Did he Touch the plate?
 

The Rockies win on a sacrifice fly in extra innings but did the runner touch the plate?

Tim McClelland said he did.

TV said he didn't.

What an embarassment to MLB umpiring.

Tim was working with a seven second delay. And yes, he did miss this call. Perhaps he can retire with Hoffman.

Never saw a replay that tells me that he didn't touch the plate. An overhead shot is the only way to really tell. On the angle from LF looking down the baseline, the runner's hand gets shielded by the catcher's shoe. Then from the angle behind the plate, the hand gets shielded by the runner's sliding body.

Tim did get caught out of position, he moved to 3BLX, which looked like would provide him with the swipe tag angle. Then it was a banger at the front of the plate.

So "Tim like" to wait like that too... no hesitation, just good timing, and nonchalant Tim McClelland safe call.

JimPorter, can we get a video clip?

Timing was good...after all, he couldn't see the ball...and if he couldn't see the ball in this instance, surely he couldn't see Holliday touch the plate. I think he missed it too...but there isn't any evidence to say for 100% that he missed the plate...and if you're not 100% sure, then the runner is safe. My question to Tim would be...if Barrett came up w/ the ball, would he have called him out? Based upon the timing of when he made the safe call, I would lean toward him calling Holliday out...but, we'll never know.

I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical. I think there's at least a chance that he didn't see it, knew he didn't have it, wanted the runner to touch to make it irrelevant, but once the catcher had the ball and the runner didn't move, made the expected not unexpected call.

Maybe he was replaying it in his head and waiting to be sure of his call. Seemed a bit late, though.

No replay I saw was conculsive. Finger might have gotten in there.

I was thinking the same thing, Johnny, as I was watching it live. If he was waiting to see the baseball to make a call, wasn't that the same as saying Holliday hadn't touched the plate yet? But by calling Holliday safe even after Barrett tagged him, wasn't McLelland saying he had touched it? I don't know whether he did or not, but I was confused by how the call was made.

it is so obvious he missed it...even from his angle...

and the catcher made the tag after he picked up the ball too...

bad call in a crucial game

Even the best miss 'em...seeing those help me during the season when I miss a call...I guarantee that when I know I missed one, nobody in the stadium feels crappier than me. That being said, there is still no proof that he touched the base, or missed the base. Even with replay, there would've been no evidence to overrule his call.

With the angles we have on T.V. yes, he missed it. He had great position for a swipe tag, he delayed the call to see the ball then called him safe. Perhaps he could have been a little quicker with his call, but that's Tim. He didn't rush a call all night. Then again, I've never seen him rush a call. It was a close play which deserved some timing.

There is no replay I have seen that shows the runner did not touch the base - therefore after further review the plays stands as called on the field - Rockies win.

If you say the runner did not touch the base - you are assuming.

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.:rolleyes:

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.

my question is: Did anyone see that the runner DID NOT touch home plate? NO ... we can't see it from the camera angles - many are just assuming he did not ... maybe the umpire had a better angle than camera 1 or camera 2 and he did see a swipe of the hand over the base.

Here ya go:

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

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).

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!

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.

hey i think www.firetimmcclellan.com is available ;)

mr Steve act now while supplies last!!

[QUOTE]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

A bigger problem ...
 

... 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

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.

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!

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.

Why, cause he's "too slow?"

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

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]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!

[quote=PeteBooth]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.

a football guy here
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Look at the play again. The PU is TBLX and not right field. He had a great look at the play. Actually he had a better look than the camera angles. Timing was great (could have sold it better) if Barret holds the ball he's out. If not he's safe.

Actually the "safe play" is to call him out. Easy to argue he never got the plate.

Hmmm...

If McClelland knew (or judged) Holliday touched the plate, why bother selling the safe call? The ball is rolling around on the ground for all to see - the safe call becomes the obvious call. Selling something that obvious would be counterproductive. McClelland watches everything before making a call - whether it's a ball/strike or an out/safe. That's one reason I enjoy watching him work.

