Holliday Never Touched the Plate

The New York Times today ran an article about the support that instant replay might have at the winter baseball meetings. The times cited several of this post-season’s questionable calls and even singled out the fact that Matt Holliday missed home plate (emphasis mine.)

The recent playoffs produced some fly balls that were or were not home runs, depending on the view of the umpire making the call. The National League one-game playoff was determined by Matt Holliday’s headfirst slide home on which replays showed he never touched the plate.

This is the first major print outlet that I’ve seen come out and state that Matt Holliday missed the plate. Perhaps this is the beginning of a swing in the tide of media opinion towards the view that McClelland blew the call at home, and that Holliday missed the plate. Its a small chink in the armor for the Rockies apologists since perhaps over a thousand newspapers ran stories following the game that said the replays were inconclusive. However, those thousand stories were primarily off the AP feed where the article filed the night of the game contained the “replays were inconclusive” description.

The bulk of the Times story today focuses on the fact that any discussion of replay at the meetings will be limited to “boundry” calls. So that means they’ll only plan on talking about replay as a way to see if a home run down the line was fair or foul, or if a deep fly was over the wall/line/fence/padding and thus a home run, or if it hit the wall/line/fence/padding and returned to the field as a live ball that was still in play. In fact the Holliday play was singled out as a play that would not be subject to review.

Now that this viewpoint is in print in the Times it will be interesting to see if any other media outlets review the play in a fresh light. I still think that an unbiased evaluation of the replays available will show that Holliday missed the plate. Perhaps others will reach that conclusion as well. Or better yet, maybe MLB will release the missing “reverse angle replay” that will give conclusive proof.

The Times requires a free registration to view the story, which only takes 30 seconds, so if you’d like to read the article just click here.

Tags: Other Media, Replay in Baseball // 1 Comment »

Faced with the uncomfortable truth that Matt Holliday missed home plate and should have been called out, many Colorado Rockies fans respond with some variation of “But Atkins’ hit was a home run! So the play at the plate never should have happened!” Its as if they think that talking about a play that happened earlier in the game will somehow settle the issue of Holliday’s missing the plate. I’ve heard this refrain so many times that I thought I’d make a post just to deal with this response and to expose its inability to answer the question at hand.

Granted, I think that Atkins ball was probably a home run. The replays I’ve seen seem to show a bit of white emerge underneath the yellow padding which would indicate that the hit was a home run. If you just want to skip this next part and just start saying that this whole website is worthless because Atkins hit was a home run, then please jump to the comments at the end of the thread. But know that I’m going to use the entire post below against you. That being said, please consider the following statement carefully.

Atkins hit, even if it was a home run, has nothing to do with if Holliday touched the plate or not.

I don’t expect everybody to understand this position since it requires the ability to think logically and carefully. Sadly these traits are in short supply in today’s society. I do not claim to be an expert in any particular branch of logical theory, and I’m not going to try and apply any specific branch of logical thought, as there are more of them than you might imagine. There are many people out there who know more about logical notation than I do, and if any of you ever read this and would like to do a logical proof of the following I’ll gladly post or link to it. Instead I’ll try to use informal logic to convey my position on the relevance of Atkins hit to the question of if Holliday touched the plate.

Lets start with a simple statement that also happen to be the title of this website,

“Holliday never touched the plate”

Before we proceed, we do need to make a qualifying remark here which is that we are only making this statement in reference to the play that occurred in the bottom of the thirteenth inning on October 1st 2007, when Holliday attempted to score from third on Carroll’s liner to right field.

That being said, the statement “Holliday never touched the plate” is either true or it is false. These are the only two logical options. You can’t say “its inconclusive” or “maybe” or “I don’t know” here because the sentence makes a declaration of fact. The fact is either correct (true) or it is incorrect (false.) Holliday either touched the plate or he didn’t. These are the only two possibilities. True or false. Now, lets see how these two possibilities relate to the statement “Holliday never touched the plate.”

“Holliday never touched the plate” is TRUE if Holliday missed the plate.

“Holliday never touched the plate” is FALSE if Holliday touched the plate.

Now consider the following response featuring Atkins hit and see why it has no relation to the statement about Holliday missing the plate.

“Holliday never touched the plate” is FALSE because Atkins hit was a homerun.

The sentence above is obviously ridiculous since Atkins hit has no bearing on if Holliday touched the plate. It has no effect. Zero. Nada. Zilch. When the question is if Holliday touched the plate or not, the answer can’t be “Atkins hit a home run.”

What people who raise the issue of Atkins hit do is attempt to deflect attention from, or dismiss entirely, the question “Did Holliday touch the plate.” They believe that if Atkins ball been a home run that extra innings never would have happened so there is no reason to even answer any questions about Holliday’s slide. What they do is abandon any discussion of Holliday’s slide by taking a position that the game would have been over in nine innings if Atkins hit had been ruled a home run. The problem with this approach is that it never leads to an answer about Holliday’s slide.

