Did he Touch the plate?

[ozzy6900]

Is it possible that Holiday's hand could have gotten under the cleats of F2? It almost looks like that is what happened! Also, at the end of the video, Holiday is rolling over and it looks like he is going to grab his hand but the video cuts off.

Just a thought - I don't really care about the NL!

[mbyron]

Here's what I see. From the angle behind home plate, you can see F2 block the runner's hand off the plate. But R3's hand pushes the foot back along 3BLX. If R3 touched the plate, that's how he did it.

I do not see a touch, but the hand pushes the blocking foot back enough to expose the plate to make a touch possible.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

hey i think www.firetimmcclellan.com is available

mr Steve act now while supplies last!!

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Is it possible that Holiday's hand could have gotten under the cleats of F2? It almost looks like that is what happened!

Ozzy, if that's what happened then McClelland would have signalled safe immediately. There would have been no need for him to wait. From the video, McClelland, didn't see a tag of the plate that's why the no signal. Then he gave the safe sign. It appears as though McClelland simply Froze on the call.

I am really surprised the Padres didn't go more ballistic on the play.

Bottom line last night's play is why MLB NEEDS Instant replay. Give Football credit regardless of what one thinks of IR.

Pete Booth

[aceholleran]

... is with TMcC's plate mechanics. I understand he is a veteran, well-respected arbiter. But his virtual "carbon copy" ball-strike indication does a disservice to fans, in and out of the ballpark. You assignors out there, wouldn't you straighten out an ump with mechanics like that?

I would.

Ace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Still hard to tell. It looked like McClelland had a good view from 3BLX (insert rolling eyes here).

Whatever. The Padres can't blame this loss on the umpire. Hoffman gave the game away and the team choked on the same piece of meat the Mets did. Paging Dr. Heimlich for a little maneuver to be performed on my pathetic Padres (insert angry face here).

I think 3BLX is the proper place for this call. If the umpire was 1BLX the runner's back would have blocked the umpire from seeing the runner's hand touch (or miss) the plate.

I agree with others that the umpire could have sold the call more.

[MNBlue]

Does MLB require a verbal appeal for missing home plate?

Meaning, maybe Holliday missed the plate, passed it, McClelland delays, calls safe, and is waiting for a verbal appeal for missing the plate.

I am completely ignorant of baseball protocol, so don't bash me too much!

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Bottom line last night's play is why MLB NEEDS Instant replay. Give Football credit regardless of what one thinks of IR.

Pete Booth

Oh yeah, like baseball needs to lengthen its game times even more. Besides, in the play in question, there was no conclusive evidence either way; therefore, the call would have stood as ruled on the field.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

... is with TMcC's plate mechanics. I understand he is a veteran, well-respected arbiter. But his virtual "carbon copy" ball-strike indication does a disservice to fans, in and out of the ballpark. You assignors out there, wouldn't you straighten out an ump with mechanics like that?

I would.

Ace

Why, cause he's "too slow?"

Nope. He's rated at the top of ball-strike umpires for a reason.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Ozzy, if that's what happened then McClelland would have signalled safe immediately. There would have been no need for him to wait. From the video, McClelland, didn't see a tag of the plate that's why the no signal. Then he gave the safe sign. It appears as though McClelland simply Froze on the call.

if he thought the tag was in time (beat the runner) then mcc was waiting to see if barret could retain posession of the ball--thus the delay. if barret had held onto the ball mcc prolly would have called him out.

if thats the case then mcc was right to wait--he had the runner touching the plate the whole way--he was waiting to see if barret dropped the ball which he did--safe!


OR--its a big MLB consspiracy....first mr Winters takes out Bradley...the umps thought that would kill off the Pads for Sure....but...they refused to die-- so mr Mcc takes it opon himself to END it at the plate last night.... its all clear now!

[ozzy6900]

[quote=PeteBooth]

Ozzy, if that's what happened then McClelland would have signalled safe immediately. There would have been no need for him to wait. From the video, McClelland, didn't see a tag of the plate that's why the no signal. Then he gave the safe sign. It appears as though McClelland simply Froze on the call.

