Tim McClelland - Mr. Controversy

[StraightGrain11]

I think it is now safe to say that Mr. Tim McClelland has just locked up the position as baseball's all-time "King of the Controversial Call."
He started with the "Pine-Tar Game" and just sealed it with his ".........safe...?" call in tonight's GREAT game - def one to remember! :nod:

[J.P]

I was rooting for the Rockies myself last night, I think the safe call was a bad call, but thats not the worst of it, its how long he took to make the call, I've never seen an umpire freeze like that, and when that happens on a play at home plate, that usually means that the runner didnt touch home plate, and the umpire is either waiting for the catcher to tag him, or for him to touch the base. We usually talk about players not performing under pressure, well, I think McClelland folded badly under pressure last night.

[philkid3]

Could the play not also be seen as obstruction, since he was blocking the plate without the ball?

[Brian McKenna]

Tiny, tiny strike zone.

He was half-dead on that call. A close, extra-inning game - the 163rd of the season - and all that he can muster is a slow, weak extension of his arms?? And it was the wrong call.

Because of its implications, it should go down as one of the worst calls in history. It also probably saved Jorge Julio's career.

A book could be written about that game last night.

Pine tar game? Did he follow the rule book there? The answer is yes.

[philkid3]

Because of its implications, it should go down as one of the worst calls in history.

Man, while I think it's controversial, while I lean towards him being out, and while I think it's memorable, I really have to disagree with it bieng one of the worst calls in history.

[RubeBaker]

Could the play not also be seen as obstruction, since he was blocking the plate without the ball?

No, because he was fielding the ball.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Man, while I think it's controversial, while I lean towards him being out, and while I think it's memorable, I really have to disagree with it bieng one of the worst calls in history.

It did decide the game. The ramifications of it make it that important.

[philkid3]

It did decide the game. The ramifications of it make it that important.

Oh yes, absolutely. I don't disagree with that at all.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Oh yes, absolutely. I don't disagree with that at all.

That's why it will go down as such a bad call. Because it meant so much.

[philkid3]

That's why it will go down as such a bad call. Because it meant so much.

It may go down that way I guess, but I just couldn't possibly agree with that. It's not black and white, even if I mostly agree that he should have been out. I think it's an amazingly important and controversial call, I just can't possibly agree with it being one of the worst calls of all time.

[KCGHOST]

Certainly won't be in a highlight reel of McClelland's Greatest Calls. It is no worse than Rich Garcia's World Series call giving the Yanks a HR on a ball that was clearly fan interference.

He also botched the Pine Tar call, too. That exact situation had been protested to the league office 2-3 years before and the league office had ruled then that pine tar did not constitute a violation of the rule.

[philkid3]

If only Holliday's triple had been a home run. It would have been one of the most dramatic home runs of all time. You'd see it forever, over and over. It would have been (probably) the MVP sending his team to the playoffs with a come-from-behind walk off.

Think about how perfect things would have been.


By the way, I just now realized the reason I know McClelland's name was because of the Pine Tar incident. How is ESPN not bringing that up?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Certainly won't be in a highlight reel of McClelland's Greatest Calls. It is no worse than Rich Garcia's World Series call giving the Yanks a HR on a ball that was clearly fan interference.


World Series? Try ALCS.

[philkid3]

He was also behind the plate for Nolan Ryan's 6th No-Hitter. He was the ump for "cork-gate." He was the ump for David Wells's perfect game.

Okay, so I know his name for alot of reasons.

[rockin500]

Tiny, tiny strike zone.

He was half-dead on that call. A close, extra-inning game - the 163rd of the season - and all that he can muster is a slow, weak extension of his arms?? And it was the wrong call.

Because of its implications, it should go down as one of the worst calls in history. It also probably saved Jorge Julio's career.

A book could be written about that game last night.

Pine tar game? Did he follow the rule book there? The answer is yes.

hes always been deliberate. you havent watched him over the years if you havent realized that. everything he does is deliberate. Also, it wasnt a horribly miscalled play. it was a bang bang play that you couldnt tell if he was safe or not until you saw a replay. a full speed play didnt show anything conclusive one way or the other.

he is one of the most respected umpires in the game. and the strike zone was consistent with his usual strike zone.

it probably wasnt even the worst call of the game.

