If you have any information about the whereabouts of this replay you are urged to contact this website.
Or, if you just want to know more about this play, then please check out the rest of the site.
If you have any information about the whereabouts of this replay you are urged to contact this website.
Or, if you just want to know more about this play, then please check out the rest of the site.
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.”
While its hard to create a chronology of how the description of “inconclusive” came into being with 100% accuracy, I’ll try to outline what I feel are the major points in the days right after the game.
From there the word “inconclusive” was cited by multiple sources and represented the dominant opinion in media accounts of the replays. Of course the use of the word “inconclusive” to describe replays of Holliday’s slide has other potential root sources. The word could have been stripped from the vernacular of NFL replays. since no lexicography has yet been defined for the evaluation of baseball replays, it seems that the terms of Football’s replays may have been called in to pinch hit. There is also the possibility that the replays are in fact inconclusive. But before we assume that, we’d have to know what happened to the missing “reverse angle” first base camera video. And even without that missing footage, we have to explore the possibility that, while no single replay angle shows the whole play, we can in fact combine various camera angles to obtain conclusive proof that Holliday missed the plate. That is one of the things I have tried to do on this site, and despite the handicap of not having access to original footage, I feel that goal has been accomplished. Why none of the major media outlets have undertaken similar steps to prove the matter either way is debatable.
What isn’t debatable is that the initial impression of the TBS broadcast crew that had access to all of the replays including, presumably, the “reverse angle,” was that Holliday’s hand “never got home plate.” Somehow along the way, this original source assessment was discarded in favor of the term “inconclusive” and it remains to be seen if the pendulum will once again swing the other way.
If you google 7.06(b) today, you will find that many of the references listed are from discussion forums, or even websites such as this one, where the rule is cited by armchair umpires across America. In attempt to present an authoritative voice on the topic, I decided to contact Mr. Evans who was gracious enough to spend a few minutes of his time discussing the topic with me. According to MLB.com, the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring is one of “only two umpiring schools approved by The Professional Baseball Umpire Corp. (PBUC), which oversees all professional baseball umpires.” It should therefore go without saying that Mr. Evans is an expert on this subject and that his opinion is a well informed one, to say the least.
======================================
See the play this interview refers to below (with added commentary)
======================================
I informed Mr. Evans in advance that I had no intention of asking him to comment directly on if Matt Holliday was safe or out. It’s not that I wasn’t curious about his thoughts on the play, but I felt that asking him to specifically comment on the disputed safe call would be inappropriate. My intention for this interview was to explore only the issue of obstruction and so I limited my questions solely to that area. As such, Mr. Evans interview here should NOT been seen as an endorsement of this site’s position that Holliday missed the plate. The interview went on for about 10 minutes but, due to space considerations, I will only present the pertinent excerpts here. However, I hope to make the entire audio file available if I can figure out how to do that.
************************
Holliday Never Touched the Plate . COM: What’s happened is with this play there’s a lot of people on the web who have called (the play) into question, and are searching the major league rules and are citing the rules that apply to the play. And, when you look for the comments on the web via search engine, its really hard to get to the truth and I’m wondering if you could tell me what you think the applicable rules were on that play. I’m assuming of course that you are familiar with it (the play.)
Jim Evans: Yes. The catcher was totally within his rights in what he did. There’s totally no obstruction. Anybody who says that there’s obstruction has no experience in enforcing official baseball rules. Unquestionably no obstruction. The catcher was in the act of fielding the ball . And in section 2 he’s given full right to occupy that position if he’s in the act of fielding the ball. And so he had a right to be there. The fact that he did not have the ball at the time of the contact is ridiculous because he cannot vaporize, if the ball had left his possession and he continued to lie there and block the plate now you have obstruction. But as long as the aftermath is immediate like that, its nowhere near obstruction. There’s a reference in the rule book to obstruction when the example they give is when a ball is hit by the first baseman, and he dives for it, and loses it, and then continues to lie on the ground and impedes the progress of the runner from first, then you have obstruction. But the key to it is if he continues to lie on the ground. So the play at the plate wasn’t even , obstruction wasn’t even considered. You have hundreds of those plays a season happen, and there’s no obstruction.
…..
