Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe to RSS   Add to My Yahoo!

October 2, 2007 8:37 AM

Did Matt Holliday actually touch home plate?

In all the ecstacy and revelry over the Rockies' remarkable come-from-behind surge to the National League wild card playoff berth, one question seems to be lingering nationally:

Did Matt Holliday actually touch home plate when he scored the winning run?

Padres' right fielder Brian Giles' throw home bounced in front of catcher Michael Barrett, who couldn't hold on as Holliday swiped the plate, then lay face-down after cutting his chin with his headfirst slide. Umpire Tim McClelland made a delayed safe call, and replays were inconclusive on whether Holliday touched the plate with his left hand or was blocked by Barrett's left foot.

Holliday said he wasn't sure if he touched the plate.

"The ump said I was safe," Holliday said. "I don't remember. But I hit my chin pretty good."

Best argument that he got a piece of the plate: the Padres didn't protest - not that it would have done any good.

Said Padres manager Bud Black: "It looked to me like he did get it."

Besides, with Garrett Atkins' blast being ruled a ground rule double instead of a home run, Rockies fans figure it all evened out.

ESPN has the video and raises the question of instant replay in baseball.

Here's how the San Diego Union reported it:

Holliday, a former high school quarterback, tagged up and charged headfirst into the left shin guard of catcher Michael Barrett. Though it appeared Barrett warded off Holliday's left hand – “I don't think he got the plate,” Barrett said – umpire Tim McClelland ruled Holliday touched the plate. Barrett didn't have the ball. Holliday, who had slammed his chin into the dirt, was too woozy to get up.

It didn't matter. The season's 163rd game belonged to the Rockies, whose irrelevancy for most of their existence seemingly condensed into invincibility during a 14-victory, one-defeat stretch that sent them to Philly.

Do you think Holliday touched the plate? Did it matter? Especially since Barrett didn't hold onto the ball?

Discussion

  • October 2, 2007

    9:14 AM

    Uninformed Lefty Wingnut writes:

    If he didn't, it is all Bush's fault.

  • October 2, 2007

    9:30 AM

    jay writes:

    No decent camera angle to either confirm nor deny.

    We'll never know.

    From our standpoint last night...it looked like his hand pushed Mike's foot back across the plate...and would seemingly have had to brush across the side of the plate in the process.

    For the record...what a punk ass play spiking his hand as he came in.....

  • October 2, 2007

    9:31 AM

    Nathan writes:

    He did. That's how his hand got stepped on.

  • October 2, 2007

    9:46 AM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Based on the way the catchers leg is swept back, I would say yes. In addition the catcher was wrong to block the plate before he had posession of the ball.

  • October 2, 2007

    9:50 AM

    Oh Wise One writes:

    Was the homerun in the sixth a double? Why yes it was, I saw it clearly though the umpire didn't.
    So, this umpire saw Matt brush the base with his hand as he slide past. That's the way the ball bounces, sucks to be a Padres fan.

  • October 2, 2007

    9:51 AM

    GOROCKIES! writes:

    Normally in October in Denver the plate would have been cold and slightly smaller - but - because of global warming it was just slightly larger and Holliday was just able to touch the plate as he slid by. Thank you global warming!

  • October 2, 2007

    9:58 AM

    mark colorado springs writes:

    Matt Holliday used physic ability and "the force" to convince any ump that he was safe. He had too because the umps were still reeling from the no home run call.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:08 AM

    Pass Me That Drink writes:

    A Tainted Win is better than a non-tainted Loss.

    Sure he was out - but I got drunk anyway.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:14 AM

    Chin Music writes:

    Matt's pouty lips secured the winning run.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:14 AM

    DR writes:

    I don't think we can be 100% certain either way, but let's say he didn't for a sec.

    I'll trade that non-touch, for the definite homer that was bounced back onto the field and called a double, and Todd Helton being called out at first when he was at least safe by the "tie goes to the runner rule", if not outright beating the throw.

    The games often aren't called perfectly, and the call made is the call that stands, including McClellan's "safe" call on Holliday to end the game. Case closed.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:14 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    It's obviously Bill and/or Hillary Clinton's fault.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:14 AM

    Ranman writes:

    All the home runs that were taken away from us this season including the one earlier in the game, makes it the Rockies Destiny to be in the Divisional playoffs. The umpire had a strike zone as big as a .50 cent piece for us all day, and besides you can't block the plate without the ball anyway!!!!!!
    Ranman

  • October 2, 2007

    10:17 AM

    Ranman writes:

    All the home runs that were taken away from us this season including the one earlier in the game, makes it the Rockies Destiny to be in the Divisional playoffs. The umpire had a strike zone as big as a .50 cent piece for us all day, and besides you can't block the plate without the ball anyway!!!!!!