[GiambiJuice]

I have no problem with the call and after many replays it is still inconclusive whether he snuck a couple fingers in there and touched the bag.

My only problem was with the delay in making the call because it implied that Holliday had missed the bag.

If Holliday had been a bit more heads-up he would have move his hand slightly to the left and gone between the catchers legs. He would have been safe easily. I've seen A-Rod make slides like that.

[ipitch]

I don't think it was that bad of a call because it was a very tough call. It's not easy to watch a tag and a player touching the plate at the same time. How many of you knew whether Holliday touched the plate or not before you saw the replays? I couldn't even tell AFTER seeing the replays. I think McClelland called him safe because that was his best guess.

[J.P]

Exactly, I dont have a problem with the call that much, as with the delay, he didnt know what to call, he wasnt decisive at all. I think McClelland was waiting for Holliday to go back to touch the plate, and when he didnt, McClelland changed his mind and decided to call him safe; I dont see any other explanation, I've never seen an umpire delay a call like that, unless hes waiting for the runner to go back and touch the base or the fielder to tag him. If this game would had been in SD, McClelland would had called Holliday out once Barret went back and tagged him. If i was a San Diego fan, I would be really upset right now.

[Brian McKenna]

it wasnt a horribly miscalled play.



I agree - it wasn't a horrible call - very close.

But in the significance of the call will lie its everlasting infamy.

[FatAngel]

Since I follow baseball, the only worse call I remeber was Gregg calling out McGriff on strikes on a pitch that was about eight inches outside, in the 1997 NLCS.
But after all, for me it also belongs to the beauty and spirit of this game. Everybody´s human, and you have to deal with it or you´re gone.
I strongly oppose the idea of using any kind of technical device for calls.

[EricDavis]

I don't know why some people think it's horrible. Even with instant replay I don't think there would be the conclusive evidence needed to overturn the call. Is it possible a finger snuck under Barret's cleat (which did not remain firmly panted) and graze the tiniest portion of the plate? Yes that's absolutely possible. And the delay was not that bad. A little delay can keep you from making a dramatic emotional call I think.

[redlegsfan21]

I know there is one umpire who takes his time calling balls and strikes (I think it is McClelland). It's always fun to listen to announcers go "And that's a ball, no wait a called strike."

[BoofBonser26]

I know there is one umpire who takes his time calling balls and strikes (I think it is McClelland). It's always fun to listen to announcers go "And that's a ball, no wait a called strike."

That's him. Tom Hamilton just gives up. If the batter leaves the box Hammy assumes he walked or struck out and just waits to see if he goes to 1B or the dugout. Kind of the best way to call McClelland. :cool:

[StraightGrain11]

I don't know whether the call was right or wrong. Being a former umpire, I know one thing is for certain, no camera angle on the planet had a better view or angle than McClelland did (and he was right where he was supposed to be with the ball coming in from RF). The other thing I know is that all that is asked of umpires is that they be consistent [with their calls], and McClelland was - right to the end - he's known for being very slow and drawn out with his calls...I would say he stayed true to form. :baseball:

[redlegsfan21]

That's him. Tom Hamilton just gives up. If the batter leaves the box Hammy assumes he walked or struck out and just waits to see if he goes to 1B or the dugout. Kind of the best way to call McClelland. :cool:

So the game was typical McClelland. It's just how he umpires. I do have a profound respect for McClelland and it seems he's umpiring games with the Reds a lot.

But I think you have to give a safe/out call right away. A good example is April 30, 1988, NYM@CIN. Lucky for McClelland that Holliday was the only baserunner.

P.S.
#9 On this list (Need RealPlayer)
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/cin/ballpark/cin_cinergy_farewell.jsp

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I was rooting for the Rockies myself last night, I think the safe call was a bad call, but thats not the worst of it, its how long he took to make the call, I've never seen an umpire freeze like that, and when that happens on a play at home plate, that usually means that the runner didnt touch home plate, and the umpire is either waiting for the catcher to tag him, or for him to touch the base. We usually talk about players not performing under pressure, well, I think McClelland folded badly under pressure last night.


