How the replays of Holliday’s slide came to be described as being “inconclusive.”
Just how did the replays of Matt Holliday’s slide come to be described as “inconclusive?” On October 2nd, the day after the game, two major media outlets, one in print, and one in video, went with the “inconclusive” description. One of those outlets was ESPN whose coverage changed markedly from the TBS’ announcers call of the play. The other outlet was the Associated Press who went with a story that contained the description of inconclusive within the following sentence “Replays were inconclusive on whether Holliday touched the plate with his left hand or was blocked by Barrett’s left foot.” Together these two assessments carried the message to America that there were in fact no replays that showed the play clearly.
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.
- Oct. 1st - The TBS broadcast: When the play was reviewed live on air during the TBS broadcast of the game, the key comment was: “the hand never got home plate.” If you click the “Carroll drives in Holliday” link on this page under the More Coverage related links section you will hear the comments PLUS you will see the only still frame I have been able to locate from the “reverse angle replay” first base camera.
- Oct. 1st -ESPN post game Sportscenter: It was during this broadcast that the word “inconclusive” first appeared. When showing the replay in slow motion the key comment was, “More importantly Michael Barrett sticks out his left foot blocking Holliday from touching home plate. Did he touch home? Yeah ,Ump says yes but we look at it again, and inconclusive to maybe no.” While the word “inconclusive” is used, its clear from the context that ESPN thought it was highly possible, or at least more likely, that Holliday missed the plate.
- Oct. 2nd - AP story by Arnie Stapleton: The AP story by reporter Arnie Stapleton contained the fateful phrase “replays were inconclusive on whether Holliday touched the plate with his left hand or was blocked by Barrett’s left foot.” What we don’t know is if Mr. Stapleton ever saw the reverse angle replay from the first base cameras. This story is widely featured in online and print media and represents the dominant assesment of the replays at the time.
- Oct. 2nd - Bud Selig weighs in on the play: On ESPN’s Pardon The Interruption, Tony Kornheiser notably railed against the call deriding it as a blown call. Significantly however, later in the program (here is ESPN’s podcast link) Bud Selig offered his opinion on if Holliday touched the plate, ” I really believe he did, but if I supose somebody said they were inconclusive that would not be a bad answer.” So here you have the commissioner of baseball stating for the record that he feels a description of “inconclusive” would not be a bad way to describe the replays. It’s impossible to know if this pronouncement colored ESPN’s view of the play but that can’t be ruled out.
- Oct. 2nd - ESPN next day Sportscenter: The following day, when many were tuning in to see the play for the first time, ESPN changed its assessment of the play. In this clip Steve Levy, Orel Hershiser, and Tim Kurkjian debate the slide before Kurkjian offers the final pronouncement of “I don’t think he got to the plate either, but its inconclusive.” You’ll notice that ESPN uses a heavily cropped set of replays this time, even cutting out the plate in some spots. The message sent on Oct 2nd by ESPN was that you could have an opinion about the slide but that the replays would be inconclusive. Sadly I don’t know the taping times of these two shows but if PTI were taped first, it is possible that Selig’s comments helped shape Kurkjian’s opinion.
- Oct. 3rd - AP story by Jim Litke: This story by Jim Litke covered commissioner Selig’s appearance on PTI and was widely syndicated in print and online media. The pertinent excerpt from the article is ” ‘But if somebody said it was inconclusive,’ Selig said during an ESPN interview, his consensus building side peeking through again, ‘that would not be a bad answer.’ ” Litke seems to insinuate that Selig’s message is designed in part to lay down MLB’s official position on the play, that the replays were inconclusive.
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 borrowed 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 descriptive pendulum will once again swing the other way.