How to not sell a call...
 

Game ending very close play at the plate. Big controversy rages days later.

I don't want to start a thread here on whether or not the call was correct (plenty of that on the baseball board), but to note the umpire's mechanics.

Assume the call was correct (runner touched the plate). He could have significantly diffused the controversy by two simple things:

1) Not wait so long for the call, and
2) SELL the call instead of the nonchalant "safe" signal.

Comments? View the clip below.

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

PS: I don't want to hear about OBS - this was MLB.

I really don't have a problem with the amount of time he took to make the call, as he had to establish whether or not Barrett maintained control of the ball as he made the tag. However, I do agree that a big sell call would have been appropriate in this situation.

Not trying to be difficult here . . . but as you pointed out this is MLB. Are we going to start looking to these guys to get mechanics or is this a philosophical question? Not having any clue as to what was going through his mind, it could be that he saw a tag, then the runner touch and then the ball squirt out and therefore it didn't need a hard sell. If you have a steal at 2nd and the same thing happens are you gonna sell hard? Maybe it's different with thousands of people in the stands but I'm not convinced a hard sell was necessary. On the other hand, it wouldn't have done damage to have one - I just didn't feel it was necessary.

Imagine it was not a baseball game at all, let alone MLB. I was just thinking as I saw the replay that given the drama of the play (walk-off winning run in an extra inning wild card one game playoff game) and the closeness of the call, that the mechanics of the safe call gives the impression of indecision. It called for a decisive safe-sell call, IMO.

Considering that:

- The catcher never achieved control of the ball.

- There was no tag made.

- The ball is rolling around on the ground.

Isn't the correct mechanic to make no signal at all?

That's what the umpire was doing, up until the point that the catcher finally retrieved the ball and did move to put a tag on the prone runner. The safe signal at that point seemed to be a confirmation that the runner had indeed touched the plate (in the umpire's opinion- I have yet to see a replay that is conclusive one way or the other).

Still, with the magnitude of the game and the drama of a final play in extra innings, if I was in the umpire's shoes I can easily see myself making a big "safe sell" the instant the plate was touched- dropped ball or not. Maybe that's not "by the book", but I honestly think that would be my reaction.

My gut feeling is that the umpire might have been unsure about the touch of the plate (though McClelland says otherwise in subsequent interviews) and was waiting to see the reaction of the players to "help him make his call".

From the runner's standpoint, it's probably a good thing that he was too banged-up to move after his slide. Had he not been dazed, he may have made some scrambling effort to retouch the plate.

That might have sold the umpire on the notion that he hadn't touched it. The follow-up tag attempt by the catcher may have retired him (an out would be an easy sell in that scenario) and the game would have moved along to the 14th inning!

The last time McClelland made a big sell call, he got his butt handed to him by the president of the American League. Perhaps that has made him a little leary to do much hard selling on a national stage.

(For those who don't remember or are too young to remember, Tim is the guy who called George Brett out for the Pine Tar home run.)

On the other hand, maybe he couldn't freakin' believe the Rockies came back to win the game.

And that was the correct call, but had to deal with a gutless administration.

On this call, if you listen to the announcers and not watching the video you would believe them. However, if you look closely at the view from the backstop, the catcher doesn't step on his hand, but his arm. It is not an impossibility that the runner got his fingers on the plate.

In a post game interview, McClelland stated that he was doing exactly what we are taught, processing the play and then making the call.

Would a hard sell made it more believable? Probably, but remember, this is the MLB.

I think what McClelland did and how he did it was fine. His timing was appropriate and the casualness said that it was the painfully obvious call. If I recall, there was no whining from the defense - so everyone who needed to know, knew exactly what he had called and agreed.

I disagree that a sell safe or out call was appropriate - the ball rolled away and the attempted tag was only after F2 went and got the ball.

Isn't the real probelm the presentation that the announcers gave?

I disagree ... but not in the way you think.

I think the mechanics of the safe call didn't "give the impression of indecision." Instead, rather ... I think it was ACTUAL indecision we see here. PU had no clue what he just saw.

Here is where I disagree. I think that he knew EXACTLY what he saw. He had the best view of the play/no play in the whole house.

It's always going to be speculation ... and I understand that he is habitual in making slow calls.

But I truly think, from his description afterward as to what he was looking for, that he really didn't know what he saw, and Guessed.

