Home plate umpire Tim McClelland tells what he saw on the Holliday play… sort of
Dan Patrick had MLB umpire Tim McClelland as a guest on his Dan Patrick Online interview program on Wednesday Oct 3rd, just two days after McClelland made his delayed safe call on Holliday’s slide in the bottom of the 13th. As you might expect given his reputation, Patrick pulled no punches when he began the interview by saying McClelland “made a call that I thought that he missed,” and concluded the conversation by sheepishly telling McClelland, “I don’t think Matt Holliday has touched home plate yet Tim.” Between these noteworthy bookends Patrick also asked McClelland about the call directly as well as other topics. Here are some of the highlights:
Patrick: How many times have you seen the replay?
McClelland: I saw it about four or five times right after the game and maybe another four or five times just having TV on.Patrick: And how do you feel?
McClelland: I feel that I… got the call right. (pause) Because I’m not sure that there’s a replay that shows that I got it wrong so I think I got the call right. (pause) I believe I got the call right.
Wow! I’m sure that convinced a lot of people. Given that line of thinking McClelland’s position could be fairly rephrased as “I think I got the call right because there is no replay that shows I got it wrong.” That’s not exactly the kind of statement that is going to defuse speculation that the call was missed. McClelland also conveniently ignored the fact that there is also no replay that shows that he got the call correct! Because there is no confirming replay, McClelland’s logic could also be used against him if someone were to say, “I believe you got the call wrong because there’s no replay that shows you got it right.”
Patrick follows up with a question that got to the point of what criteria was McClelland basing his safe call on. (Note: I considered abbreviating the following questions and responses but decided that there was no way I could do so without introducing a bias so I have included them in full.)
Patrick: I was going by body language and I was reading Holliday. It seemed like he was looking to you for sympathy almost to say “god I hope he thought I got home plate.” And you looked at Barrett just to see if he had held onto the ball. Were you judging the call on whether or not Barrett held onto the ball ?
McClelland: That’s part of what I need to do on that play Dan. When I look at a play… What happened was I saw that Michael Barrett kicked his leg out to try to block the plate off and Matt Holliday kind of slides through it his hand goes through Michael’s leg. It (Barrett’s leg) wasn’t planted in the ground, it was up in the air kind of kicked out in the air and Matt, his hand, or body, kind of pushed Michael’s leg out of the way. And part of my… When I make a call I need to make sure that Michael Barrett retains the ball and so I wait to have Michael Barrett show me the ball and that he has retained possession of it. So I delay the call, I process everything that’s happened and when I saw the ball roll away I knew that Matt was safe at the plate because Michael had not held onto the ball.
Patrick: If Barrett had held onto the ball would Holliday have been out?
McClelland: No.
WAIT! So first McClelland says that Barrett’s leg was “up in the air” and “not planted” which the video clearly shows is not the case, then he says Holliday’s “hand OR body” pushed Barrett’s leg out of the way (it was neither as Barrett’s leg was dragged, not pushed, by Holliday’s hand which was underneath Barrett’s foot), all of which leads up to two statements by McClelland so puzzling that even Klingons must recognize how illogical they are. So mind numbingly contradictory that I’m going to repost those last three sentences again.
McClelland: …I knew that Matt was safe at the plate because Michael had not held onto the ball.
Patrick: If Barrett had held onto the ball would Holliday have been out?
McClelland: No.
Do you see why I couldn’t just go with the short quote? Look at those three lines and try to make sense out of them. Take your time. Draw a flow chart. Construct a proof. Do something that can show how these statement can possibly be true. When you figure it out post it in the comments and I’ll show everyone how clever you are because I couldn’t do it.
There’s a lot more good stuff in the interview so I highly recommend that you visit Dan Patrick’s site and give it a listen. For those of you who may think I’m being overly harsh on McClelland, I can assure you I am not trying to be. I simply can’t understand the logic behind his statements. It’s only two days after the call so he can’t claim the ravages of time for dimming his memory. Nor is there any explanation for the things he says about Barrett’s leg not being planted and being “up in the air,” given that the video replays (which McClelland admits to having seen eight to ten times) show Barrett’s heel firmly and flatly on the ground.
As entertaining and as baffling as some of McClelland’s quotes are, the interview is perhaps most valuable for what you won’t hear him say. At no point in the interview does McClelland ever say he saw Holliday touch home plate. So at least let’s give him some points for honesty.
I think it’s pretty reasonable for the ump to say that since no replay clearly shows he got it wrong, the call on the field is most likely correct (not definitely, but more likely than not). Even with the frame-by-frame analysis you’ve done, it’s hardly conclusive.
And any reasonable implementation of instant replay will only override the call on the field if it’s very clear the call was blown.
Just thought of something else.
I would revisit the question of the arc traced “around” (or “over”) the plate by Barrett’s foot.
Part of the problerm with the shot from up the third base line is that it doesn’t allow us to sense the depth of the penetration plateward of Holliday’s hand or of the retreat of Barrett’s foot at THE critical instant.
Another part of the problem in that shot is that with the dirt cloud forming, we lose track of how large a sliver of the plate is concealed behind Barrett’s foot and the cloud. It’s not much, to be sure, but the adamant assertion that Barrett’s foot is outside the perimeter of the plate (we have to drop an imaginary plumb line) seems to me to go too far. And if his foot is traversing a path across/above a part of the plate, the hand could be doing the same at least for some part of that movement.
Paul,
Take a look at the camera angle down the third base line again. I think you’ll see that Barrett’s heel stays well on the ground. The angle from behind the plate shows that the progress of Barrett’s foot toward the plate stopped when Barrett’s heel reached the plate. Then switch back to the third base angle and you’ll see that Barrett’s foot, with the heel still on the ground, does in fact swing outside the plate. The reason for this is that Barrett’s foot is being dragged by Holliday’s hand away from the plate in the direction of Holliday’s slide.
Also of note is the behavior of Brad Hawpe, the Rockies on deck hitter. He had a clear angle on the play, perhaps even better than McClelland’s. Notice Hawpe’s reaction when Holliday slides past the plate? He’s not celebrating, he’s not jumping up and down, what he’s doing is telling Holliday to touch the plate. See the Denver Post link in the link section
Well-argued.
Now I know how lawyers feel when they’re advocating a dubious case. I’ve tried to get every last inch out of every ambiguity the video offers. But I feel like I’m struggling against an increasing weight of circumstantial evidence. Hawpe’s reaction was not yet in the scales I’d been tinkering with.
As I abandon the field, however, and the oxygen mask is being placed over my nose and mouth, I must say that I sense that I still have a pulse.
The other night on a Philadelphia station (Tuesday? the CBS affiliate?) I thought they offered an expansive shot from behind home plate that was free of the problem of the shrinking frame. The source would have to have been TBS, wouldn’t it? But now I’m not even sure that I saw what I thought I saw on that broadcast.
Amidst this uncertainty, I think I’m on fairly good ground when I say that the plague of gnats that descended on the game between the Indians and Yankees last night must be telling us something. But again, what’s the message? Is it “Heaven is pulling for Cleveland” or “No night baseball in October?”
I’m completely lost.
Great work with the videos.
Great commentary.
Really appreciated the spotlight you put on the ball dropping to the ground under Barrett as a common “reference point” between camera angles.
I’d keep this Web site alive for a while. Maybe, just maybe, a figure like Abraham Zapruder will step forward with footage that would be ultra-decisive.
Your just a p#&*^d of padre fan
+++++++++++++++++
ADMIN RESPONSE
Nope. Pirate fan. And you?