's season)...it must be even worse for SD fans...:(

And you're just another typical fanboy. And you're like every other fanboy too. You'll say that the officials didn't cost your team the game, but that's just for public consumption. Down deep, you really don't believe that. It won't stop you from whining, pissing and moaning interminably about a supposed blown call.

It's over. San Diego lost. Life goes on.

Let it go, fanboy. :rolleyes:

Steve, you keep repeating this and it is simply and verifiably, untrue.

Rich, along with others you paint with this broadbrush, including me, have often been critical of some MLB umpires and umpiring. Froemming, West, Hernandez, Bucknor and others have been criticized roundly by those you claim, "never say one word against any MLB umpire under any circumstances."

Surely you can make your point without misrepresenting those with whom you disagree.

Get back under your bridge. I'm no more of a fanboy than anyone else here is.

I am well over the fact that San Diego lost. Life has gone on. I was over it about 15 minutes after I heard that they lost. I am certainly not whining, pissing, or moaning about anything. I am simply trying to understand why some people always side with the MLB umpires, even when they are wrong. That's all I'm doing.

I mainly hold Trevor Hoffman responsible for the Padres losing. I'm not looking at this from a fan's perspective. Umpires blow calls. Why is that so hard for some people to admit? I am serious when I say that McClelland didn't cost us the game. Even if he called the runner out, the game would have remained tied. The Padres were bound and determined to lose anyway.

And, I've got your "boy" swingin' low, sweet chariot.

Alright then, you guys never say one word against Tim McClelland. Is that better?

From the previously posted article in USA Today "Michael Barrett stuck out his leg, but he didn't have it planted in the ground," McClelland said. "What I saw was Holliday kind of slide through that leg and TOUCH THE PLATE." (emphasis added)

Tim says he saw the runner touch the plate. I've watched the replay 20 times. It doesn't show that Holliday touched the plate. It doesn't show that Holliday missed the plate. It shows neither because every replay that I've seen is blocked at the key moment where one could tell if home was touched or not. The replay is inconclusive.

McClelland didn't signal because there was no tag attempt when the runner touched the plate. I've always read here that you don't signal if there is no play. When Barrett finally got the ball and went to go tag Holliday, McClelland signaled safe to indicate he had seen the touch and a tag was irrelevant at that point.

McClelland's timing has always been on the slow side. He was probably replaying the play in his mind and taking his time like I hear most people hear recommend that you do. I do agree though that a quicker safe signal after he saw the touch would likely have put this whole thing to bed, at least for us umpires.

Yes. Much better. I don't know if it's 100% accurate, but it is much better.;)

Tim Tschida is the only reason the Padres and Rockies were in extra innings to begin with. That was a missed call in my opinion. Haven't heard a peep out of you about that one. If they were bound and determined to lose, you might as well say the were 1 for 2 on blown calls.

Nice use of a Christian hymn, if you're a Christian as you proclaim, I don't believe you would use such language. Saying it doesn't make so, living it makes so.

Not quite grammatically correct yet, but potentially more accurate.:p

Har. so ballplayers re iritated that mr MCc appears to put as much effort in HIS job as a lot of multimilliondollar 'pro ballplyers' do in THIERS. wah.

the WORST part is its broken cannotump6s 3-page rule by 5! :eek: WE ARE DOOMED.




oh and mr Steve this just in = Pads still lost and franco is still dead.

Thanks for the update, Chevy!:)

Yet, LMan stills lives vicariously though you.

I never enjoy seeing a brother official make a public fool out of himself. :( I cringe at Mr. McClelland\'s repeated attempts to do so. If PU had a touch, and a loose ball, he has "Safe". McClelland\'s insistence on slow mechanics across all calls severely damaged the authority of this call. In turn, it equally damaged the perception of his competence.

Indeed. It references your call, the point followed with a declaration as simple as "Hand!" is a powerful tool for the experienced umpire.

I agree with you in that McClelland could have been quicker on the safe signal.

But as pointed out earlier in this thread, McClelland was rated the No. 1 umpire in the league by the players. I think his competence is unquestioned. He got this call right. He just could have been quicker about letting us know that.

No longer. :(