Did he Touch the plate?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by TxUmp

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.

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

It really doesn't matter if some amateurs don't approve of McClellands timing.

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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?

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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by TxUmp

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.

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

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And BEATING it! If Barrett had caught the ball, Holliday would have been out. He didn't do his job....

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.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by piaa_ump

Bud Selig was on "Mike and Mike" on ESPN radio this am........said he has seen the replay 100 times and he has seen nothing that would lead him to believe that Tim McClelland was anything but 100% correct......

This was in response to Mike Golic's question regarding the possiblity of instant replay in baseball..... (selig says no).

It was good to hear the commisioner stand up for the umpires.

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

[TxUmp]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.
...

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by TxUmp

No I didn't misunderstand Carl. The immediate safe call at first and at home both are made AFTER the runner touches the base.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Wow. 8 pages of whogivesaflip.

[TxUmp]

Garth B;

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

Originally Posted by TxUmp

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 when the runner has touched the base. 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.

Thank you for pointing out my assumption.

[Rich]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.