Tony Kornheiser calls Matt Holliday out.
Tony Kornheiser did something yesterday that Tim McClelland should have done in the 13th inning the night of Oct 1st. He called Matt Holliday out. While many in the media, including ESPN’s own Sportscenter, have described the replays as being “inconclusive,” Kornheiser has been adamant from day one that Holliday missed home plate. On PTI, the show he co-hosts with Michael Wilbon, Kornheiser asked an increasingly sheepish Matt Holliday point blank about the issue during a segment of “Five good Minutes.” Watch the video below and see how Holliday handles the question at the 3:20 mark.
Holliday trots out, among other things, the now familiar circular argument that “if he (McClelland) says I was safe, I was safe.” The net effect of this video is that Holliday’s non-committal responses and nervous laughter make it seem as if he is almost acknowledging that he missed the plate. A little wink here, a little grin there, and an admission that “that call went our way.’ To his credit Holliday never does say that he touched the plate.
Had the Rockies not swept the Phillies and D-Backs, this interview, and others like it would never have taken place and the disputed call may have been relegated to a historical footnote. But, as much as the Rockies and their fans might wish this topic would go away, it seems as if the scrutiny of Holliday’s slide is only increasing as the World Series draws closer. And more and more as the light of day is being shone upon the play, the message is coming back “Holliday never touched the plate.”
I don’t get what the big deal is. He probably didn’t touch the plate, but even if he was called out the game is still tied with two outs left in the bottom of the inning and and a runner in scoring position. It’s not the Rockies fault the ump got the call wrong. The Rockies had taken momentum at that point and got screwed on Atkins’ would-be homerun double earlier in the game anyway. Bad calls in sports are hardly new and this wasn’t the only one in the game. The Rockies probably would have won the game anyway, so really it doesn’t matter. Making a website about this one call just seems like sour grapes to me.
*************
ADMIN’s RESPONSE:
Thank you for your input. Well, its not an everyday occurrence that a blown call at home in extra innings sends one team home and the other to the playoffs. Then when the media calls all the replays inconclusive, while key footage remains missing, that.s kind of odd too. As for sour grapes, I am actually a Pirates fan and you’ll find that nowhere on this site do I mention that any team got robbed or that one team should have won. Nope. I’m just focusing on one play, the outcome of which I feel is incorrect, and I’ll let others do the sour grapes stuff.
To: Kaylore
Correction, if Holliday was called out, it would’ve been 2 outs bottom of the inning. “The Rockies probably would have won the game anyway, so really it doesn’t matter.” — How can you possibly predict that, especially in a game such as baseball? The Rockies had used up all of their good pitchers, and the last one that they brought out got hit HARD. So how can you possibly say that they would have probably win the game? It could’ve gone either way. And yes, I agree with you that it wasn’t the Rockies’ fault that they got the call. But if you don’t understand why it was such a big deal, then you’re clueless. This was the game that determine who will get into the playoff. So it was a very important game to both the Rockies & the Padres. Well, as a baseball fan, I thought that game was probably one of the best games I have ever watched all season long.
ahahahaha, now you’re going to cite Tony Kornheiser, who doesn’t know his head from his (edited)? That’s rich.
I also don’t undertand what you seem to be implying about the interview. Holliday admits he was “knocked silly” durig the play and doesn’t remeber much. He points out what everybody who has a problem with this site has.
1) There was a cloud of dust.
2) Barrett’s footguard yeilded to his hand
3) McLellan was on top of the play and had a better perspective than your grainy footage
Look just because you made that ridiculous video where you ramble on about a point of reference and how ESPN is deliberately removing conclusive footage, that doesn’t make you right.
And why shouldn’t Matt be laughing? The rockies are on a roll, and as he says they’ve gotten a little lucky down the stretch: hate to break it to you, but it’s part of baseball. I’m not sure that Holliday touched the plate myself, and I’m a huge rockies fan, but you’re still an idiot. There is no conclusive proof either way, there is no ESPN coverup, and Holliday isn’t trying to rub it in your face that he knew he was out.
*************
ADMIN’s RESPONSE:
Spellcheck? Let me set the record straight here on a few things.