I think you nailed it JP, exactly my thought at the time of the play. The action displayed by the ump in that game is one that I have seen a number of times in all the years I have watched the game. The runner crosses the plate, running or sliding and if the ump thinks he missed the plate the call is delayed until the catcher tags the runner or the runner goes "back" to touch the plate.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't know why some people think it's horrible. Even with instant replay I don't think there would be the conclusive evidence needed to overturn the call. Is it possible a finger snuck under Barret's cleat (which did not remain firmly panted) and graze the tiniest portion of the plate? Yes that's absolutely possible. And the delay was not that bad. A little delay can keep you from making a dramatic emotional call I think.


Eric, I agree even though it appeared the runner did not touch the plate it was close and it's possible he did catch the plate with the tips of his fingers. I don't think he did but have to admit difficult to say he did not with certainty. The problem was the delay, appearing that the ump thought he did miss the plate and was waiting for the catcher to make a tag or the runner to get back to the plate.

Thats what I read from the umps actions.

[runningshoes]

There's no way we can even begin to know what he saw.

If the ump says he out...then he's out.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There's no way we can even begin to know what he saw.

If the ump says he out...then he's out.

SHOES, I agree. Are you speaking of a post on the board or just in general.

[runningshoes]

SHOES, I agree. Are you speaking of a post on the board or just in general.

Just in general.

[ipitch]

The problem was the delay, appearing that the ump thought he did miss the plate and was waiting for the catcher to make a tag or the runner to get back to the plate.

Thats what I read from the umps actions.

If he truly thought that Holliday missed the plate, he would have made no call. What I think happened was that the ump wasn't sure if Holliday touched the plate. So, he looked at the players. Since Holliday never even tried to get off the ground and touch the plate again, the ump may have assumed that since Holliday didn't even TRY to touch the plate again, he must have touched it the first time. After all, someone who knows they missed the plate will likely try to touch it again, especially if the ball is dropped. What the ump didn't know was that Holliday was hurt, and that's probably why he didn't try to touch the plate again. So, basically, I think Holliday's injury may have helped to get a safe call.

[J.P]

I dont think umpires are suppossed to make calls based on player's reactions though.

[Brian McKenna]

If he truly thought that Holliday missed the plate, he would have made no call. What I think happened was that the ump wasn't sure if Holliday touched the plate. So, he looked at the players. Since Holliday never even tried to get off the ground and touch the plate again, the ump may have assumed that since Holliday didn't even TRY to touch the plate again, he must have touched it the first time. After all, someone who knows they missed the plate will likely try to touch it again, especially if the ball is dropped. What the ump didn't know was that Holliday was hurt, and that's probably why he didn't try to touch the plate again. So, basically, I think Holliday's injury may have helped to get a safe call.

I have more respect for McClelland than that.

If any umpire makes a decision based on that, they should be immediately fired.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If he truly thought that Holliday missed the plate, he would have made no call. What I think happened was that the ump wasn't sure if Holliday touched the plate. So, he looked at the players. Since Holliday never even tried to get off the ground and touch the plate again, the ump may have assumed that since Holliday didn't even TRY to touch the plate again, he must have touched it the first time. After all, someone who knows they missed the plate will likely try to touch it again, especially if the ball is dropped. What the ump didn't know was that Holliday was hurt, and that's probably why he didn't try to touch the plate again. So, basically, I think Holliday's injury may have helped to get a safe call.

Thats exactly what happened... he did not make the call until seconds later, too many seconds, even three or four seconds is an eternity in that type of situation.. From what I have seen in this game when the ump on a play at the plate delays the call... hate to sound repetitious but here it is again........ when he believes the runner missed the plate.

One more thing to be considered. Don't recall who the player was but he said he once missed the plate on a close play but did not attempt to go back because the catcher and the ump would know he missed the plate. In that case the runner caught a break the catcher never made a second tag.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There's no way we can even begin to know what he saw.

If the ump says he out...then he's out.

Thats the bottom line all that matters. Not downplaying the situation, not giving the ump a free pass, it happens.If not for the delay there would be no beef because it was very tough play to call. I saw three different replays, slo mo and even at that it was a tough call.

[ipitch]

I have more respect for McClelland than that.

If any umpire makes a decision based on that, they should be immediately fired.

