How to not sell a call...

[Dakota]

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.

[Skahtboi]

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.

[Mountaineer]

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

...a philosophical question...

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.

[BretMan]

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!

[bkbjones]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

(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.)

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.

[Steve M]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

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.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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?

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.

[Andy]

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking softball, this is correct only if the runner did not touch the plate.

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!

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Ball hits F6's gloves and rolls away as R1 slides into the bag.

How does F6 throw?