Did Holliday touch the plate last night?

Question

I havent seen a good reply.

Answer 1

does it matter at this point?

Answer 2

Irrelevant question: It was fielder's interference.

OK - even if Holliday missed the plate (which appears likely) then Barrett was wrong to block it since Barrett DID NOT have control of the ball. If you don't have the ball, you can't block a base!! That is fielder's interference and therefore the ump can grant the next base free (which would be home plate in this case).

My conclusion: the announcers/analysts ought to learn the rules then they could've cleared this up right away - you can't just stand in front of a base without the ball in hand... True, he ALMOST had the ball but almost doesn't cut it.

I think the ump paused because he had to make sure he was right - probably had to think a second before committing on the call. Once he realized the ball was never under control, either Holliday got the plate or there was interference, either way he was safe :)

Answer 3

firstly why did holliday slide .You come in hard on that play but to answer the question. you can't tell from the angle we saw on TV . lets take a look at the big picture, the throw comes in a lollipop or rainbow throw from giles who usually has makes a much stronger, this is leaving the catcher waiting allowing the play to even be close Barrett does a great job blocking the plate and it looks as if Holliday DOES NOT TOUCH the plate ( however holiday admits to being spiked on the hand buy the catcher therefore meaning his hand was UNDER barretts foot9 so he could have touched the plate as he continued sliding ) nevertheless the ball gets away from Barrett who scrambles picks up the ball AND HERE IS WHERE THE FAULT LIES . BARRETT AS HE IS WALKING ON HIS KNEES OVER TO TAG HOLLIDAY LOOKS TO THE UMP FOR A CALL --- INSTED OF JUST MAKING THE TAG(which he never does by the way , watch the replay) bARRETT HAS TO GRAB THE BALL AND AGGRESIVLY TAG OUT HOLLIDAY AS IF HE KNOWS HE NEVER TOUCHED THE PLATE he basically through body language said to the ump he may have gotten past me that gave the ump the perfect oppurtunity to REPAY the Rockies for a missed call on the Jamie CARROLL double which replays show WAS A HOMERUN. HOW CAN SAN DIEGO OR ITS MANAGER ARGUE THAT CALL WITH THE HOME PLATE UMP WHEN THE CATCHER WHO WAS RIGHT THERE GAVE THEM NO GROUNDS TO AND LOOKED TO THE UMP FOR HELP INSTEAD OF MAKING IT LOOK AS IF HE KNEW HOLLIDAY MISSED THE PLAY AND TAGGED HIM that is where the intangibles come into game play, Johnny bench would have gary carter ivan rodriguez know YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF HE NEVER TOUCHE D THE PLATE not look to the ump as your chasing the runner on your knees with that look asking did he touch it. So if there is to put blame DO NOT BLAME THE UMP WHO WAS TRYING TO WATCH THE TAG AAANNNDDD SEE IF THE RUNNER TAGGED ALL IN LESS THAN ONE SECOND THE BLAME LIES ON THE PITCHER (throwing a first pitch meatball (what the hell was that)) the RIGHTFIELDER( for making a good accurate but not stronger throw causing the catcher to wait) and thirdly the catcher for reasons already discussed. on a side note the respondent who siad the catcher cant bloke the plate without the ball is mistaken that is sunday morning softball rules the mlb rule states if you are awaiting the throw you are allowed to block the plate if is close

Answer 4

Brad's close, but I think the Captain's answer is still better.

MLB Rule 7.06:
When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal "Obstruction."
If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batterrunner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction.

******

Barrett's LEFT foot that prevented Holliday from touching the plate was clearly not placed in a necessary position for Barrett to field the throw from the RIGHT fielder--he was sticking his leg out, kind of beind himself, in an attempt to block Holliday from touching the plate. If Barrett hadn't been mostly in front of the plate, but rather slightly behind the baseline relative to the throw, Brad's answer would be better.

I think that the umpire made a mistake by not calling "obstruction," as the rule requires. Despite that mistake, I think the umpire's "actions resembling a call" reached the correct conclusion.

Someday we can get into a discussion about why catchers are given far too much lenience in the application of the obstruction call.

Answer 5

There were only two angles from what I could see. The one from left field seemed to show that the plate was blocked and Holliday never touched the plate. The camera shot from about home plate was more difficult to determine. Personally I think the umpire didn't see the play clearly but felt he had to make some kind of call. Unfortunately it looked like the wrong call.

Answer 6

"My conclusion: the announcers/analysts ought to learn the rules then they could've cleared this up right away - you can't just stand in front of a base without the ball in hand... True, he ALMOST had the ball but almost doesn't cut it.

I think the ump paused because he had to make sure he was right - probably had to think a second before committing on the call. Once he realized the ball was never under control, either Holliday got the plate or there was interference, either way he was safe :) Also note that no one argued so they must've accepted the ruling."

BULLSHITT
cmon dude, before you say something, go make sure you arr right..

HERE IT IS:
"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. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball."

Answer 7

Didn't even come close. I'm not a fan of either team, but I don't understand why they do not use replay in baseball for plays like that. I know this, if the Yankees or Red Sox got robbed on a call like that keeping them out of the playoffs, there would be outrage. Because it's the Padres, no one will care.

Answer 8

No but they got screwed earlier. Those officials called the HR a ground rule double. Very bad. All worked out in the end. The right team won.

Answer 9

It does not matter. Play stands. Respect Blues call. Move on San Diego get on with your lives, Hoffman did not close the door. Congrats to The Rockies. Did i miss anything?

Answer 10

He was out .....hand never touched the plate.

But from the angle the Umpire may have been standing from, he may have not seen the entire play accurately.

Answer 11

No, he didn't touch the plate and should have been called out. The ump blew the call, but it happens.