If that were the case, every ump would be fired by now. The umpire's vision sometimes gets blocked, or is not focused on the right thing. What is an umpire supposed to do when he has no idea what the right calls is? :think:

a. Blindly guess and say "safe" or "out".
b. Look at the players and then make an educated guess from their reactions (a player who feels they have touched home plate is somewhat unlikely to try and touch it again, and a player who makes a tag is somewhat unlikely to try and make another tag)

There is no good choice, but are you telling me that "b" is not the better choice?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If that were the case, every ump would be fired by now. The umpire's vision sometimes gets blocked, or is not focused on the right thing. What is an umpire supposed to do when he has no idea what the right calls is? :think:

a. Blindly guess and say "safe" or "out".
b. Look at the players and then make an educated guess from their reactions (a player who feels they have touched home plate is somewhat unlikely to try and touch it again, and a player who makes a tag is somewhat unlikely to try and make another tag)

There is no good choice, but are you telling me that "b" is not the better choice?


Toss that one out, the ump should never base his call on any players reaction. There are times when an ump is out of position to make a call, at times though no fault of his own, they still make the call and at times have asked for assistance from other umps who were in a better position. This is rare ( assistance) in calls on the bases, sometimes in fair or foul calls.

The point is being missed here, he did not make the call in a timely fashion. He's not perfect but it's obvious at first he had no idea whether the runner was safe or out. This is why the catcher began to turn and tag the runner, because he made no call.

[tspankey]

safe or out, the situation was dismal for san diego. no outs with men on the corners. (hoff looked like crap last night).

while i don't agree that he was safe, i think the situation combined with barrett's complete lack of effort to re-tag pretty much seals the deal as far as the rockies are concerned

[BoofBonser26]

safe or out, the situation was dismal for san diego. no outs with men on the corners. (hoff looked like crap last night).

while i don't agree that he was safe, i think the situation combined with barrett's complete lack of effort to re-tag pretty much seals the deal as far as the rockies are concerned
Although, had he been called out, there would have been 2 outs. That's doable.

[tspankey]

Although, had he been called out, there would have been 2 outs. That's doable.

ahh my mistake.

i don't believe in instant replays, but it was an errant call. too bad - i'd rather see the less dangerous padres in the post season against my dbacks instead of the extremely potent colorado lineup

[BoofBonser26]

ahh my mistake.

i don't believe in instant replays, but it was an errant call. too bad - i'd rather see the less dangerous padres in the post season against my dbacks instead of the extremely potent colorado lineup
Yep. The Padres would have had to get another out, then take the lead, then hold the Rockies again. So it's not as though the call "stole" the game from them. It's just it was such a wild game it's sad it ended before it should have.

[redlegsfan21]

I dont think umpires are suppossed to make calls based on player's reactions though.

I know it's football but just watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUI-KvkHBhc

[dgarza]

I dont think umpires are suppossed to make calls based on player's reactions though.
They shouldn't, but catchers still set up and react to pitches to get balls & strikes called in their favor because they know sometimes umps still make calls based on players' reactions.

[Old Sweater]

I have no problem with the call and after many replays it is still inconclusive whether he snuck a couple fingers in there and touched the bag.

My only problem was with the delay in making the call because it implied that Holliday had missed the bag.

If Holliday had been a bit more heads-up he would have move his hand slightly to the left and gone between the catchers legs. He would have been safe easily. I've seen A-Rod make slides like that.


Looked to me that Holliday was a little groggy at the time.......don't think he was even thinking at the time.

[Old Sweater]

BTW, which ump blew the HR call that caused the extra innings?

[brett]

I dont think umpires are suppossed to make calls based on player's reactions though.


Especially since witnesses who I heard today claimed that Hollday was completely out of it on the ground. Still, a) the ump probably realized that a catcher who had dropped the ball had blocked the path and forced an alteration of the runner's motion and b) he called him safe before Holliday could have, in theory reacted and lunged for the plate anyway. He nullified any obligation by Holliday to try to lunge for the plate before he was tagged.

Still, if the Padres had won off of a bogus "no home run" call it would have been worse as far as justice.

[brett]

Yep. The Padres would have had to get another out, then take the lead, then hold the Rockies again. So it's not as though the call "stole" the game from them. It's just it was such a wild game it's sad it ended before it should have.