Speaking softball, this is correct only if the runner did not touch the plate. Trying to keep this non-specific wrt who the umpire is (and his reputation for delayed calls) and the fact that it is baseball, if the umpire saw the runner touch the base, the runner was safe at that instant. To then wait to see if the catcher regains control of the ball and to only make the safe call as the catcher is moving to make the tag is inviting controversy, IMO. Some sort of theatrics / sell call on the part of the umpire would have helped, IMO.

I basically agree with Bret. McClelland saw that the ball was not caught cleanly, saw that the runner's hand touched the plate while the ball was bouncing around, and felt there was no need for a call at that point. I've heard this before - No ball, no call.

When F2 finally retrieved the ball and went to tag the runner, the easy safe call says, the play's over, he touched the plate.

I do see some validity in Tom's point that considering the importance of the game and the stage of the game at the time, an immediate strong call may be warranted.

I also read through the baseball board thread about the call - some there seem to think that McC was not in the proper position for the play and that contributed to the pause and the nonchalant way the signal was given.

I wasn't commenting specifically on plays involving a runner missing the plate and the fielder missing the tag. Isn't the common standard at any base, on any play, what Andy posted above- no ball, no call (signal).

Example: R1 on at first. Steal attempt for second. Ball hits F6's glove and rolls away as R1 slides into the bag.

Should we even make a safe signal on these plays? Or do we follow the "no ball, no call" doctorine? Does the closeness of the play, or how far away (how obvious) the ball rolls from the play, dictate that a signal might be warranted?

As an aside, baseball handles the "runner misses plate, fielder misses tag" play differently than does softball. Instead of first making no call, then hesitating to see how the players react before giving a safe signal if no tag follows, baseball advocates making no signal at all unless one is needed for F2 following up on the tag or the runner attempting to get back to the plate.

This play actually came up in a high school baseball game where I was being video taped and evaluated a few years ago. Of all the times for that to happen! It was the first time I had ever had to make such a call.

The catcher missed the tag, the runner missed the plate. I hesitated before making any call. The runner got up and trotted to the dugout, the catcher made no move to tag or appeal the miss and I gave a very belated, routine safe signal. In other words, I precisely followed the prescribed ASA softball mechanic for this play!

Too bad the correct way to handle it in baseball would have been to make no signal. I got dinged on the evaluation for making the signal and that lesson was burned into my brain. In the three or four hundred games I've umpired since then it's never come up again.

But if it does, I will be prepared!

How does F6 throw?:cool:

Alright, ya weisenheimer, I struck out the extra "s"...;)

No visual evidence or reaction by the umpire that the runner touched home plate. Based upon fastpitch softball discussions / rules, a runner is safe if passing an untouched base but out on appeal. I saw a tag afterwards by the catcher, but do not see an appeal to the umpire. Therefore I believe a hard safe signal is not warranted, since the runner did not touch home plate. A no call would not have been proper either, but do believe the safe signal should have been quicker.

Unless the runner said he didn't, and I don't believe he was in any better position than anyone else to make such a statement, there is no evidence the runner did not touch the plate.

Unfounded presumption.

A call would only be supported if the umpire did not see the ball and then saw the ball on the ground. Remember, the umpire was 3b-line extended toward 1b, so the ball was out of his sight when the play came home.

BTW, I've been waiting for someone to raise this point, but it hasn't happened. So, I will. If this is softball, the umpire would first raise the left arm, and then the right.

Several thoughts on this one - but know that this is an anniversary weekend and there have been a few glasses of wine, so let's hope the thoughts connect

Andy's heard no ball, no call - I wonder where:rolleyes: I've heard that - and agree with it - I just wish I could get that thought across to some of the folks I've done some games with.

Rather than Tom's strong sell, I would prefer to see - when F2 is chasing the ball - a casual point at the plate and then the casual safe signal. I think the casualness would have emphasized that this was a no-brainer.

As for his positioning - atch the replay and I think he started at the point of the plate and hustled to get to the angle he thought would develope into the best. I'd prefer - especially with the way the play developed - to use the old ASA standard of 1B extended, slight up the 3B line. But I am very suer that the best angle would be provided by Emily's 3rd dimension - height, looking down on the play.

Now - off to some more wine.

Hmmm... I kind of took it off the table (not that it matters, given the way threads go on this board... ;) )

Looked good to me. Hesitate, process, then make the call when you have "all the pieces of the puzzle". Wasn't a banger since ball clearly bouncing on ground. Catcher made the missed plate appeal and umpire immediately gave signal.

The best I can come up with is that this was a safe call because he didnt see an out. His call seemed unsure and his reasoning in his interview seemed unsure.

