Having been there last night, this much I can tell you; there was nothing deliberate about the umpire's delay in making the call! That guy was doing it all night, it was pure frustration. It's just his style I guess, but every pitch call took seconds to be delivered. Listen to the crowd's delayed reaction to called strikeouts. It was so frustrating from my vantage on the 1st base side, to see a ball cross the plate low, and then wait an inexplicably long time for the signal to come stating otherwise. Obviously they calls weren't bad, because there wasn't a whole lot of protesting, but man the pause after calls was annoying.
-----------------------------------------------
Raf,
Your point is well taken. Yes, he was doing that all night with the balls and strikes. On that tag play, though, the call is decided at the very least when Barrett loses the ball ... assuming Holliday touches the plate ... or when Barrett tags Holliday if Holliday missed the plate. I'm not saying the call was a bad one ... you just couldn't tell so you have to trust the umpire's view. But he didn't do anyone any favors, himself included, with that delayed call. Thanks for writing ... it was a long night for you.
-- Bill O.

I'm not sure if a protest would even be considered since MLB Rule 4.19 says a team cannot protest "judgment" calls made by the umpires.
---------------------------------
Nah, not a thing anyone could do about it ... and, look, who really saw that play other than McClelland. I don't think either player really knows.
-- Bill O.

A catcher is not allowed to block the plate unless he has the ball. The ump, upon seeing the loose ball could have ruled that the catcher never had the ball and thus illegally blocked the plate, causing the runner to be safe.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks for writing. That may be possible but I think he would have been more demonstrative if that was the call.
-- Bill O.

I agree with Raf about the umpire's deliberate style, and I do think he had a much better angle than any of the camera angles that were available. The runner seemed to get his hand on part of the plate as he slid, pushing the catcher's left leg away, but there isn't any indisputable evidence either way. This was not a bad call like the one at first base in the ninth inning of game 6 of the 1985 World Series (which destroyed my favorite team - the Cardinals).
---------------------------------------
Robert,
Thanks for writing. Yeah, you guys got robbed nack then. But the play last night is just one of those things where I don't think anyone other than the umpire is really sure. He had the best angle of anone -- as he should. He made the call and that's that. We could watch that thing frame by frame and I think ... as if it matters ... that Holliday's hand got underneath Barrett's foot. And if Holliday got a piece of the plate, that's when it happened. Holliday did say that his hand got stepped on.
-- Bill O.

The way I read the rule, the catcher can block the plate while attempting to field a throw. Once he fails to field the ball, he is then obstructing the plate. He has a complete right to block the plate whether he fields the ball or not, up until the point that he fails to field the ball. However, by the time the catcher failed to field the ball, I think that Holliday was far past home plate and the catcher could not have been obstructing the plate anymore.

The umpire must have judged that the timing was such that the catcher was still obstructing the plate after he failed to field the ball, or maybe he saw Holliday touch the plate.
--------------------------------------
I have to believe the latter is the case.
-- Bill O.

Bill,
You write "Barrett retrieved the ball and tagged him.
All this time, home plate umpire Tim McClelland had not made any signal."
Even though it was a delayed called McClelland clearly makes the safe call BEFORE Barrett tags him. Look at it again.
--------------------------------
Kevin,
After taking another look, you're right. McClelland makes the call as Barrett begins to crawl toward Holliday and before the tag. But the point remains the same, the call should be made as soon as the ball pops loose and rolls away. All the while Barrett is scrambling after the ball, fans would legitimately think that the ump is either waiting for Barrett to tag Holliday or for Holliday to touch the plate so the play can be resolved. I will say this in McClelland's defense after seeing the play about 10 times now ... as the ball rolls away from Barrett, the ump may have been trained on the prone Holliday. I can't tell for sure. So maybe there was a moment of distraction. I'll make the correction in the sequence. And thanks for being observant and writing.
-- Bill O.

Couple of points. First, none of the camera angles nor the photo accompanying this article conclusively show Holliday missed the plate. All it takes is a fingernail grazing the edge to make contact.

Second, the rule states that a player may not impede the runner on a base path or base if not in possession of the ball. There is nothing about "up until the second he has the ball."

In reality, the players DO block the base and path in anticipation of the catch. If they catch it one microsecond before impact, then they have the right to be there. If they don't catch it, they don't have the right, but generally the runner will have touched the base so its a non-issue. This is the rare case where the ball was not caught and (possibly) the base was not touched. The umpire is not required to explain why he was safe, only that he was safe.

Thirdly, it is VERY common on complex bang-bang plays like that for the umpire to take an extra second or 2 to make the call.... they almost always will wait until all the local motion is complete to see everything that transpired before the call is made.

Great game though!

JIM
--------------------------------------------
Jim,
Thanks for writing. I've never said that Holliday didn't touch the plate. I think almost everyone agrees that every camera angle is inconclusive and I've always said that the ump had the best angle. That blocking the plate thing has been written about a lot and the rule is that the defensive player needs to be "fielding" the ball. That creates some latitude in interpretation. Barrett was clearly trying to field the ball as Holliday slid so I'm having a tough time with the obstruction rationale. As far as the delayed call is concerned .. the umpire is obviously being prudent to make sure that the fielder does or does not have possession of the ball. But that one came out pretty quickly and rolled fairly far. The call could have been quicker but I'm not going to say it wasn't the absolutely correct call. And you are right -- great game.
-- Bill O.

Bill O.

My theory is that Holliday missed the plate. The umpire saw the miss, also saw the ball dribble away. He waited to see if Holliday would roll over and hit the plate on his own thus making an obvious "safe" call. However, when he didn't roll over and the catcher retrieved the ball and began going for the tag, the Umpire called "safe" based on illegally blocking the plate. No one contested.

That's my theory.

Jim
--------------------------------
Jim,
Saw this note after the first one. Gosh, I'd be surprsied based on my reading of the rule. I'm a little surprised that we're not hearing more about this coming out of San Diego.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

You might want to check out www.hollidaynevertouchedtheplate.com and revisit if you think the replays are inconclusive.
------------------------------------------------
Blake,
Thanks for passing that along. It reinforces my original impression. As you might tell from the tone of my initial post, I'm in the camp where I suspect that Holliday didn't touch the plate but am not positive. Sort of the difference between being swayed by a preponderance of the evidence versus convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in court. After seeing this reverse angle still image, I'm still in that place. There was a moment when Holliday's hand appears to be under Barrett's foot. And Holliday said his hand was stepped on. So then we ask, where's the foot relative to the plate and where's the hand under the foot. And, of course, this doesn't touch the obstruction issue that some folks have latched onto. But even if there was conclusive visual evidence and you had it at the time the play occurred, it wouldn't have mattered. Do I think there's a conspiracy going on here regarding baseball's Zapruder film? Pffft, I don't see where this is all that important that MLB would go through all the trouble of such a silly thing. At least, I hope not.
-- Bill O.