Just like the Royals in '85. If you follow the actions of the game after the mis-call, the Royals still had about a 50% chance of tying and a 50% chance of winning in the 9th.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

safe or out, the situation was dismal for san diego. no outs with men on the corners. (hoff looked like crap last night).

while i don't agree that he was safe, i think the situation combined with barrett's complete lack of effort to re-tag pretty much seals the deal as far as the rockies are concerned

Correct me if I'm wrong, I pretty sure that Barret did make an attempt to make another attempt at tagging the runner after he had lost the ball. From what I recall after retrieving the ball he turned with the ball and move towards the runner. As he moved toward the runner thats when the ump made the safe call and I think Barret still made a tag.

Also a bad move by the ump, look at the video. He is on the third base side and as the runner nears home he moves behind the plate so his view of the runner and the plate is blocked out by the catcher's body.Part of the umps job, to get in the best possible position to view the play and he had more than enough time to do so.

Tough call and no matter which way he called it one of the teams would have bitched.

Still does not change the fact that he moved in to a bad position and delayed the call which almost always is a sign that the ump believes the runner missed the plate.

[BoofBonser26]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I pretty sure that Barret did make an attempt to make another attempt at tagging the runner after he had lost the ball. From what I recall after retrieving the ball he turned with the ball and move towards the runner. As he moved toward the runner thats when the ump made the safe call and I think Barret still made a tag.

That's exactly what happened.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yep. The Padres would have had to get another out, then take the lead, then hold the Rockies again. So it's not as though the call "stole" the game from them. It's just it was such a wild game it's sad it ended before it should have.

Thats not the point, we have no way of knowing what might have been had the runner been called out. It ended the game.

[BoofBonser26]

Thats not the point, we have no way of knowing what might have been had the runner been called out. It ended the game.
That was what I said.

[Westlake]

Redlegs, what in the world does clinching the playoffs late have to do with "better baseball"? Nice try though.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yep. The Padres would have had to get another out, then take the lead, then hold the Rockies again. So it's not as though the call "stole" the game from them. It's just it was such a wild game it's sad it ended before it should have.

BOOF I know what you said but that one line appears that you think the call was not fatal for the Padres because you now say what they had to do, get another out, take the lead and then hold the Rockies again.

I won't use the word "stole" but that call ended any chance for the Padres to do anything, thats the bottom line it ended the game.

I might add, I'm not a Padre fan. I just think the ump moved out of position and then made a delayed call, why the delay. Getting in to a poor position when he was already in the perfect position... on the third base side was also a mistake. He's an ump, he knows all about getting in the best position.

[BoofBonser26]

BOOF I know what you said but that one line appears that you think the call was not fatal for the Padres because you now say what they had to do, get another out, take the lead and then hold the Rockies again.

I won't use the word "stole" but that call ended any chance for the Padres to do anything, thats the bottom line it ended the game.

I might add, I'm not a Padre fan. I just think the ump moved out of position and then made a delayed call, why the delay. Getting in to a poor position when he was already in the perfect position... on the third base side was also a mistake. He's an ump, he knows all about getting in the best position.
I know the call was fatal for the Padres. But it's not fatal in the sense they were robbed of a win - just the chance for a win.

[EdTarbusz]

That's him. Tom Hamilton just gives up. If the batter leaves the box Hammy assumes he walked or struck out and just waits to see if he goes to 1B or the dugout. Kind of the best way to call McClelland. :cool:

Hamilton's best comment about McClelland was when he said that McClelland appears to want to be anywhere but the game that he is working.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I know the call was fatal for the Padres. But it's not fatal in the sense they were robbed of a win - just the chance for a win.

Not sure I understand. If it ended the game if all chances were taken away by that call.. again I won't use the word robbed but the call ended the whole show.Whats the difference?Let me think this one over.

[StraightGrain11]

I dont think umpires are suppossed to make calls based on player's reactions though.

They're not. Nothing is supposed to affect an umpire's "judgement."
To help somewhat simplify this very difficult job...he has three main objectives:
(1) Observe and tell ("call") what he saw.
(2) Have a clear and unwavering knowledge of the rules
(3) [To] administer these rules accordingly
If these 3 things are utilized, a smooth, fair-paced, cleanly run game is usually the result - and this is the ultimate goal from an umpire's standpoint.

[redlegsfan21]

Redlegs, what in the world does clinching the playoffs late have to do with "better baseball"? Nice try though.

More exciting baseball. Who knew that there was an American League last weekend. Anyone, anyone. Only you DH lovers.