  • October 2, 2007

    10:17 AM

    Nick Snow writes:

    It was the first time all night the home plate umpire gave the Rockies the corner.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:25 AM

    Chico Esquela writes:

    It was a very disaapointing way to end what was a classic, well-played playoff game.

    It always sucks to have a game decided on a bad call, even when "my" team wins because of it.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:26 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    Did anyone in the designated wheelchair zone (where all the EMPTY wheelchairs were located behind a low fence designed not to obstruct their vision), try to snag a home-fun ball and cause it to bounce back onto the field of play, thereby reducing the Atkins' home run into a double?

    And what were those outfield umpires doing just 50-feet behind the infield umpires? Shouldn't they have been positioned back by another 50-75 feet in order to maximize their view of such events as per the above? I noticed this long before Cal Ripken mentioned it.

    In the end, it all evens-up.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:28 AM

    just sayin' writes:

    Yes he did touch the plate. I could clearly see his index finger underneath the catcher's cleat.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:33 AM

    No Crying in Baseball writes:

    Except for the Home Run / Ground Rule double call, the Padres got screwed all night long. Their strike zone was smaller than the Rockies all day long.

    But, that's the disadvantage of being a road team - the home team generally gets the breaks from the Umps, and we saw that last night.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:40 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    no crying .... LOL .... HAHAHAHAHA .... ROFL

    for 'no crying' you're sure doing it, and for no reason ... yeah, the ump probably made an incorrect call on a pitch or two, but it had nothing to do with which team was up .... remember that one guy chewing on the ump over called strikes .. and a couple rockies did the same thing too ... it was a pretty evenly and cleanly called game all around

  • October 2, 2007

    10:44 AM

    Neo mcKennedy writes:

    I guess it really doesn't matter, there are no instant replays or red flags to throw in Baseball! GO ROCKIES!

  • October 2, 2007

    10:44 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    The replays show very clearly that he did not touch it, in fact, it was impossible because there was a shoe in the way.

    But remember - Umpires do not have the benefit of replay. When I saw it in "real time" I was positive that he touched it, too.

    Sh*t Happens.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:53 AM

    Emily writes:

    I saw only two replays, and one was inconclusive but the other one seemed to show that he did.

    The Padres manager seemed to think he did, as well.

    And Barrett never picked up the ball and tagged Holliday out anyway. So it's a moot point.

  • October 2, 2007

    10:55 AM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Posted by on October 2, 2007 10:44 AM

    You obviously did not see the foot get brushed out of the way. How did that happen if Matts hand did not move it out of the way?

  • October 2, 2007

    10:56 AM

    Brainwashed Right-Wing Sheeple writes:

    The Umpires were making calls againt the Rox all night long, undoubtedly part of the vast Liberal conspiracy.

    Anyone else notice that the Home Plate umpire looked like Ted Kennedy?

  • October 2, 2007

    11:07 AM

    logical writes:

    The fat lady done sung.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:07 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    YAWN

  • October 2, 2007

    11:12 AM

    JMan writes:

    There were many questionable calls all night. Matt's hand was clearly under Mike's cleat. Mike also blocked the plate without holding the ball. Easy call.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:13 AM

    JMan writes:

    There were many questionable calls all night. Matt's hand was clearly under Mike's cleat. Mike also blocked the plate without holding the ball. Easy call.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:17 AM

    get a life writes:

    I love the comment by "No Crying in Baseball"--he proceeds to do nothing but cry about the Pads getting screwed all night long, the strike zone being smaller, visiting team always at a disadvantage... thanks for the insights.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:27 AM

    SlouchingtowardBoulder writes:

    Jay

    This is obviously part of Bush's NSA program.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:29 AM

    SlouchingtowardBoulder writes:

    Bush's NSA syping program is, obviously, behind ALL of this. ALL of it!! Wait ... gotta go, I think he's tapped my phone!

  • October 2, 2007

    11:45 AM

    am 760 writes:

    If they would have got the Atkins homerun call right it would have never even gotton to that point.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:49 AM

    Bill writes:

    It does not matter - In my view, guarding the plate and stepping on the runners hand to impede being able to touch the plate is no different than pushing someone off of a base and tagging them out.
    Academic.........