Holliday Never Touched the Plate . COM: I just want to thank you for taking the time to clear this up because it is a topic that is receiving a lot of discussion on the web…
Jim Evans: I’ve been in baseball for over thirty years, teaching and I’ve got the Academy and everything… Anybody that thinks that’s obstruction doesn’t know much about the professional enforcement (of the baseball rules). There may be some rule somewhere that I’m not even aware of in high school or college, and I know there’s some safety rules involved and must slide rules, you’ve got to slide directly into the base, and all kinds of different things. And so, you know I don’t claim to know or be an expert on high school, college, federation, or youth baseball rules, but if you’re enforcing the official baseball rule book, that is not, definitely not obstruction. He’s in the act of fielding the ball. He has a right to be there.
************************
After reading this I hope you can see that all arguments along the lines of “Holliday was safe because Barrett obstructed the plate” have just been fully and totally negated. Really. I don’t think that you will be able to find a more credible source anywhere than the man who is responsible for running one of the only two camps that trains MLB’s umpires. That I am the one who had to seek out Mr. Evans as a source to comment on obstruction as it relates to Holliday’s slide and Barrett’s block is further evidence of the lack of coverage that the media has afforded this disputed call.
If you still want to claim that Barrett obstructed Holliday, you are essentially saying that you know more about professional baseball rules and their enforcement than Mr. Evans does, in which case you are urged to use this site’s contact form to set up an interview.
Henceforward, all comments about blocking and obstruction of the plate as they relate to Matt Holliday’s slide and Michael Barrett’s block should be referred to this page.
ADMIN
http://www.HollidayNeverTouchedThePlate.com
If you can watch this video and still think that Holliday touched the plate then you probably think O.J. Simpson is innocent also. Well maybe that’s a little harsh but you get the idea. Holliday’s hand clearly comes out from underneath Michael Barrett’s foot before he could have touched the plate. Barrett’s heel remains flatly on the ground while his foot blocks Holliday’s hand all the way beyond the plate as Holliday continued his slide.If and when the reverse angle video ever does surface (and just where the heck is it right now?) it could potentially be the only “single shot” proof that Holliday missed the plate. Until then, the best that can be done is this multiple angle, cross referenced, replay that clearly shows, Matt Holliday never touched the plate.
In all likelihood, these copyright complaints were not filed in an episode of targeted enforcement to curb discussion of the issue on this site, but rather the complaints were almost certainly filed as part of a broader effort to scrub illegal MLB content from YouTube. I can imagine some intern having the job of searching through every video that incorporates MLB footage and simply sending copyright infringement notices to YouTube on all of them without even bothering to evaluate the context of the use of said footage. Of course the vast majority of baseball highlights that are posted on YouTube are in fact in violation of copyright regulations and MLB Advanced Media is entirely within their rights to ask that they be taken down. However by including this site’s video in the complaint, MLB Advanced Media has cast an overly broad net.
Some may wonder why this site’s videos are hosted on YouTube and not on the site server. While there are several reasons for this arrangement, two stand out. The first is that it’s cheaper. This is a non-commercial site. There are no products being sold, no paid referral links, not even google adwords. This means that the site has no income stream. Without the ability to raise cash, this site would be unable to afford the bandwidth costs that the viewing of large media files would incur. The second reason relates to usability factors. Because they are so easy to use for viewers and content posters alike, third party sites such as YouTube offer a viable alternative to self hosting video on a dedicated server.
The following affected videos are now hosted on Google as of Sunday October 14th.
Matt Holliday Never Touched the Plate
Multi-angle: Matt Holliday Never Touched the Plate
and
Matt Holliday Never Touched The Plate - Three Camera angles
I will continue to try and keep these videos up as they are essential for the public discussion of whether or not Matt Holliday touched the plate. Imagine trying to determine the answer to that question without being able to see the replays and you’ll see why they are needed.
By my calculations, McClelland will reprise his home plate roll when the series moves to Colorado for game five. That’s a potential storyline that would be hard to ignore. But, since it could lead to an on-air rexamination of his performance the last time he was behind the plate in Denver, the story could be ignored or downplayed since MLB might be looking to avoid any such critique.
Pardon me for shouting but, WHERE THE HELL DID THIS COME FROM AND WHERE IS THE VIDEO FROM THIS CAMERA? In the days following the game, ESPN and other media outlets kept repeating that “the replays were inconclusive” like a bunch of parrots. However, when ESPN was addressing the question they never used this shot or any of the video from this angle. All the video they used from behind home was either heavily cropped to remove the plate, or had Holliday’s body obscuring the plate. Did ESPN bother to try and track down the video from this camera? Who knows? Perhaps Bud Selig, taking a page from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s playbook on how to deal with a video tape scandal, has already ordered the footage destroyed. This “grassy knoll” cameraman has a perfect clear view of Holliday as he attempts to touch the plate and yet the video has never surfaced to settle the controversy.