1: I never say that there is a conspiracy. I only state that there may be one, and even then I say the chances are low that one actually exists.
2: Conspiracy or no, ESPN did alter its highlight package on the replay and no episode of Sportscenter shows the “reverse angle” replay from the first base cam.
3: Its hard to say that there’s no conclusive proof either way, but where is that missing replay that had the best angle? Maybe that could shed some light on the topic.
Also, don’t you find it odd that in a stadium full of TV cameras and photographers that not a single shot can show that Holliday touched the plate? Or that even McClelland hasn’t said he saw Holliday touch the plate? I still find both of those odd.
I want everyone on here to think of this if you haven’t already
THE BACK EDGE AROUND THE PLATE IS PART OF THE PLATE
you say he did not touch the white part of the plate from the video you show (i still dont see hoe you can tell from the footage that you show on this site if he did or if he didn’t)
BUT you CAN’T see the black part of the plate on this video or any video i have seen
he may or he may not have touched the plate or the back part of the plate
BUT what i am trying to get at is you are not taking all possibilities into mind
THE BLACK PART IS PART OF THE PLATE
do you have proof that he didn’t touch that??
*************
ADMIN’s RESPONSE:
Let me start that I took into account the black edge of the plate when I made my observations and I don’t think Holliday touched the black. However I may have been in error to do so. Your question made me look further into the matter. Here is the description of the plate in the MLB rule book.
1.05
Home base shall be marked by a five-sided slab of whitened rubber. It shall be a 17-inch square with two of the corners removed so that one edge is 17 inches long, two adjacent sides are 81/2 inches and the remaining two sides are 12 inches and set at an angle to make a point. It shall be set in the ground with the point at the intersection of the lines extending from home base to first base and to third base; with the 17-inch edge facing the pitcher’s plate, and the two 12-inch edges coinciding with the first and third base lines. The top edges of home base shall be beveled and the base shall be fixed in the ground level with the ground surface. (See drawing D in Diagram 2.)
So while the rules do mention the bevel, they do not mention the black at all. If you think about it, if any base is going to have exact dimensions its going to be home plate. Otherwise somebody would have long ago come up with a “trick” plate that had a wider black section due to a more gentle bevel angle and a narrower white portion. The more I read the more I thought that the dimensions must be for the white part of the plate only. I read all the applicable sections of the baseball rules and could find no mention of “the black” being considered part of the plate. So I did some googling and came across this book by the late Hal Lebovitz, a hall of fame sportswriter, whose column “Ask Hal” “began in 1957 and ran for decades in the Plain Dealer and the Sporting News.” Here is an excerpt from his book in which he answers this question. This question appears on page 15 of the following linked sample chapter.
“THE EDGE OF HOME PLATE
Q: I keep getting different answers to this question. Is the black edge of home plate part of the actual plate and, therefore, part of the strike zone? Or is it just the outline framing the plate? Is the rule different in softball? Finally, are there regulations regarding the width of the black?
—Duncan Holoday, Cleveland, OH
[1/8/87]
A: The black is just a border. It has nothing to do with home plate and it isn’t even a requirement. Only the white counts. The white slab has a 17-inch front that faces the pitcher, and the pitch has to be over some part of the white in order to be a strike. The plates in softball and baseball are identical. The black border, when there is one, has no size limit. It can be so wide it touches the batter’s box and sometimes I wish a team would install a border that large to make the radio and TV
announcers realize how wrong they are—and how silly—when they say, “That strike just got the black,” or “The pitcher is playing the black perfectly today.” Once more, the black is not part of the plate. And a pitch is not a strike if it only goes over the black”
So according to this source, who seems to be credible, the black is not part of the plate. This would seem to affect not only the strike zone but also if a runner were to only touch “the black.” But I don’t want to say that for sure with only one source so give me a day or two and I’ll dig up some more info. If it turns out that the black is part of the plate, I won’t make any changes since I’ve already made my evaluation based on that supposition. But, if the black turns out NOT to be part of the plate, then you and I will have learned something new and I’ll convert this entire response into a post.
Wow, and to think I could just be playing Halo instead of learning stuff. If I had a TV (which I don’t) and an X-box (don’t have that either) that is.