  • October 2, 2007

    11:54 AM

    Tree writes:

    Thank Hogar for Tivo, I slept thru it all and watched it this morning. Don't know if he touched the plate, but he needs to take superman sliding lessons from from Pete Rose.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:55 AM

    Cheating and Winning Beats Not Cheating and Losing writes:

    There is no controversy here - the replay shows - very clearly and conclusively - that the runner never touched the plate.


    But, he was called safe, and thats all that matters.

    Period.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:00 PM

    McGowdog writes:

    Yes, he touched the plate. I saw it on my Tera-Fi HD replay. Holliday zipped his fingernail across the plate and zipped it back while his chin skidded across the dirt. It was really so fast, it was hard to see. It almost looked like he missed it.

    Atkin's home run had to be called a double to bring up this drama. Hoffman had to be put out there just to show the Destiny and Resolve of the Rox. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! was gonna stand in the way of a Rockies win.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:01 PM

    McGowdog writes:

    Yes, he touched the plate. I saw it on my Tera-Fi HD replay. Holliday zipped his fingernail across the plate and zipped it back while his chin skidded across the dirt. It was really so fast, it was hard to see. It almost looked like he missed it.

    Atkin's home run had to be called a double to bring up this drama. Hoffman had to be put out there just to show the Destiny and Resolve of the Rox. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! was gonna stand in the way of a Rockies win.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:02 PM

    McGowdog writes:

    Yes, he touched the plate. I saw it on my Tera-Fi HD replay. Holliday zipped his fingernail across the plate and zipped it back while his chin skidded across the dirt. It was really so fast, it was hard to see. It almost looked like he missed it.

    Atkin's home run had to be called a double to bring up this drama. Hoffman had to be put out there just to show the Destiny and Resolve of the Rox. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! was gonna stand in the way of a Rockies win.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:40 PM

    ednsd writes:

    Admittedly, I was rooting for the Pads, but he never touched the plate. Doesn't matter now.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:42 PM

    ednsd writes:

    Admittedly, I was rooting for the Pads, but he never touched the plate. Doesn't matter now.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:46 PM

    Edgar writes:

    It's even. The 'double' off the padded beam should have been a homer, so let's just enjoy the victory even though Holliday clearly didn't touch home plate. The Padres also didn't dispute, most notably the catcher who said he had never questioned that particular umpire on any home plate calls, on that specific play or in the past .

  • October 2, 2007

    12:48 PM

    great blog for the unwashed masses writes:

    BORING. YAWN.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:48 PM

    Scott writes:

    For all these people who claim the replay showed, inconclusively, that Holliday's hand DIDN'T touch the plate, I would suggest you watch it frame by frame and see what really happened. It was clear when I watched the slow motion replay, frame-by-frame, that the catcher actually stepped on Holliday's hand (notice his toe in the air when he reached for the ball followed by his foot stepping down when he reached for the tag). And since his foot was on the plate, and then dragged across the plate (you were wondering why his foot slid like that, weren't you?)...which means that Holliday's hand slid across the plate (with the catcher's foot on top of it). During one frame of the replay, the dirt cleared and you could actually see Holliday's hand under his foot...which coincides with Holliday's immediate explanation of how his hand got stepped on. Go look again at the replay and see what really happened.

  • October 2, 2007

    12:54 PM

    Jon writes:

    Whatever happened, someone needs to teach the 6'-4", 235 pound Matt Holliday how to lower his shoulder and blow up the catcher. If he'd just come in like an out of control freight train, this whole argument would be moot and they'd still be pealing the SD catcher off the field.

  • October 2, 2007

    1:04 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    From Section 118 it sure looked like he got the plate. Great end to an amazing couple of weeks.

  • October 2, 2007

    1:06 PM

    Darrell writes:

    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.
    Since Barrett didn't have the ball, Holliday is ruled safe, regardless of whether he touched the plate - this is a section of the obstruction rule.

  • October 2, 2007

    1:20 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Tree,

    Here is one of the quotes from Rose regarding his collision with Fosse.

    “I just want to get to that plate as quickly as I can. Besides, nobody told me they changed it to girls’ softball between third and home.”