In reality I think the possibility that some incredible conspiracy has made this footage disapper is practically nil. But I do think that officials at MLB hinting to ESPN not to show the video is within the realm of possibility, however remote. But, even if this video isn’t missing as the result of conspiracy or unilateral action, the question still remains, where is it? If this video turns out to be “inconclusive” why keep it from view as it can’t hurt anything to show it? If the video were to prove that Holliday was safe, why is it being hidden when it could settle the argument? Should we assume that producers keep forgetting to show the best angle of the slide seen to date and that its omission is just an accident?
The best rational explanation for the continued absence of this live shot from all replays is that it proves that Holliday never touched the plate or otherwise brings McClelland’s call into serious question. The continued withholding of this key footage could be yet another sign that MLB is actively trying to shape the story around McClelland’s call. If MLB has nothing to hide, why is this footage still missing?
The next day another Sportscenter show aired that again used the TBS footage, but with only two angles shown, and more importantly with the framing altered so that less of the slide could be seen. Compare the shots contained in the image below.
What makes the change in framing of the replay shots curious is that they were used in a segment where the three ESPN analysts were specifically addressing the question of whether or not Matt Holliday touched the plate. You can’t see Tim McClelland still moving as the play was happening. You can’t see see the on deck hitter Brad Hawpe’s lack of celebration as he watches the play. You can’t see how far Holliday’s body moves away from the third base line as he tries do dive around the tag. After the abbreviated and altered shots were shown, Tim Kurkjian dismissed the issue by saying, “I don’t think he touched the plate either, but its inconclusive.” Really? Well it seems to me that if you are going to address the question of if Matt Holliday touched the plate, that it might be a good idea to use the best replays possible. If you’re ESPN and you’re going to tell your viewers that the replays are “inconclusive” it just doesn’t make sense to use fewer replay angles and then alter the framing of the replays you do show so much that you actually cut out the plate during the tag. In fact, I would argue that that you should make an extra effort to find the best replays and perform your best analysis possible, not to just throw some inferior clips out there and then label them “inconclusive.”
It is an indisputable fact ESPN altered the replay clips of Holliday’s slide so that they showed less detail the day after the game than they did post game. The real question is why did they do it? Here are the best possible answers that I can come up with,
If it was choice #1, ESPN was sadly mistaken and did not exercise due journalistic diligence. If it was choice #2, ESPN is guilty of making a choice that resulted in the footage not being attributed to MLB/TBS. If it was choice #3, however, well that’s just plain bad and opens up a whole host of shady issues. Issues like, Why are they changing the clips? Who told them to change the clips? etc. I threw in #4 because there could be other reasons so you can lump them all in here.
Just so you can see the original ESPN clips, I’ve placed links to them below as well as an embedded YouTube link to where I have extracted just the replays from both Sportscenters and compare them directly.
Post game ESPN Sportscenter clip
Next day ESPN Sportscenter clip
Q: What year comes next in the following sequence: 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, XXXX?
A: 2007
Those dates are important because they are the most recent years that McClelland has umpired in a League Championship Series (LCS.) In addition to those LCS dates, he worked the World Series in 2000, 2002, and 2006, and Divisional Series in 1997, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. If this pattern of post season assignments were to hold true this year, MLB would name McClelland to either the NL or the AL Championship Series in 2007.
It remains to be seen whether the blown call will prevent McClelland from getting one of this year’s plum post season assignments. If MLB names McClelland to a crew, his presence will generate increased attention to, and scrutiny of, the ending of the Padres vs Rockies one game playoff. This is a situation I’m sure MLB would like to avoid. On the other hand, if MLB leaves McClelland off the post season assignment list, it has to be considered a form of censure given McClelland’s recent post season appearance history. It would look as if MLB passed him by because they felt he handled the call of Holliday’s slide poorly. This could be spun several ways but in the end it would always look as if MLB was basically admitting that the Holliday safe call was wrong.
MLB can’t like its options here too much as either course of action will result in some sort of negative publicity for them. As of the time this article was written the LCS umpiring crews have yet to be named. It will be interesting to see what happens this week, as in a odd twist of fate, the first batter stepping up to the plate in the LCS will be MLB itself, as it attempts to resolve its McClelland dilema one way or another.