I am really surprised the Padres didn't go more ballistic on the play.

Bottom line last night's play is why MLB NEEDS Instant replay. Give Football credit regardless of what one thinks of IR.

Pete Booth

Never mind, I just saw a better view of the whole thing. I agree that Holiday missed the play, McClellan blew the call an in this video, when Holiday rolles over, I can see that he is not grabbing his hand at all.

Thank you ESPN.

[cmathews]

So I don't know baseball rules or mechanics, aside from a fans perspective and I know how that is received in these forums LOL.

From a guy with replay in our sport, I agree with what was said above, not enough evidence to overturn whatever call was made here.

I think there is a chance that Holiday has his hand under the catchers foot. Even if he doesn't the catchers foot ends up behind the plate, depending on the angle of the camera. Of the angles that are shown, none are straight down a line and to see where the foot/hand go in relation to the plate, this angle is critical.

Not knowing baseball mechanics I really don't know where the ump should be, but from watching the video I do see this. He is the only person in the place that has a look at the plate from the correct angle for the way the play unfolds. A camera angle from the first base dugout might even be useful to see.

I assume and correct me please if I am wrong.....He waits to see if the Catcher kept the ball for these reasons. The ball beat the runner, if he holds it he will be out because it got there before he "touched the plate", and the touching would be irrelevent, but since he dropped it, and the runner "touches the plate" he is safe.

Yes I am a colorado fan, but I usually have a pretty unbiased opinion about things like this because I am a football and basketball official.....

One more question, what is the rule on what the ball touches on a "homerun" or not that determine whether it is or not.....The ball in the 6th from Atkins. If it touches a support behind the wall is it still in play? Again the angles they had were pretty inconclusive.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I was at school and did not see the play. When I got home my wife was hollering at the local news' sports highlights saying the umpire blew the call because the runner never touched the base. But I didn't pay much attention to what she said. After all, she ain't no umpire.

On the way home, I was listening to Loony on Sports on FOX radio. They gave the Rockies' announcer's call and all he said was that Barrett dropped the ball, he's safe, and the Rockies win. I had no idea that it was anything but a dropped ball.

Now I'm hearing here that Barrett picked up the ball and tagged Holliday and Holliday still had not touched home? Ouch, babe...sounds like a blown call to me. So, I went in the bedroom and told my wife she was right and that many people on the forum think McClelland blew the call. She said "I told you so" (do they always have to do that?) I think McClelland and his phony timing suck to begin with, but that's another story. I mean there is timing and then there is just being ridiculously slow.

Maybe I should turn on Sports Center and watch the horror for myself. I'm still too pissed at Hoffman to stomach it.

1. Didn't see the play or the replay. Michael Barrett dropping the ball I've seen to much of that in the Windy City. He's terrible defensively. Can't block a pitch as well. Barrett holds the ball he's probably out. Doesn't surprise me he was a factor in the loss.

2. Hells Bells two blown saves in hugh games. That's just baseball.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Here ya go:

http://menotomyjournal.com/mlbvids/col.wmv

View from third to home it appears he doesn't have the plate. View third base line extended not conclusive either way in my opinion. Plate ump had a good look and the runner (judging from body language) obviously thought he got it. Barrett holds the ball he's out. Typical Barrett screw up. Gotta go with the call.

[tibear]

I don't think the runner touched the plate either but hard to tell from the replays.

As indicated earlier it looks like PU was delaying to see if the catcher retained possession of the ball. It looks like he was confident that the runner had touched the plate and was simply waiting to see if the catcher had the ball.

I believe his non-chalant safe indication was his way of clearly indicating that he KNEW the runner touched the plate, the only question was whether the catcher had the ball. Then when he saw the ball on the ground he made a slow and delibrate safe call indicating, "Obvious touch of home. Catcher doesn't retain possession of ball, so an obvious safe call."

I agree that he should have sold the call more but I guess in his mind the touch of home plate wasn't even in question.