  • October 2, 2007

    1:32 PM

    Alan writes:

    I think the delayed call says it all. Too bad a fine game was spoiled by inexcusably weak and unprofessional umping. Now Rockies fans are doing what Giants fans did all season with Barry Bonds -- trying to find any rationale to justify a tarnished and cheapened achievement, while the rest of the nation knows better. Heck, you could see the TBS announcers were just chomping to call it a blown call. The Rockies had a good run, and showed grit, but I hope they lose to the Phillies, because any titles will now seem tainted.

  • October 2, 2007

    1:48 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    It doesn't matter, the catcher obstructed the plate without having the ball. The umpire made a judgement call. Those are the rules.

  • October 2, 2007

    1:50 PM

    Chris writes:

    They need to add another response to the poll: "Doesn't matter, the runner is called safe, as per the Note to rule 7.06"

    It's a good thing the catcher couldn't hold on to the ball!

  • October 2, 2007

    1:52 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Alan,

    From what I have heard, this umpire is not known for making quick calls. That to me says that he wants to be sure before he actually makes the call. I do not have the required expertise to judge his skills, but if he never makes a quick call, then I would say he is being consistent.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:05 PM

    history buff writes:

    What a great game. From section 120, I couldn't tell if Holliday touched home, but it sure looked close. The home plate ump made a delayed call, but he did that all night on balls and strikes.

    The problem with the replay is that there is so much dirt around home plate, it is not as easy to tell if the runner touched home as it is in basketball or football when there is an out of bounds call.

    I reckon the Rox could have argued rule 7.06 if Holliday was called out. It looked like the ump would have called him out if Barrett held onto the ball.

    As it were, I've never heard such a thunderous roar from a crowd before. Maybe Caesar returning from Gall received such an ovation.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:13 PM

    dan writes:

    Jays fan here so no bias....pretty conclusive he did NOT touch the plate and to those who have quoted rule 7.06 the rule clearly states that if the fielder is in the process of fieldeing the ball he has the right to block the plate....wtihout a doubt barret was in that process regardless of whether he made the play or not...when he went back to tag holliday that should have been a double polay with the game tied....as for the homerun by the rules that is a double but very unfotunately so for the rockies...anywyas what a ballgame...great to watch!

  • October 2, 2007

    2:20 PM

    Oh Wise One writes:

    Alan, the only taint, is your brain. Taser this, bitach.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:24 PM

    Valerie writes:

    Even if Holliday had been called out it would not have been the third out. The game was tied at this point and the Rox would have had a guy on base. So who knows what would have happened from there? Hey I know, there should be a camera implanted in the home plate!

  • October 2, 2007

    2:25 PM

    474 days to go writes:

    Blocking the base with the ball is fine but he dropped the ball and that makes the runner safe by rule when he blocks the base. Get it? This is also why the umpire waited until he saw the dropped ball. Thank God he was calling the game not the SD fans.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:35 PM

    474 days to go writes:

    I personally think Holliday was pretty nice to not level the catcher. My high school coach taught me to knock the catcher down hard for blocking. Dislodging the catcher from the ball is legal too if he is stupid enough to block the base. His attempt to block may have caused him to mishandle the ball too.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:38 PM

    DR writes:

    474 - Could you please make that count go faster? No? Darn.

    Anyway, good points on the play at the plate. It's all academic at this point, as the Rox are the ones in Philly getting ready for the game.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:41 PM

    474 days to go writes:

    Dan,

    He wasn't fielding the ball. The ball had already been fielded. Fielding the ball is catching it off the hit not a throw from a teammate. Start with definitions next time.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:42 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Valerie,

    If Holliday had been called out, there would not have been anyone on base, and the psychology would have been greatly changed from the rally that had been taking place. But fortunately these are all academic conversations.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:45 PM

    Sun writes:

    He didn't, but the Rox won.

  • October 2, 2007

    2:48 PM

    Ralph writes:

    It doesn't matter if he touched the plate or not. The catcher interfered with the runner during his attempt to get to the base. The catcher did not have the ball when blocking the plate. By rule, the runner is entitled the the base, which, in this case, is home plate. He was automatically safe when Barrett blocked the plate without the ball.

  • October 2, 2007

    3:00 PM

    Doug Stuhr writes:

    It is a point not even worth discussing. The home plate ump called him safe, so he was safe and the game was over.

    The Home plate ump gave Peavy way more generosity than any Rocky Pitcher. Can we get those strikes back, no! And they can't have the alleged missed plate touch back either.

