McCarrrrrverrrrrrrrrrrrr strikes again

[scott1231]

This just happened ...

ALCS Game 4, NYY @ LAA, Top 4: R1, R2, R3. Fly ball F8 (Hunter). R3 (Swisher) tags and goes. Swisher scores on the throw. Angels appeal Swisher leaving 3B early. U3 (and CC) McClelland whacks 'em.

McCarver, watching and commenting on replays: "Watch Tim McClelland watching the centerfielder make the play. He wasn't looking at the timing of Swisher coming from 3rd base. I don't know how umpires do that, whether they back up a little more where they can get a view of the foot leaving the bag when the ball is in the glove but it looked to us like Tim McClelland is looking only at the center fielder ..."

McClelland was in foul territory, lined up looking at the center fielder making the catch ... looking straight through R3 tagging up. If McCarver wanted to say that McClelland was maybe a little late in reaching his position, I'd agree. But replays - Yes, the same replays McCarver used to critique McClelland's JUDGEMENT - show that he was, in fact, lined up and could see both the catch and the tag.

Tim ... Tim McCarver ... I realize you may not be able to do two things at the same time, but we can and HAVE to, often.

McCarver's gotta go. Been that way for a long time. Seriously. Can't somebody EJ him?

[NickG]

I don't agree. No way McClellan could see the tag-up. He was looking at the fielder make the catch and it appeared that he did not have enough separation from 3B to get the touch as well. He blew it big time.

And THEN, and THEN, the cluster-flip at 3B with Posada retreating. Napoli clearly tags BOT Cano and Posada, BOTH of them off base, and McClellan is tanding right there. And gets it wrong.

This has been a bad series for the umps. Hate to say it, but sometimes you have to.

[UmpJM]

I concur with NickG's assessment.

McClelland is butchering it tonight.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

Horrible.

[UMP25]

I criticized Tim in the other thread, and I'm not saying Swisher was out, but one need not bend the head down to see a runner's foot leave the bag. I personally have kept my head straight, looking at the ball/glove, then simply and as quickly as I could, glance down to see the runner tag. Having said that, my personal philosophy on appeals--missed base and leaving early ones--is that I don't have an out unless I'm absolutely, positively, totally sure the guy missed the base/left early. If I'm not sure or can't tell for some reason, I don't bang him out.

[scott1231]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I criticized Tim in the other thread, and I'm not saying Swisher was out, but one need not bend the head down to see a runner's foot leave the bag. I personally have kept my head straight, looking at the ball/glove, then simply and as quickly as I could, glance down to see the runner tag. Having said that, my personal philosophy on appeals--missed base and leaving early ones--is that I don't have an out unless I'm absolutely, positively, totally sure the guy missed the base/left early. If I'm not sure or can't tell for some reason, I don't bang him out.

My point, simply put.

[umpjim]

I'm still on the 3rd inning on the DVR but McClleland impressed me earlier this year with a pretty casual approach to a play at the plate. Most guys said that's because he's great. A man on 3B and a fly you know where you need to be. It looks real bad and Scott, McCarver sucks but McClleland blew it and and looked casual again. What's with the guy?

[NickG]

"My point exactly"

Well, the argument would carry more weight if McClelland got the call right. You have to at least look ... at SOME point. He didn't look, so he didn't see it. As someone already pointed out, you better not call something if you don't see it.

[umpjim]

How far would he have to go to line it up?

[UMP25]

Only as much as is necessary to have both the fielder/glove/ball and runner in the same field of vision and plane. If one can do this withOUT having to move his head much, if at all, then it's all the better, because a moving head skews it a bit. It also takes a split second of time away from when the runner actually left.

[scott1231]

Originally Posted by NickG

"My point exactly"

Well, the argument would carry more weight if McClelland got the call right. You have to at least look ... at SOME point. He didn't look, so he didn't see it. As someone already pointed out, you better not call something if you don't see it.

I'm not defending the call. Please note that I did not ever say whether I thought he got it right. I was commenting on one of my least-favorite color commentators and his lack of knowledge about what or how we do what we do.

Agreed, Nick, he was late. A total lack of separation/depth. It looked really bad. But ... where you think that he did not look, I think he did look through at both the catch and the tag.

[SanDiegoSteve]

He never glanced down at Swisher's feet. The second the ball was touched he should have immediately looked down, and if he didn't see a huge gap, then he shouldn't have called the runner out.

[UMP25]

Not necessarily a "huge" gap, Steve, just a noticeable one would suffice.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Not necessarily a "huge" gap, Steve, just a noticeable one would suffice.

To me, a "huge" gap is one that is barely noticeable when lined up properly. T.Mac was not lined up properly. He was moving when he should have just stopped and got the best look he could, as the ball was hit hard. Watch the ball get touched, quickly look at the feet of the runner. Of course, he knows that.

[umpjim]

You try to get lined up. Play might have happened too quick but I have never seen the guy hustle. If you don't get there you do the best you can with a look. In my neck of the woods they have a bench player watching what you are doing and if you were not looking down they will appeal just to put you on the spot even if they know the runner didn't leave early.