Makes a lot of sense
 

Agreed, this makes sense. Instant replay will never work in baseball.

And just watching the play it was obvious, the F2 missed the ball, easy call, safe.

That's what everyone would have seen if the announcers had not started in on the plate being missed.

This was not a bang bang play unless F2 had held onto the ball.

Thanks
David

In the heat of the moment no Padre made a complaint, either.

On the field the play called itself, albeit in Tim McClelland speed.

The controversy is entirely the result of the TV commentators to which I, regrettably, bought into.

As for instant replay in baseball. Not a chance.

The NFL adopted it over the years without ever stating one of its primary reasons: to make sure the public could never claim outcomes of games were affected by suspicious calls by its officials. Without gambling, legal and illegal, the NFL would never have the massive TV audiences it enjoys.

Baseball, with each team playing 162 games a season, versus 16 in the NFL, has a much smaller exposure to effects of gamblers and much smaller TV audiences. The NFL has almost all of its games on major networks(free tv) while Baseball is mostly on cable (monthly fees) The Super Bowl is the most heavily wagered sporting event in the USA, every year.

MLB has plenty of tools to monitor performance of its umpires, not the least of which is the strike zone, and look for suspicious irregularities. There is no reason to burden the game with added administrative costs and even longer games that comes with instant replay. The umpires get the calls right, almost all of the time.

The best view was 3BLX and McLelland was there. From the one camera angle, it does look like the plate was blocked and he missed the touch, however you can't see the runners hand under his foot. I thought he missed it, but I wasn't 15 feet away from the play. McLelland was having a damn good game behind the plate IMHO, I thought he looked great working away from the knee. He's always had slower timing than most, and it continues, if you watch the replay, you can see that he is beginning to call him safe before the tag was applied. He waited to read the play completly as he should have, and made his call.

As for IR, one of the reasons baseball umpires generally do so well is that were not moving as in other sports. That's why the percentage is so high in MLB over other sports. I know from personnal experience, calls where a coach has a question on, I was moving, trying to get an angle, those I miss, I can almost always reflect and know I was moving. WE ALL miss a call once in a while, from LL to MLB, when your in the show, your on t.v. therefore all the world sees you boot one. And, as Ozz pointed out, there are those that will shout out how someone missed that call and second guess.

After seeing the video, I think the runner missed the plate, and therefore, the U messed up the call.

After seeing the video, I can't tell whether he missed the plate, though I see how it's possible that he got it; therefore, the PU probably got it right.

You think he missed it? You'd better be completely certain to make that call.

If You'll Indulge Another Fan Post.....
 

The Padres radio station has been playing sound from McClelland's interview on Dan Patrick Radio Show today for an hour now. (If you didn't hear it, McClelland said basically the same things from the article in USA Today).

These 2 idiots on the radio now have been going in circles for an hour about McClelland being confused and sounding stupid. Their basic assertion is that either Holliday touched the plate without being tagged, or he was tagged and it doesn't matter if he touched the plate or Barrett dropped the ball!!:confused:

My understanding from the time I was about 5 is that the catcher must maintain possession from the time of the tag, through any action (i.e. collision) and demonstrate control to the umpire. I can't find it in the rules at MLB.com, but I'm 100% certain that's correct right?

Sounds to me that McClelland is saying that he had a tag on Holliday before touching the plate, followed by Holliday touching the plate during the action, followed by McClelland seeing the ball NOT in Barrett's possession. That = safe right?

These guys don't get it, and neither did any of the callers. I sent an email, which was read on the air saying what I just said, and they jumped on me too. Still asserting that Barrett dropping the ball is irrelevant if he applied a tag.

I don't agree with McClleland's call, but I see his way of thinking. Now I know why most of you guys find us and the media abhorrent at best.

[QUOTE=reddevil19].[/COLOR][/B]"
My understanding from the time I was about 5 is that the catcher must maintain possession from the time of the tag, through any action (i.e. collision) and demonstrate control to the umpire. I can't find it in the rules at MLB.com, but I'm 100% certain that's correct right?

Sounds to me that McClelland is saying that he had a tag on Holliday before touching the plate, followed by Holliday touching the plate during the action, followed by McClelland seeing the ball NOT in Barrett's possession. That = safe right?

These guys don't get it, and neither did any of the callers. I sent an email, which was read on the air saying what I just said, and they jumped on me too. Still asserting that Barrett dropping the ball is irrelevant if he applied a tag./QUOTE]

MLB 2.00
"A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove."

I know of NO better way of demonstrating "securely and firmly," than by having possession of the ball before, during and after the tag.

As far as the radio idiots, just consider the source.

McClelland hemmed and hawed in his interview with Dan Patrick, and never once said that Holliday touched the plate. By the very way he responded to questions lead many (around these parts, of course) to conclude that he really did not ever see the hand touch the plate. Runner slid, ball dropped, safe call, end of game.

For the record, while everyone here thinks McClelland blew the call, most of us blame Hoffman for not getting the job done on Saturday so the one-game playoff with Colorado would not have been necessary. We are also lamenting the loss of Mike Cameron (thanks Milton), and also Milton melting down and getting hurt, as he was the straw stirring the drink down the stretch.

How unusual. Normally, he's the spoon stirring the pot.

[QUOTE=jicecone]Thanks. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to look there. I was going over all the italics in rule 7.00.

This situation brings up a question. I have seen other's point at the plate when a run counts, and I have done it before. If Tim Mc would have done this and emphatically signaled safe, all this hooha would have been avoided.

Now, I don't advocate doing it on every run, as I have seen before. But in certain critical situations, why not? Your thoughts?

You may have a point for this sitch. The only other time I've done it is on a timing play. On a normal-every-day run, it's answering an obviuos question - everyone knows the run scored, why point at the plate? I don't think it's an incorrect mechanic, but it's not necessary. Again, it may have helped resolve the questions about this play - basically it would say "He touched the plate!!!...Safe!!" Rather than have the "yeah, he's safe" mechanic that was displayed.

I honestly don't think we'll ever get to the end of this discussion. IR is inconclusive, Tim Mc said he saw him touch the plate (which is all the evidence I need personally), his mechanics are slow and methodical, and that's the story. To Tim it wasn't a big deal, F2 dropped the ball, runner safe, let's hit the showers. To the rest of the world it was THE run and THE key play of the game.

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.