    The outfielder Brady Clark and Trevor Hoffman were more responsible for the Pads losing the game than Matt Holiday skidding across the home plate area on his face.

    Bravo Bravo to the Rockies

  • October 2, 2007

    3:27 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    I just watched the videos which show the play from several angles and I don't think the catcher interferred with the base path before he actually made contact with the ball. I think it is still possible that Matt tag the plate as he swept the catcher's foot off the plate, but it is definitely hard to see for sure.

    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071002&content_id=2245357&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

  • October 2, 2007

    3:27 PM

    Beth writes:

    I don't think he touched the plate. The catcher never caught the ball. He was blocking the plate without the ball. SO... was he fielding the ball or blocking the plate illegally?

  • October 2, 2007

    3:28 PM

    Beth writes:

    I don't think he touched the plate. The catcher never caught the ball. He was blocking the plate without the ball. SO... was he fielding the ball or blocking the plate illegally?

  • October 2, 2007

    3:32 PM

    Tulsa Fan writes:

    According to an official comment to 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 same rule also states that "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." It is clear from the video that the catcher never had the ball in his hand when Holliday was sliding into home. He also was not "fielding a ball" so as to excuse his obstruction of the plate. The official comment to the definition of obstruction set forth in Rule 2.00 states, "If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered 'in the act of fielding a ball.'" What is clear from this comment is that the obstruction must have been necessary in order for the fielder to receive the thrown ball. The catcher in Holliday's case did not have to stick out his leg so as to block Holliday's hand in order to receive the ball. That act was thus an illegal obstruction, not an act of fielding. Holliday, whether he touched home plate or not, was entitled to the base and the Rox win without controversy.

  • October 2, 2007

    3:36 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    Beth,

    If you look at the videos shot down the third base line, the catcher slides his foot into the baseline after the ball has hit his mitt, and before Matt reaches for the plate. The problem is that the ball bounced out of his mitt and he never had posssesion of the ball. If he had gained and maintained possesion of the ball, Matt would have been out, but he was able to move the catchers leg off the plate as he slid in, which allowed him to tag the plate, if indeed he actually accomplished that. I think Matt helped his case by not attempting to reach back for the plate.

  • October 2, 2007

    4:01 PM

    Chris writes:

    See Tulsa Fan's commentary. The rules unambiguously state that what Barrett did was illegal, so it is irrelevant whether or not Holliday touched the plate.

  • October 2, 2007

    4:10 PM

    Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

    I would say that the catcher thought he had possession when the ball hit his glove and his leg went out in reaction to that. If he actually had possession of the ball when it hit his glove the leg block would have been legal and Matt would have been out.

  • October 2, 2007

    4:14 PM

    tdawg writes:

    There was one replay angle (ESPN NEWS late last night) shown from the umps viewpoint looking down the 3rd base line which seemed to CLEARLY show Holliday's hand under the catcher's foot and on the plate. (I also replayed the clip in slo-mo making it even more obvious)

    Funny that replay angle is nowhere to be found today???

  • October 2, 2007

    4:16 PM

    topdawg writes:

    There was one replay angle (ESPN NEWS late last night) shown from the umps viewpoint looking down the 3rd base line which seemed to CLEARLY show Holliday's hand under the catcher's foot and on the plate. (I also replayed the clip in slo-mo making it even more obvious)

    Funny that replay angle is nowhere to be found today???

  • October 2, 2007

    4:24 PM

    history buff writes:

    Oops, made it sound like Caesar was coming back from gallbladder surgery instead of Gaul in earlier post. At any rate, if the political blogs were discussed with such detail as this blog's discussion of the events and applicable rules attributed to Holliday's slide, Harry Palm would shrivel up and die. The discussion of rule 7.06 and relevant definitions makes me wonder why the Constitution and the issues of the day can't be reasoned with such dispassionate objectivity. I actually agree with Hogar's analysis on this one.

    Mark, why no blog about Buffs big win over the Sooners?

  • October 2, 2007

    4:57 PM

    James Doss writes:

    He never even touched the plate! The catcher's left foot stopped Matt's hand. Too bad for the Padres, they deserved to lose.

  • October 2, 2007

    5:05 PM

    Tom writes:


    No brainer !@@!

