Excellent analysis of the obvious. The delayed call is what is causing the problem. If he saw a plate touch it should have been emphatic, given the situation, instead of the somewhat casual late call that was made. I have yet to see a plate touch in any replay.

The casual call is McClellands style. He does it all the time. Granted an emphatic call would have been better but McClellands style is what it is, consistent if nothing else.

I have yet to see a replay where the runner missed the plate. You can't tell whether there was a touch or not in any of the replays.

I don't think Tim has had a consistent outside corner since he gave up the knee. He WAS the best, IMO, but no longer.


Kinda like Trevor.

MLB umpires do not belong to a monolithic society. They have, regarding some issues, as many diverse opinions and ways of performing their jobs as all of us posting here.

I know of one MLB umpire who teaches rookies that there is no such thing as a "bang=bang" play. In his opinion there are obvious safe calls and obvious outs calls and he has never seen a close play. Really.

Like McClellands style or not, agree or disagree, it is his. It is the way he has worked for years, and it has worked for him.

IR certainly has its place in baseball, perhaps here, perhaps not. But I disagree on your taking the position that you have to have a R safe before he can be called out. If an offensive player is trying to advance and I am calling this play, I have an out all the way until Barret forgets to play through the remainder of the play and assert his block of the plate.

Nope.. hasn't changed, proud member of the old guys class of 06 :D

The only person who "took a position" on the play was McClelland who ruled the runner safe. He later said he had position to see the runner touch the plate.

Nothing in any of the camera angles showed anything that could cause a reversal had instant replay been in use.

Everything that happened afterward on the field supports McClelland's call.

The only controversy was caused by the announcers concluding the plate was missed which cannot be supported by any available evidence.

McLelland's take on the call........

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...and-call_N.htm

I think with that article, that should end most of the questions.

I dont think the timing was great at all.. and in fact, there would be little controversy if his mechanics on this play were better.

Given McClelland says he saw the player touch the plate (and he probably has the best vantage for that), I'm not sure why he said in the interview ""The reason I waited was to see if Michael even had held onto the ball, but the ball got away (even though I thought he was safe)," he said. "It's really not my style anyway."

Safe is safe, his holding the ball is irrelevant.

Sometimes umpiring is about selling a bang bang- so I think if he sells safe almost immediately, he is believable as far as what he thinks he saw.

That said, if we end up with some eyeball bleeding yawner of a World Series like Rockies vs Angels, its not his fault.

You would think... :rolleyes:

But the exact same article was posted yesterday and we've generated almost two more full pages of comments since then!

Why would that necessarily be an eyeball bleeder? As a Rox fan I know I'd settle for it. I'd rather see the Yanks or Bosox in it, but the Rox swept both of those teams in their own houses this year so maybe that would be even MORE boring. Is eyeball bleeding related to market size, or maybe ad prices?

I'll watch with an interest level dictated more by the quality of the games than by which teams are playing.

Clint Hurdle this morning: "He might have missed the plate, but they took a home run away from us earlier..." (not exact quote). Apparently HE thinks the ball Atkins hit left the yard. The replay they showed over the interview was definitely not conclusive.

Except that none of the Padres are complaining.

No one in that Friar locker will point fingers, because they'll end up pointing right back at Peavey and Hoffman for giving up all those hits, or Barrett for dropping the throw. Tim may have missed the last one, but that wasn't what cost them the game, and I've been a Padres fan since the 60's.

So in Tim McLelland's own words from the article aboveI now refer to my post on the top of page 2 of this thread where I asked Which is answered by Pete Booth Disclaimer: I am not singling out Pete here, I am using his post as the example because he quoted me.

You see, this is typical of this site. We amateurs (myself included this time in a later post) are so caught up in ourselves that we think that we can out call the top guys! We boast that we won't jump on our partner's call because we are 90' away but we feel that through the magic of television , we can make a proper call thousands of miles away. And no, instant replay wouldn't have helped in this instance either. That is unless the camera was looking over McCelland's shoulder! Instant replay (in baseball) is just a cop out for poor officiating or people who just can't accept the call made by the officials.

Let this be a lesson to us - we should be as careful and cautious judging the pros as we claim to be with our own partners! In other words, practice what we preach! :mad:

Regards - al finis<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->