Hey all,

The way I interpreted the mechanic was that Tim McClellan saw no tag, and made no call because of it. When Barrett went to get the ball to tag the runner, PU realized a call was necessary before the appeal, and he made the safe call.

Either that, or like was said before, he just has a SLOW mechanic.

LomUmp:cool:

McClelland Gives Interview
 

Wonder what Todd Worrell would say. :D

That what I see
 

I agree, Barrett's foot is pushed by the runner's hand. It is very possible that while the foot was being pushed the hand slid across the plate.

The debate is over.
 

I just checked the MLB site. The box score indicates Holliday was safe.

The Rockies won the game.;)

Great point:D

I must have been unclear, we agree.

That is simply not true.

The umpire will give a non verbal safe signal if the runner slides and avoids the tag and misses the plate. The catcher can then make a live ball appeal by tagging the runner and if he does so before the runner returns to touch the plate the umpire will call and signal the runner OUT!

Of course something has happened.

The tag was missed.

Unless proschools have changed their teachings in the past three years, you are confusing a missed base at first with the missed plate at home.

At first, safe signal. At home, no signal.

Since I started this thread by implying that McClelland missed the play I feel compelled to:

Admit I was wrong since there is no evidence to prove McClelland wrong;
Observe that McClelland was in proper position to make the call and made the call when he saw the ball and been dropped and before the catcher could make a live ball appeal;
Agree with McClelland that baseball instant replay might be a good idea on did balls leave or not leave the field of play and that is all.

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 -->

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.

Whether McClelland got the call right or wrong--something still open to debate--his mechanics and the way he went about making a call were not exactly the best. In fact, he caused more problems because of this.

Actually there pretty damn good. He's just really slow......something I have read time and again on this board... slow down and when you think your slow enough slow down some more. Now, that said, I don't advocate McC slow, but he is actually quite good!

What problems did McClelland cause?

Neither Bud Black nor Barrett even disputed the call.

The Padres are not whining about it.

It was a media generated controversy for couch potatoes with absolutely no video evidence to make an informed decision that what McClelland ruled was wrong.

Yeah, well ever since coming to the Padres he had been on his best behavior. He still interacted too much with a few unfriendly opposing fans, but for the most part he was a model citizen. Got along well with others. Played nice in the sandbox (bandbox in Denver). Report card stuff. He was also by far the hottest Padres hitter, damn near carrying us on his back for quite a while there. Too bad his true nature emerged when it did and not in the off-season where he wouldn't have damaged the team as much.:(

Well, MLB must still be happy with McClelland because he is working the NLCS this year. The article from his hometown paper says so.

I'm not talking about his timing, although in the play at hand, that added to the confusion. As other umpires have mentioned, the manner in which McClelland did this whole thing made matters worse.

selig input
 

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.

Why should have McClelland signaled safe any faster? Watch the replay again. There was NO TAG. The catcher never caught the ball. It was banging around against his body and then rolled away from him. If there is no attempt to tag, there is no play for the umpire to signal safe to, is there?

McClelland saw the runner slide and touch home while the catcher was groping for the ball and then had to chase it down after it got away from him. Once the catcher got the ball and went to go tag the runner (which he should have done just in case) McClelland signaled safe to let the catcher know that the runner had already tagged home.

Seems to me that McClelland did it exactly the way you are supposed to. No signal on a runner touching home when there is no tag. Signaling safe when the catcher went to tag the runner to indicate that McClelland had the touch of the plate.

McClelland wasn't slow to signal, none was necessary until the catcher tried to tag the runner.

this horse is DEAD DEAD DEAD, buryed and dug up and BEATEN again! let it ROT!

fortheluvogod

As always, no one is forcing you to read this thread. You have free will. If you choose to continue reading this thread, that is your choice. If you think the thread is being beaten to death, please STOP READING IT!