    Best look is UTube right down foul line to home plate. Home plate is (for the uninitiated) in fair territory. Frame by frame stop action shows ball bouncing 1 foot in front of catcher's mitt--but catcher's left leg is prematurely extending to the foul line blocking the runner's fair territory path to touch home plate--thereby blocking Holliday's hand (or bodily access). Catcher had neither contact nor possession of the ball at the instant the runner needed access to the base. Catcher doesn't have the right to block base-path access (in anticipation of catching a throw) without the ball. Pretty technical--but that's the way it is in a technical situation.

    Blocking access to plate without the ball is catcher obstruction. Runner is entitled to home base. One foot bounce without the ball, nth of a second premature block of base-path may as well be a mile...

    It's a really tough call, though--especially with the umpire positioned behind the catcher's back, the throw coming from right field--not being able to see nearly 3-4 simultaneous events.
    (Base path access, catcher & ball contact/possession, blocking plate, runner sliding.) I'll guarantee you--no fan or sportswriter in their right mind would want to be in plate umpire's shoes on that call! Result is correct, Umpire ruled safe--but should have proclaimed "Obstruction!" Not perfect.

    Did Holliday touch home plate? Unlikely. With that kind of slide and touch, home plate probably would have had telltale evidence (dirt and/or a dirt crease) left behind. McLelland saw we he saw.

    Then again, Holliday could have EMT totaled Barrett on the spot...one hopper makes catcher nearly defenseless. Lucky to survive, let alone catch a ball, make a tag.

    The non-home run? Sitting in a bar watching tv, I commented "Ball coming back on the field with that sort of arc...probably off a seat..."

  • October 2, 2007

    5:27 PM

    Tom writes:

    ...one last thought on the Holliday home plate touch. When Barrett sets his left foot to block access to the plate it's now firmly planted from base line well into foul territory...across the plate.

    Still, it all came out in the wash.

  • October 2, 2007

    5:56 PM

    Philly Phanatic writes:

    Congratulations Colorado, you've had a great season... too bad it has to end in heartbreak at the hands of the REAL MVP of the National League, Jimmy Rollins.

    A winning streak is only as good as your next starting pitcher, and Jeff Francis has been LIT UP by the Phillies this year (20 hits, 14 earned runs, .465 BAA in 8.1 innings) while the Rockies somehow slipped past the Phils' ace Cole Hamels this year without playing him, which should make solving his change-up all the more difficult!

    And as amazing as the Colorado offense has been, they're still only the second best. Because the number one offense in the league is sparked by Jimmy Rollins, who just posted the best offensive year by any NL shortstop... EVER... while also playing all 162 games at the premier defensive position in MLB.

    Congrats Colorado, too bad it has to end!

  • October 2, 2007

    6:48 PM

    derek writes:

    It doesn't matter. I think Holliday DID touch the plate, but considering they didn't give us that other HOME RUN earlier in the game, it's payback anyway. It's even.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:37 PM

    Barty writes:

    Let's go back to the home run. It's kind of important because the Rockies fans are creating a myth that the ball hit a wheelchair and bounces back out. They are taking the Republican party strategy that if you say it enough it becomes true.

    Didn't you watch the replays? Now if you couldn't tell from the replays, didn't you see that quick interview in the stands with the lady that pointed to the exact spot where it hit. ON TOP OF THE WALL. You could clearly seel that the top part of the wall was tied to a railing and it is pretty clear that the ball hit the top of the wal, hit the railing THAT WAS PART OF THE WALL and bounced back on the field a live ball.

    Baseball is a funny game. The Rockies won the game and that's all that will ever remember although it will be talked about for a long time. But let's not CREATE history along the way.

  • October 2, 2007

    11:41 PM

    David writes:

    It was a great battle, but not a great game really. But anyway congrats to the Rockies. The comments on the obstruction rule here are mostly inept. Barrett didn't block the base path or the plate. All Holliday had to do was slide feet first right into Barrett and he would have touched home. Blocking means BLOCKING, not just blocking the inept base runner's hand as he plows toward home. Look at the replay and you'll see that Holliday had access to home plate -- he just chose not to use it! So there was no catcher's interference (Sorry Rockies fans -- why are you moaning anyway, you won!). And no, Holliday never touched the plate. So yes they should still be playing, but they aren't, and that's what you get with the umpires in the MLB these days.

  • October 3, 2007

    12:01 AM

    Garrett Amorose writes:

    Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b) 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.


    He was fielding the ball. The ball hit him in the chest. Where else would you suggest he stand to field the ball other than where the ball is going? It'd be the same if it were a pop fly over the first base line, the fielder has everyright to stand on the base path to field the ball.

