I still wish holliday crushed barrett Barrett even said he was waiting for it.
So what do you guys think.
"I didn't think [Holliday] would tag because it was a short line drive," Barrett said. "As soon as Brian caught the ball, I took one more look toward third and I saw that he was coming. I thought I was going to be absolutely crushed. I waited for the ball as long as I could and did as good a job as I could blocking the plate."
The ball wasn't there when Holliday slid in head first. Barrett tried to block him with his foot, but he had to go after the ball, which bounced away. The question is whether Holliday got any part of the plate when he slid by it. Barrett never had control of the ball. By the time he tagged Holliday, McClelland signaled safe. Replays were inconclusive.
Barrett said he wasn't sure, but he'd go with the call.
"I've never, ever second-guessed Tim McClelland at home plate," Barrett said. "And when he told me he was safe, there was no argument in my mind."
Ditto Padres manager, Bud Black: "I couldn't tell. It was just Holliday and Barrett. It looked to me as though he did [touch it]."
McClelland wasn't made available, but Montague said simply: "I believe he did, yeah. But I'm at first base."
I'm siding with Inconclusive even with replay. Although I'm still saying its border line interference if you look at where the ball was fielded and where Barretts left leg was.
Ball fielded up the first base line Barrett throws out a border line trip at Holliday on the opposite side of the bag.
I really can't tell and don't think Instant replay would either
Even if they had replay, I'm sure there would be a stipulation that it has to be conclusive, otherwise call on the field stands. so holliday would be safe.
Even with replay it was inconclusive. There wasn't a camera angle that I saw that would have ruled one way or the other and the home plate umpire really had that best view and called him safe so I trust the Ump.
It was inconclusive, although if I had to say one of the other, I'd go with out. And I really don't think it could be interference, since, lets be honest, catchers do that ALL THE TIME and it NEVER get called.
How was the umpire not in position to make the call? He was right there at the plate.
Also, while Instant Replay would be deemed inconclusive on the play on the plate (since you can't tell if Holiday's hand touched the plate under Barrett's shoe) I think Instant Replay shows that Atkins hit a home run. But in the end it doesn't matter as the ruling was made and the game is over. Let's move past it and enjoy the playoffs!
I think the Padres were very classy in their responses as well. Padres played well and were right there until the end! Great organization that hopefully comes back strong next year! NL west should be very exciting next year!
From the camera angles that they did have (especially the one behind Holliday), he appeared out but they were from terrible angles and cut off the needed view. There's definitely a chance he got a finger on the plate as he made contact with Barrett. That contact was enough to move Barrett's foot and he might have *just* caught the plate. The camera behind home plate was aimed too high to show anything - you really needed an overhead camera to really be able to tell.
I still don't understand the umpire's call - why the hesitation? If he thought he caught the plate, why not call it immediately? Would he have called him out if Barrett had caught the ball and he didn't see the ball bounce away?
I totally agree with the last guy - the Padres were VERY cool about the whole thing. They could have bitched and moaned, but deferred to the call and gave their congrats. Very classy.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by acsguitar » Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:49 pm 
Barrett even said he was waiting for it.
