1 Game Playoff - Page 2

Triad · October 2nd, 2007, 05:27 PM

The ump really made the only call he could've made. The catcher was blocking the plate without the ball.

Grandstander · October 2nd, 2007, 05:34 PM

I hadn't thought of it from the Rockie fan persepctive, but you're right, they have been deprived of something as well. 49er fans can always look at film of "The Catch" as the singular defining point of the Walsh led franchise, Mariner fans have the smiling Ken Griffey Jr. scoring the winning run in the '95 playoffs against NY, Giants fans have Bobby Thompson and so forth. But this most thrilling moment in Colorado franchise history is always going to be a bittersweet to watch....there it is! we score! Well, sort of. At least we won.

Grandstander · October 2nd, 2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triad

The ump really made the only call he could've made. The catcher was blocking the plate without the ball.

If the catcher was blocking the plate without the ball, that is obstruction and the umpire calls "obstruction" and the runner is safe.

This umpire didn't call obstruction, he called the runner safe at home on the play.

So, the ump didn't make the only call he could make, he made the wrong call even though the outcome was correct.

jtur88 · October 2nd, 2007, 07:15 PM

I'm not sure it was a bad call. On balls and strikes, McClelland was calling strikes in one zip code early in the game, and another zip code later on. But the two replays were both inconclusive. On the angle from 3rd base, you can see that it was possible that his hand went under the left foot of Barrett, since only his heel was down. McClelland was positioned just right to see if his hand dragged the corner of the plate under Barrett's foot. The late call is probably not indicateive of anything---he actually called safe on that one quicker than some of his strike calls. I'm inclined to give McClelland the benefit of the doubt on this one, because he was looking right down on the plate and would see if the hand dragged over it.

I thought of the obstruction angle after it was too late to view any replays, so I can't recall exactly when Barrett got the ball. However, Barrett never had clear possession of the ball, (I don't think) but that does not prevent him from blocking the plate with the reasonable belief that he would retain posession. I can't recall obstruction ever being called on a catcher for blocking the plate an instant before he catches the ball, or immediately after the ball has already been bobbled.

Triad · October 2nd, 2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grandstander

So, the ump didn't make the only call he could make, he made the wrong call even though the outcome was correct.

I guess I should have reworded that. Originally, I was going to say that since it was inconclusive in real time that Holliday didn't touch the plate, the umpire had to call him safe. But then realizing also that Barrett never had possession, "safe" was ultimately the proper call, though it may have been arrived at in the wrong way. Either way, it was a legitimate run for the Rockies, and those who say the Padres were robbed missed that important point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

I'm inclined to give McClelland the benefit of the doubt on this one, because he was looking right down on the plate and would see if the hand dragged over it.

I likewise would have called him safe, even without the obstruction. It appears as though Holliday's hand is blocked, but it isn't clear, so the right call is to give the runner the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

I thought of the obstruction angle after it was too late to view any replays, so I can't recall exactly when Barrett got the ball.

Barrett never caught it. He stuck his foot in front of the plate without ever having possession of the ball. The ball arrived just as Barrett was sticking his foot in front of the plate, so had he caught the ball, it would have been a legitimate block. The Padres got more of a break that obstruction wasn't called than the Rockies did that Holliday wasn't judged to have touched the plate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

However, Barrett never had clear possession of the ball, (I don't think) but that does not prevent him from blocking the plate with the reasonable belief that he would retain posession.

Are you sure about potential possession being a valid reason to block the plate, even when it's never caught? I understand that the catcher need not be touching the ball yet when he's about to catch it, in order to block the plate — he just needs to be in the process of catching it — but if he never catches it then that would suggest that he was never in the process in catching it at all.

Rule 7.06
The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner, and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

Barrett was trying to field the ball, but never had the ball in his possession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

I can't recall obstruction ever being called on a catcher for blocking the plate an instant before he catches the ball, or immediately after the ball has already been bobbled.

Or even a whole second before he catches it. It's one of those rules that the umpires are afraid to uphold anymore. The catchers union must be stronger than the baserunners union. I blame Mike Scioscia.

jtur88 · October 2nd, 2007, 10:29 PM

I just viewed the replay (available here :

YouTube - End of Rockies/Padres Tie-Breaker

). It appears that Barrett did not plant his left foot until after the ball hit his glove, which would have made a block legal. I cannot believe that the intent of the rule is that the catcher "maintain possession" before he can block the plate. I believe (but it is inconclusive) that Holliday's hand might have gone under Barret's left foot before it planted, and the foot seems to have come down several inches down the foul line from the plate. If a tag was made, the ump would withold his call until he saw that the catcher held on, and called safe when he saw the loose ball, but the potential tag was way too late for that to have been the case.

I still hold to my original view, that McClelland had a much better overhead view of the plate than we did, saw Holliday touch the plate after narrowly avoided being stepped on by Barrett whose foot was not quite planted yet, and got it right.

One more rule note: I believe that when the rule book says "field a ball", it always means a batted ball, and never apllies to a thrown ball unless it specifically states that it does.

Nate505 · October 2nd, 2007, 10:44 PM

Atkins got robbed on a home run call in the 7th innning. Bad calls tend to even themselves out.

jtur88 · October 3rd, 2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate505

Atkins got robbed on a home run call in the 7th innning. Bad calls tend to even themselves out.

We don't know if that is the right call or not, either. It looked to me like the ball hit the beveled top of the yellow line, and bounced back onto the field, which is like a field goal coming down on the crossbar, and bouncing back onto the field---it's not 'over'. There seemed to be some kind or a ridge at the back of the upper surface of the wall, so such a bounce would be possible.