That may have not been a bang bang play, but it was a huge play - a sure umpire would have sold it.

A smarter sell call no matter what you saw would have been better as well.

Everyone makes errors, I think this was a mechanic error on the part of the umpire.

Was that before or after your edit :rolleyes:

I only mentioned it because a few posts did mention softball.

I added it with the edit, but the edit was only a couple of minutes after the OP. The only reason I tried to take OBS off the table was because I was focusing on the basic mechanics.

IMO, the umpire's mechanics contributed to the ruckus / controversy, regardless of whether the call itself was correct.

I think Steve M had a good suggestion - something to indicate the runner touched the plate so "never mind, mr F2, he's safe" would also have worked.

It's not so much whether his mechanics were by-the-book correct or not; it is just that in certain situations, the umpire should make an effort to appear decisive, even it he is not.

OK, buf if there was no-tag and the runner touched the plate - what decision is there to make? If there were a mechanic the runner touched the plate you would tip off the F2 by NOT using your mechanic. Again, I have no problem with how the PU handled this one.

As I said, by-the-book, maybe, but far too indecisive-appearing. Allow the same timing on the call; how about recognizing the drama of the situation with a but more than...

... (yawn)... Oh, well, safe,... I guess....

well wont comment on softyball mechs if you dont comment on ours!

Congratulations on making it to MLB, Larry!

Not to mention making it through creative writing!

Supreme Court ruled Thursday that folks who do things for politicos can, indeed, lie.

So, Larry, who ya workin for? I didn't know we had another political scientist on board...

That tag WAS an appeal to the umpire!

Personally, I have no issues with how this umpire handled the play. The real problem is the video replay. The replays linked in the OP are inconclusive, so people will bring their own bias into it. This 'controversy' would still be there regardless of how the PU handled it.

As it was, there initially was no play, so no signal. When it became apparent that F2 was going to appeal for a missed base, PU signalled safe. That's all good by me.

Helped what?

No member of the defensive team even complained.

The manager said he thought the runner touched the plate.

The whole "controversy" was media generated by the TV guys.

The umpire, when interviewed by the media, said he was in position to see the play, saw the hand touch the plate, and processed the entire sequence before signaling safe.

Who among us would not be satisfied in making a call that ends a big game after being in the right position to see the play enfold and then walking off with no arguments?

Guys, I agree with IRISHMAFIA that if you look at the backstop angle of the play, it's possible that the runner did touch the corner of the plate with his hand. Matter of fact, I was able to run the play very slowly over and over and it looks like he DID touch it. Almost like a magician's touch to it.

As for the umpire's mechanics in this play, it would have screamed indecisive, but like someone said, McClelland can be slow with some of his calls. I've seen him work some games in Kansas City (and I know MLB got the call right when they overturned him on the pine tar incident), and he is deliberately slow to some of his calls, such as as the routine out at first base. Many times he doesn't even make the signal till the runner is coming to a stop in the outfield.

Say what? McClelland got boned on that reversal and that is pretty much indisputable.

I agree. The AL prez and league office hung him out to dry on that one.

Look at the pine tar incident this way...Billy Martin waited till Brett touched the plate after he hit the homerun to appeal the bat. He didn't say anything before because he wanted to take away a game-winning homerun. It's pretty known in baseball historian circles that Steinbrenner had directed Martin to act that way, wait till they would have lost the game before appealing. It wasn't the AL president who overturned McClelland's call, it was the Major League office.

what a STUPID angle--of course martin waited until it was too his advantage to appeal!! dont you ever have a mgr wait until the RIGHT moment to appeal a BOO when he can get a OUT and not too early (thus only geting another batter inherating the count)??

what does the TIMING of when he apealed have JACK to do with its validity?? you canot be serious as mr McEnroe used to say

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g8...deadhorse5.gif

Like he knew there was going to be a game-winning home run. And so what? Brett's bat was in violation, and the penalty was quite clear. End of story.

According to Yankee players, it was Graig Nettles. Steinbrenner is an a$$ and it doesn't take a baseball historian to figure that out. I don't believe he could come to that decision if his wallet depended on it. BTW, really don't believe what most baseball "historians" spout. Many still believe in Abner Doubleday and baseball being a true American game.Actually, it was Lee McPhail who ignored the rules and declared the ruling didn't meet the "spirit of the rule". I think McPhail must have been drinking some spirits to make such a fool-hardy decision.

