Of course, the umpire could have judged that the ball could have been caught without the plate being blocked in that manner and ruled obstruction, but he didn’t.. He seems to have ruled that in his judgement, some part of Holliday’s hand touched the plate, and because the catcher didn’t have possession of the ball when attempting to make the tag, he was safe.

Replays do seem to show that it was an incorrect call, but a very close one. I guess the question is what do you think should be done about it? Do you suggest a replay system? If so, what type of plays would you include?

Rule 7.06(b) Comment: Under 7.06(b) when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call.
NOTE: 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.

Fielding the ball to me means fielding a batted ball, not a thrown ball. If there had been a squeeze play with Holliday on third, and the ball had been bunted on the third base line, the catcher would have had the right to field the ball in the baseline, and Holliday would have had to avoid contact.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

See this is where the internet doesn’t work that well. We can all look up the rule and decide what we think it means, but as laymen we do not have the training to know how the rules of professional baseball are enforced or how any specific rule interacts with any other applicable rules. Jim Evans does. In this situation the key is to actually know that the definition of obstruction under Rule 2.0 contains the following comment.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: 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.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball.

So there you have it. The baseball rule book itself defines receiving the throw as fielding the ball and allows the umpire to determine this on his own.

Here is why no one has come out and acknowledged that it was the “wrong” call. Because no one in the MLB, Umpires Union, News, Padres, or Rockies organization really cares, and they know nothing can be done about it at this time. If he missed the call, he wouldn’t be the first to do so, and if he got it right. Then there will still be people who will disagree. In the end, it shows that some people take this stuff far more seriously then is needed. IE. This site.

I hate to sound mean about it, but what is the point of this site. To prove a call was wrong? Well, have fun with that. But lets call it what it is. A blatant waste of time. I’ll give you that you are putting a good case forward, but I would suggest putting this sort of effort towards something meaningful.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

To answer your question “what is the point of this site?” let me quote from my ABOUT page,

This disposablog (disposable blog) exists with one main goal in mind, to firmly establish the fact that Colorado’s Matt Holliday never touched the plate when sliding home against the Padres in the the 13th inning of the National League’s 2007 wild card playoff game.

Yes bad calls are made all the time. But they should rightly be remembered as bad calls. They shouldn’t just be whitewashed as being inconclusive. They should be freely acknowledged as being bad calls. With that goal in mind, thank you for the kind assessment about my efforts. But as for this site being a blatant waste of time, I do have to differ with you. With a little more effort this site will be finished and then I can just park it as a resource for those who would like to learn more about the play. I have no intention of keeping this blog updated forever. In fact, the finite scope of this project was one of the things that let me start it. I felt that as a limited scope project it was a good introductory topic for me to learn wordpress on. So if nothing else, on a personal level at least I have picked up the beginnings of a new skill set.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

Nice link. I’ll have to contact him to see if he still has the play on TIVO/DVR.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

Joe, this wasn’t just a blown call, it was a blown call that is not yet fully recognized as being incorrect. Yes it is part of the human element in baseball. And I believe it deserves to be celebrated and remembered as such. It shouldn’t live on as an “inconclusive” play. Rather it should be remembered as one of the greatest blown calls in the game, as one of the pinnacles of the human element in the sport. It’s right up there behind Denkinger and Maier in my book. So, contrary to your admonition, I do not need to leave this alone. In fact I think its something of a challenge to present an alternate viewpoint on the play, especially since I believe that my viewpoint is the correct one. I’m not asking for the call to be reversed, for the record book to be changed, or anything like that and for the record I never did ask for any of those remedies. All I have asked is that those who read that the replays were inconclusive examine the evidence that I have been able to present (which is of course limited since MLB will not release the key replay footage from first base) and take a fresh look at the play. I think that if you really take the time to watch the replays you will see that Holliday never touched the plate.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

Joe, I’m going to give you a pass on saying that I am ignorant of the rules of baseball until after you read this post about the rule of obstruction and its application on this play. And yes somebody has asked Tim McClelland about why he called Holliday safe. Dan Patrick interviewed McClelland two days after the play and you can find excerpts of that interview in this post. At no time does McClelland ever raise the issue of obstruction either in this interview or any other interview. I’m sorry, but I think that if you review your statements you will find them to be baseless in fact.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

Creators of this site? Well there’s only one so I guess maybe it looks like a few people working on it but it is just me and wordpress. As you stated calls are blown all the time. But it isn’t often that a blown call actually decides who goes on in post season play. More importantly from a standpoint of what made me make this site, McClelland’s call was left unchallenged by the majority of the media. They did not show the critical replay that gave the best view of the play, dismissed the replays as being inconclusive without really examining them, and just sort of swept it under the rug. Had the call been acknowledged the next day as being a blown call, I would have had no reason to make this site. But it wasn’t. I just want to try and change that perception, because the reality is that the call was blown. And the only thing that will be accomplished by proving that is to provide the proper historical description for Holliday’s slide.

If it makes you feel better to think the Padres were “robbed” then keep whining. Fact is the Rox were a better team at the end of the year and baseball did not suffer a bit when the Padres stayed home for the playoffs. Had Holliday been called out there would be another website up and running and Rox fans whining about the obstruction-without-possession call all winter.

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

You seem to be implying that a detailed analysis of the play actually reveals that obstruction took place. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you think that I just fabricated the interview with Jim Evans? I urge you to reread the the post and see if you can understand that the man who runs one of only two schools sanctioned by MLB to train umpires says that no obstruction took place. To say that he is wrong really just undermines your whole position. And please show me one place where I say the Padres were “robbed.” I’ve never done that. All I’ve said is that Holliday missed the plate, that the umpire blew the call, and that MLB has taken at least some small steps to help minimize the fallout from the bad call (I.E. Keeping McClelland out of post game interviews and hiding the first base angle replay.)

*************

ADMIN’s RESPONSE:

Nate, I’m afraid you didn’t really read much of this site did you? I never blamed the call for losing the game for the Padres, in fact I never even said who should have or should not have won. I’ve also gone on record that I think Atkin’s hit was a home run. Now as for the central statemnet of this site, that Matt Holliday missed home plate, I see that you have not yet addressed that issue and I am curious to know what you think. You can list item after item and topic after topic but none of what you have said has any relevance to the question of Holliday touching the plate. You might as well be listing the amount of grain harvested this year in Minnesota as that has just as much bearing on the play in question, which is to say zero.