[BoofBonser26]

Hamilton's best comment about McClelland was when he said that McClelland appears to want to be anywhere but the game that he is working.
I also love how McClelland trips up scoreboard operators. They're trained to peg a ball up on the board the moment the ball pops into the catcher's mitt and there's no movement by the ump. Watching a game McClelland calls is like watching numbers dance - up, down, up, down, up, down...:happy:

[BoofBonser26]

More exciting baseball. Who knew that there was an American League last weekend. Anyone, anyone. Only you DH lovers.
I did! And I'm not a DH lover.

[BoofBonser26]

Not sure I understand. If it ended the game if all chances were taken away by that call.. again I won't use the word robbed but the call ended the whole show.Whats the difference?Let me think this one over.
I'll see if I can phrase it better.

There are two possibilities:

1. The correct call is made. Holliday is out.
1A. The Rockies score the runner from third or hold the Padres and win in a later inning ROCKIES WIN
1B. The Padres get the third out, score in another inning, and hold the Rockies in all later innings PADRES WIN

2. The incorrect call is made. Holliday is safe. ROCKIES WIN

So while it's tragic the Padres lost their CHANCE to win, they didn't actually lose the win, since it wasn't a guarantee. (like it would have been, example, had Holliday been the third out)

It's probably just semantics, but when I think about this it makes me feel a little better for the Padres (the team I was pulling for).

Does that help?

[brett]

I'll see if I can phrase it better.

There are two possibilities:

1. The correct call is made. Holliday is out.
1A. The Rockies score the runner from third or hold the Padres and win in a later inning ROCKIES WIN1B. The Padres get the third out, score in another inning, and hold the Rockies in all later innings PADRES WIN

2. The incorrect call is made. Holliday is safe. ROCKIES WIN

So while it's tragic the Padres lost their CHANCE to win, they didn't actually lose the win, since it wasn't a guarantee. (like it would have been, example, had Holliday been the third out)

It's probably just semantics, but when I think about this it makes me feel a little better for the Padres (the team I was pulling for).

Does that help?

The bases would have been empty with 2 outs.

Anyway, I read today that a forensic lab in Florida determined that he touched the plate with 1 or 2 fingers under the cleat of the catcher. I'll try to find in on the net.

My main problem is that I expected Hollday to jump up and touch home just to be sure, and that the umpire thought he didn't touch-that is my initial feeling, and yet the umpire chickened out in what he THOUGHT was the correct call.

[BoofBonser26]

The bases would have been empty with 2 outs.

Anyway, I read today that a forensic lab in Florida determined that he touched the plate with 1 or 2 fingers under the cleat of the catcher. I'll try to find in on the net.

My main problem is that I expected Hollday to jump up and touch home just to be sure, and that the umpire thought he didn't touch-that is my initial feeling, and yet the umpire chickened out in what he THOUGHT was the correct call.
Ooops, my bad. Thanks for that.

I know what you mean about the ump. It sounds like that's exactly what happened.

[ipitch]

The bases would have been empty with 2 outs.


Todd Helton was on 1st base.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'll see if I can phrase it better.

There are two possibilities:

1. The correct call is made. Holliday is out.
1A. The Rockies score the runner from third or hold the Padres and win in a later inning ROCKIES WIN
1B. The Padres get the third out, score in another inning, and hold the Rockies in all later innings PADRES WIN

2. The incorrect call is made. Holliday is safe. ROCKIES WIN

So while it's tragic the Padres lost their CHANCE to win, they didn't actually lose the win, since it wasn't a guarantee. (like it would have been, example, had Holliday been the third out)

It's probably just semantics, but when I think about this it makes me feel a little better for the Padres (the team I was pulling for).

Does that help?

Allow me more time and I still may not be sure I understand, thanks for your time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The bases would have been empty with 2 outs.

Anyway, I read today that a forensic lab in Florida determined that he touched the plate with 1 or 2 fingers under the cleat of the catcher. I'll try to find in on the net.
My main problem is that I expected Hollday to jump up and touch home just to be sure, and that the umpire thought he didn't touch-that is my initial feeling, and yet the umpire chickened out in what he THOUGHT was the correct call.

Give it your best BRETT.

[brett]

Todd Helton was on 1st base.

Thanks, that was my "feeling" that someone was on and had to have moved up to third, but I forgot about the walk.