And now all of baseball says that pine tar that goes above the 17 inches (is that the limit) isn't illegal...because no advantage is gained from that. Matter of fact, if there's pine tar that high up on the bat, pretty stupid move, since the ball would stick a bit if it hit that spot.

Actually, it was Lee McPhail who ignored the rules and declared the ruling didn't meet the "spirit of the rule". I think McPhail must have been drinking some spirits to make such a fool-hardy decision.

McPhail wasn't drinking...the Commissioner's office TOLD him to make THAT decision.

Back in those days it was the responsibility of the each league to make these decisions. I will cite the case below as a reference for you(I added the emphasis):

"Brett had injuries on-and-off for the next four years, during which occurred the most notable event in his career, the notorious "Pine Tar Incident". On July 24, 1983, the Royals were playing the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. In the top of the ninth inning, Brett came up to bat against Goose Gossage, his old rival. Brett hit a two-run homer to put the Royals up 5-4. After Brett rounded the bases, Yankees manager Billy Martin calmly walked out of the dugout and used home plate to measure the amount of pine tar, a legal substance used by hitters to improve their grip, on Brett's bat. Martin cited an obscure rule that stated the pine tar on a bat could extend no further than 18 inches. Brett's pine tar extended about 24 inches. Earlier in the season, the Yankees had noted Brett's habit of adding pine tar further than the allowed 18 inches, but waited until a crucial time to point it out to the umpires.

"I've never seen this," said sportscaster and ex-Yankee Bobby Murcer on WPIX as he watched McClelland measure the bat across the plate. "I never have either," said Murcer's partner, Frank Messer. A few moments later, the home plate umpire, Tim McClelland, signaled Brett out.

The normally mild-mannered Brett charged out of the dugout, enraged, and was immediately ejected. An incredulous Messer:

“ Look at this!...He is out, and having to be forcibly restrained from hitting plate umpire Tim McClelland. And the Yankees have won the ball game 4 to 3! ”

Years later, Brett explained his outburst by saying "It was just such an extraordinary thing to hit a homer off [Gossage], the thought of losing it was too much". In the same interview he also humorously chided his teammate Hal McRae (who was on deck) for not removing the bat from home plate before Billy Martin could have it inspected. "If Hal had [taken the bat], then I'd only be known for hemorrhoids," Brett quipped.[3]

The Royals protested the game, and their protest was upheld by AL president (and former Yankees chief executive) Lee MacPhail, who ruled that the bat was not "altered to improve the distance factor," and that the rules only provided for removal of the bat from the game, and not calling the batter out.

The game was continued later that season, starting after Brett's homer. Billy Martin had one last trick up his sleeve, appealing the play in saying the umpires had no way of knowing Brett and the other runner had touched all the bases. Martin was stunned when the umpires produced affidavits saying they had. The game had virtually no effect on 1983's pennant race, but was in many ways the closing chapter on a heated rivalry. The Pine Tar Game has become part of baseball folklore, with Brett's famous bat on display at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York."



If you are interested, you can read the article in its entirety here.

Were you there? Could you please cite a credible reference to support this supposition?

Doesn't make any difference what the rules are now, the rules then were that it was illegal to add anything to the bat that was not approved, just as it is to tape a softball bat more than 15" from the knob.

Thanks for the research.

I remember the play well and also the fact that McClelland pointed out that Brett was not called out for an illegal bat but the more creative " illegal batted ball." MacPhail used common sense in upholding the Royals' protest.

It was pretty common knowledge Bowie Kuhn had his grip on MacPhail back then. I can't remember where I read it, but Kuhn pretty much told MacPhail hell would be had if he didn't uphold the protest (that's a pretty good move because of MacPhail's previous employment with the Yankees). Kuhn was a more powerful commissioner than people gave him credit for.

It would help if you could ever verify anything you contend.

Okay, so that just means there were two idiots involved instead of one. Who cares? McClelland did his job and was stabbed in the back by his boss. What more needs to be known?

For something that is "pretty common knowledge," it is odd that I can do a google search on "pine tar mcphail kuhn" and get nothing about how the commissioner's office in any way interceded in McPhail's decision. You would think that there would be at least one article devoted to this common knowledge.

However, you do get a link to four nekkid girls and a hyena doing Jaegermeister shots in a bar outside of Fargo, and a live link to a fat guy with no shirt on doing live commentary on the leaf changing colors on the one tree in Wahoo, Nebraska.

BTW, show me a McPhail who didn't drink and I'll show you a McPhail who is a liar.