Was The Umps Decision Made By The Rockies Taking The Field In Celebration?

Question

Clearly Holliday was out and clearly the ump was waiting for the play to be complete before making the call.
I think the ump saw the Rockies pouring onto the field and said "Oh, what the hell, hes safe. Lets go home."
Does anyone else get that impression?

Alrct: Read that part of the rules again. He doesnt have to be in posession of the ball, but fielding the ball, meaning; the throw is coming to the plate as the runner crosses it, which is what happened. Otherwise, the ball would not have popped out during the collision.

bbondsfa: Read that rule all the way down. "Has possession or is fielding the ball", which he was doing.

No doubt it was a judgement call. But my question is, Did the ump bail and allow the Rockies and the fans make the call for him?
I think he did.

Answer 1

No doubt. I'm the only one who knows anything. The rule is in place so a base runner isn't tackled before he gets to the base he is advancing to. Duh.

Blocking the plate is part of baseball.

That ump has no spine and I hope he doesn't get on any crews for the beginning of the playoffs. He squeezed Peavy all night, was inconsistent calling strikes, and most of all let the crowd and the home bench make up his mind on a season-ending play. What an idiot!

Answer 2

Ok, so even if he was fielding the ball and could block the plate legally, he still dropped the ball. Every interview and sports show I watched after the game said that it was not clear that he was safe or out. So, put yourself in that umps position. You are at Coors field, it would be a win for the Rockies at home, the fans are on top of you the whole game. What call would you make? I'd say safe too! Padres suck anyway. Pee-pee uniforms.

Answer 3

It did seem odd and was a questionable call. However, I didn't see indisputable video evidence to overturn it. In every replay I saw, his foot blocked the plate but Holliday's hand disappeared for a few moments behind his body or the catcher's leg so there are a few moments where we don't see where his hand is at all.

As for obstruction, sticking his foot out like that had nothing to do with fielding the ball so I could see how that could be ruled obstruction. Has anyone interviewed the umpire to get the reason?

Answer 4

He would have ben safe anyways, had he touched the plate or not. According to Baseball rules, a catcher cannot block the plate, if he does not have possession of the ball, which Barret did not have. But, because barret blocked the plate, holliday would have been called safe, because of the catcher's decision to break the rules. So, Holliday would have been called safe anyways.
PS: I am not a rockies fan, but what they pulled of was remarkable.

Answer 5

No, I did not get that feeling at all. The ump made the right call. Barrett didn't hold onto the ball and because of that, Holliday was safe. Baseball rules say that no defender can block the plate without control of the ball. Barrett never had it, Mcclelland made the right call.

Answer 6

I did think that slightly.
He sure wasn't in any good position to make the proper call to begin with.
Once the ball rolled away i think that he assumed that Holiday tagged the plate.
The ump really should have put forth a greater effort to really see if he touched home.

Answer 7

Sorry, saw the replay numerous times, from many angles, Holliday touched the very edge of the plate before the catcher had control of the ball. The Rockies, in their dugout, probably had the same vantage view and saw he was safe.

Answer 8

So I am not the only one ..... no one ever touched home plate.