    Its 2:00 AM on October 3rd.

    Holliday is yet to touch home plate.

  • October 3, 2007

    7:26 AM

    Hillary C. writes:

    I'm not sure. I'll wait to see what the Republican Party says and blog the opposite....tee hee... has anyone seen my mascara?

  • October 3, 2007

    8:11 AM

    Just a Fact writes:

    It's clear that he did not touch the p[late. The replay makes that very obvious.

    But, an illegitimate win is better than a loss - anytime.

  • October 3, 2007

    8:21 AM

    Laughing at Bushies writes:

    The call at the plate was like the Florida election.

    Find some Bush Republicans to help - they can start spinning propaganda and deceit to show that he really did touch the plate and the victory is legitimate.

    They're good at that - they have years of experience.

  • October 3, 2007

    10:40 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    Republicans don't have to touch the plate...Democrats only know how to pass the plate.

    Rupert Murdock's Rockies were the better team!

  • October 3, 2007

    10:45 AM

    Brainwashed Righty Sheeple writes:

    The replay shows very clearly that Holladay did not touch the plate.

    However, this replay should be ignored because the cameraman who filmed it obviously has a Liberal bias.

  • October 3, 2007

    11:20 AM

    Mitt Romney writes:

    I initially said that Holliday did not touch the plate and that he should have been called out. However, upon further introspection, and after having conferred with my good friends at Focus on the Family in Colorado, who promise to deliver their faithful to my campaign, I have had an epiphany of faith and now stand firmly committed to the position that Holliday was safe.

  • October 3, 2007

    1:42 PM

    Brainwashed Righty Sheeple writes:

    The replay shows very clearly that Holladay did not touch the plate.

    However, this replay should be ignored because the cameraman who filmed it obviously has a Liberal bias.

    Therefore, he touched the plate.

    Anybody who believes that he did not is obviously a Colorado-Hater.

    Why do those people hate Colorado so much?

  • October 4, 2007

    11:17 PM

    Jim P writes:

    Rule 7.06(b) specifically states that the catcher cannot obstruct the plate unless in possession of the ball. He has the right to be there while trying to field a "thrown" ball, but his right goes away if he doesn't gain possession. As long as he catches it 1 microsecond before collision, he's cool.. But if he misses it, an obstruction can occur.

    There is a separate rule covering attempts to field a "batted" ball. In that case, the defensive player DOES have the right to be in the basepath and the base runner is even given special permission to go outside the basepath (in this one case) without being called out.

    Jim (the former amateur umpire)

  • October 5, 2007

    12:57 AM

    Mark writes:

    Hey, Jim -- the former umpire -- buy a clue. Barrett didn't obstruct home plate. Look at the replay. All Holliday had to do was slide feet first and he would have slid right over home plate. All Barrett did was put his foot in the base path. And you know the base path is wider by definition than his foot.

    Have you been an amateur umpire all your life, or did they just stop paying you? :-)

  • October 9, 2007

    1:40 AM

    KP writes:

    In my opinion, no one has any right to say that Holiday touched the plate or not. Every replay that has been on ESPN and on the internet proves nothing. You cant see his hand hitting the plate because only two camera angles are used. Where is the camera that overlooks the 3rd baseline? The camera that overlooks homeplate doesnt even show the play. The camera gets lifted up just as hes about to hit. I think that the only way to tell is to see it from more then two camera angles. Only then will I believe that he didnt touch homeplate.

  • October 12, 2007

    4:51 PM

    DF writes:

    KP -- what is your opinion about whether or not Orenthal killed Ron and Nicole? Do you "need another camera angle?" Belay that question. If Holliday's hand touched home, which it didn't because the line he took with his hand, which is visible clearly on the close-up video everyone has seen, doesn't intersect with home plate -- it's basic geometry 101. And home plate would have the dirt that his hand churned up on it. It doesn't. Besides, why are you still writing about this on October 9?? Whoops, better belay that question as well. Anyway you said we don't have a right to say one way or the other, in your opinion. Read the Constitution. We have rights. The point is that the umpire blew the call by focusing only on whether or not Barrett held on to the ball. Blown call -- Rockies win -- that's life.

Join the discussion

Required
Required (Will not be published or sold)

Talk to me

Featured today

Today's poll

Search this blog

Recent posts

Chat transcripts

Caption this!