If Holliday's hand got under Barrett's foot before the foot was planted (as I believe was the case, and that McClelland saw it)), the plate-block would have occurred after the run scored, and would be irrelevant on two counts. 1) the game was over before Barrett put his foot down, and 2) there were no succeeding runners to be affected by the plate-block. A fielder can block all the base paths he wants, if there are no runners using them.

The way I saw them, both calls were right.

jtur88 · October 3rd, 2007, 01:21 PM

It's amazing. In the pregame show today from Philly, they showed a replay from a very similar angle to what McCLelland saw, which I had never seen before. True to form, the network rolled their logo swipe across the screen at exactly the instant we could have seen if his hand slipped under Barrett's foot or not. But they said there was no tag. Maybe they will show it again.

Triad · October 3rd, 2007, 01:53 PM

Was anyone perplexed as to why Hoffman wasn't used earlier in the game? The potentially final game of the season, it's a tie game, and you sit your closer for the 10th, 11th and 12th. Doesn't make sense, unless Hoffman's arm was either tired or he was injured. He had the previous day off, and pitched 1 inning the day before, when he was also ineffective, blowing a save against Milwaukee, allowing Gwynn Jr.'s triple.

Under normal circumstances in such a crucial game, you utilize your best relief pitcher and probably pitch him for two innings, meaning you bring him in in the 10th with the intention of having him also pitch the 11th. When you consider that Bud Black was reluctant to go to Hoffman in the deciding game, and that Hoffman got torched with three solid, deep hits and a line drive sacrifice fly, and that he blew the lead in his previous outing as well, it leads one to believe that we weren't looking at the normal Trevor Hoffman. Another theory is that in the Denver air, he couldn't get his pitches to do what he wanted to, and he and Black knew this ahead of time.

In any event, something's rotten in Denver. It doesn't make sense to bring Brocail in in the 10th and Thatcher in in the 12th, before Hoffman, when there's no tomorrow.

View Poll Results: Who wins this game?
Padres	1	16.67%
Rockies	5	83.33%
Voters: 6. This poll is closed

October 2nd, 2007, 07:15 PM	#19 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	I'm not sure it was a bad call. On balls and strikes, McClelland was calling strikes in one zip code early in the game, and another zip code later on. But the two replays were both inconclusive. On the angle from 3rd base, you can see that it was possible that his hand went under the left foot of Barrett, since only his heel was down. McClelland was positioned just right to see if his hand dragged the corner of the plate under Barrett's foot. The late call is probably not indicateive of anything---he actually called safe on that one quicker than some of his strike calls. I'm inclined to give McClelland the benefit of the doubt on this one, because he was looking right down on the plate and would see if the hand dragged over it. I thought of the obstruction angle after it was too late to view any replays, so I can't recall exactly when Barrett got the ball. However, Barrett never had clear possession of the ball, (I don't think) but that does not prevent him from blocking the plate with the reasonable belief that he would retain posession. I can't recall obstruction ever being called on a catcher for blocking the plate an instant before he catches the ball, or immediately after the ball has already been bobbled. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much. Last edited by jtur88; October 2nd, 2007 at 07:20 PM.

October 3rd, 2007, 01:21 PM	#24 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	It's amazing. In the pregame show today from Philly, they showed a replay from a very similar angle to what McCLelland saw, which I had never seen before. True to form, the network rolled their logo swipe across the screen at exactly the instant we could have seen if his hand slipped under Barrett's foot or not. But they said there was no tag. Maybe they will show it again. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much.

October 2nd, 2007, 05:27 PM	#16 (permalink)
Triad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 252	The ump really made the only call he could've made. The catcher was blocking the plate without the ball.

October 2nd, 2007, 05:34 PM	#17 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,601	I hadn't thought of it from the Rockie fan persepctive, but you're right, they have been deprived of something as well. 49er fans can always look at film of "The Catch" as the singular defining point of the Walsh led franchise, Mariner fans have the smiling Ken Griffey Jr. scoring the winning run in the '95 playoffs against NY, Giants fans have Bobby Thompson and so forth. But this most thrilling moment in Colorado franchise history is always going to be a bittersweet to watch....there it is! we score! Well, sort of. At least we won.

October 2nd, 2007, 10:44 PM	#22 (permalink)
Nate505 Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 389	Atkins got robbed on a home run call in the 7th innning. Bad calls tend to even themselves out.

October 3rd, 2007, 01:53 PM	#25 (permalink)
Triad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 252	Was anyone perplexed as to why Hoffman wasn't used earlier in the game? The potentially final game of the season, it's a tie game, and you sit your closer for the 10th, 11th and 12th. Doesn't make sense, unless Hoffman's arm was either tired or he was injured. He had the previous day off, and pitched 1 inning the day before, when he was also ineffective, blowing a save against Milwaukee, allowing Gwynn Jr.'s triple. Under normal circumstances in such a crucial game, you utilize your best relief pitcher and probably pitch him for two innings, meaning you bring him in in the 10th with the intention of having him also pitch the 11th. When you consider that Bud Black was reluctant to go to Hoffman in the deciding game, and that Hoffman got torched with three solid, deep hits and a line drive sacrifice fly, and that he blew the lead in his previous outing as well, it leads one to believe that we weren't looking at the normal Trevor Hoffman. Another theory is that in the Denver air, he couldn't get his pitches to do what he wanted to, and he and Black knew this ahead of time. In any event, something's rotten in Denver. It doesn't make sense to bring Brocail in in the 10th and Thatcher in in the 12th, before Hoffman, when there's no tomorrow.