No: on plays at the plate, the umpire makes no signal until the runner is safe (touches the plate) or out. This is not an appeal play.

There are a bunch of opinions on this floating around now...who knows for 100% what to do here at home plate...I'm leaning toward no signal at home...afterall, he's not safe...and signaling so can misrepresent to both teams that the play at home is over if I make a safe signal.

So what?
 

I doubt that Holliday ever touched the plate. But everyone seems to have forgotten the OTHER bad call that game - Atkins' home run called a double, which would have obviated the whole kerfuffle if they'd have gotten it right.

Someone mentioned replay... I'd hate to see it, but also hope not to see another season where at least three (and maybe five) home runs are taken away from a single team, as happened to the Rox this year. An announcer last night joked that if they did institute replay, they'd call it "the Clint Hurdle rule".

For someone who is wary of homers, you sure sound like a big Rockies homer to me.:rolleyes:

For what it is worth and whether they are just saying the right things or not. Both Barrett and Bud Black said they thought he got in. Barrett went so far as to say he wasn't sure, but when he saw McClelland signal safe, there wasn't a doubt in his mind. In either case saying the right things or being perfectly honest they Pads are displaying fantastic character and class.

Actually, it is. When a runner misses home plate, a fielder attempting to tag him or the plate makes it an appeal play. It's just handled a bit differently than typical appeals.

Was it a home run? I don't think so, as many were saying that the ball hit the back of the yellow railing and ricocheted back into the park, which would make it a live ball and not a (dead ball) home run.

Nice positioning.

NOT.

Lemme see, I got R barreling down the 3B dugout side of the baseline grass, and F2 with his foot past the top of the plate. So, naturally,I swaddle over from seeing both as I head toward RF, getting perfectlly blocked by F2 and his foot.

Knowing I have screwed the pooch, I take the only "out" I have left which is the "oh he's so safe I can make this casual palms down sign whilst closing in a yard or so just in case I am out of camera range."

Good thing Barrett didn't jump up like he knew what was going on. Timmy fooled 'em all. :rolleyes:

I thought he had the plate to start with and upon watching the replay I believe that he did.

Watch the left foot that blocks the plate - where it is when he slides and then after his hand and arm hit the foot where the foot ends up.

Looks like he knocked the foot back and slid right over the edge of the plate.

Also just watching the Padres F2 and F1 neither of them acted like he saw a miss.

So all in all a good call. Now if F2 had caught the ball might have been different because he would have been able to block the player better.

That's my take.

Thasnk
David

IF he had stayed put at 45 degrees, he would have been OK.

I don't think the replay is conclusive one way or the other. There was not a tag when the runner arrived. The catcher knew he didn't have the ball and didn't bother.

I would agree with those that are saying that McClellands delay in making the call may mean something except that McClelland uses that same timing on everything. For that reason, I don't think you can read anything into it. Tim had a good view of the play. Whether it was truly right or wrong, I don't think we'll ever know.

Bingo!
 

I guess it would take an SD fan to figger that out? :)

Yes, you're right - and I am therefore wary of my own judgement along with that of other "homers", hence the tag. 'Specially because I'm NOT an ump. I defer to Ump25's opinion and apologize for believing what some network
"homers" were saying, having not seen a satisfactory replay myself. Now I know of "only" two cut-and-dry cases of homers-called doubles that would have been changed by replay...this year.

But even if it were a half dozen I'd not be in favor of replay in baseball. The charm of the game is rooted in the human element and all its foibles IMHO, and should not be subjected to regulation by clinical analysis while the existing "human" system functions more than adequately. I think MLB's umpires do an incredibly good job - amazing given the challenges of the position(s).

I thought the runner's body language said he did not even know where he was for a minute or two. In the interview later when asked if he got the plate, he said something like, "Oh, I don't know. I got hit pretty hard."

im sure mr don Denkinger would agree witcha :D

Don't forget Mr. Rich Garcia:D

But seriously, this is true. I really don't think that it's necessary to have IR, and the only way I'd be in favor of it is for fair/foul ONLY on HR's down the line. The TV angles of the disputed HR last night didn't do squat to solve anything.

99% of the time, MLB umpires, love them, hate them, or indifferent about them get the calls right and have a consistent strike zone. For the 1%, stuff happens, get over it, and next time, find a way to not be in the situation relying on not having the 1% happen to you.