All this being said, you are still free to say that Atkins hit a home run. Just don’t think that it has any effect in answering the question of if Holliday touched the plate. It doesn’t.

Tags: Uncategorized // 1 Comment »

As the Rockies get set to take on the Red Sox in the World Series, the key replay of the play that got Colorado into the post season remains missing. The “reverse angle replay” of the Rockies’ Matt Holliday’s slide into home vs. the Padres is still missing despite the fact that it could potentially provide a one viewpoint conclusive proof of the fact that Holliday never touched the plate. In a show of sympathy, Dairies across America have placed pictures of the missing replay on milk containers everywhere.

If you have any information about the whereabouts of this replay you are urged to contact this website.

Or, if you just want to know more about this play, then please check out the rest of the site.

Tags: Conspiracy?, MLB, TBS // 12 Comments »

Tony Kornheiser did something yesterday that Tim McClelland should have done in the 13th inning the night of Oct 1st. He called Matt Holliday out. While many in the media, including ESPN’s own Sportscenter, have described the replays as being “inconclusive,” Kornheiser has been adamant from day one that Holliday missed home plate. On PTI, the show he co-hosts with Michael Wilbon, Kornheiser asked an increasingly sheepish Matt Holliday point blank about the issue during a segment of “Five good Minutes.” Watch the video below and see how Holliday handles the question at the 3:20 mark.

Holliday trots out, among other things, the now familiar circular argument that “if he (McClelland) says I was safe, I was safe.” The net effect of this video is that Holliday’s non-committal responses and nervous laughter make it seem as if he is almost acknowledging that he missed the plate. A little wink here, a little grin there, and an admission that “that call went our way.’ To his credit Holliday never does say that he touched the plate.

Had the Rockies not swept the Phillies and D-Backs, this interview, and others like it would never have taken place and the disputed call may have been relegated to a historical footnote. But, as much as the Rockies and their fans might wish this topic would go away, it seems as if the scrutiny of Holliday’s slide is only increasing as the World Series draws closer. And more and more as the light of day is being shone upon the play, the message is coming back “Holliday never touched the plate.”

Tags: ESPN // 4 Comments »

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

Tags: Conspiracy?, ESPN, MLB, TBS // 1 Comment »

In an interview with me today, Jim Evans, the man behind the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring, discussed the topic of obstruction as it applied to Matt Holliday’s slide into home and Michael Barrett’s attempt to block the plate in the recent Rockies vs. Padres one game playoff. At the core of the conversation were baseball’s Rule 7.06(b) and the definition of obstruction under Rule 2.0.

If you google 7.06(b) today, you will find that many of the references listed are from discussion forums, or even websites such as this one, where the rule is cited by armchair umpires across America. In attempt to present an authoritative voice on the topic, I decided to contact Mr. Evans who was gracious enough to spend a few minutes of his time discussing the topic with me. According to MLB.com, the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring is one of “only two umpiring schools approved by The Professional Baseball Umpire Corp. (PBUC), which oversees all professional baseball umpires.” It should therefore go without saying that Mr. Evans is an expert on this subject and that his opinion is a well informed one, to say the least.

======================================
See the play this interview refers to below (with added commentary)

======================================

I informed Mr. Evans in advance that I had no intention of asking him to comment directly on if Matt Holliday was safe or out. It’s not that I wasn’t curious about his thoughts on the play, but I felt that asking him to specifically comment on the disputed safe call would be inappropriate. My intention for this interview was to explore only the issue of obstruction and so I limited my questions solely to that area. As such, Mr. Evans interview here should NOT been seen as an endorsement of this site’s position that Holliday missed the plate. The interview went on for about 10 minutes but, due to space considerations, I will only present the pertinent excerpts here. However, I hope to make the entire audio file available if I can figure out how to do that.

************************
Holliday Never Touched the Plate . COM: What’s happened is with this play there’s a lot of people on the web who have called (the play) into question, and are searching the major league rules and are citing the rules that apply to the play. And, when you look for the comments on the web via search engine, its really hard to get to the truth and I’m wondering if you could tell me what you think the applicable rules were on that play. I’m assuming of course that you are familiar with it (the play.)

Jim Evans: Yes. The catcher was totally within his rights in what he did. There’s totally no obstruction. Anybody who says that there’s obstruction has no experience in enforcing official baseball rules. Unquestionably no obstruction. The catcher was in the act of fielding the ball . And in section 2 he’s given full right to occupy that position if he’s in the act of fielding the ball. And so he had a right to be there. The fact that he did not have the ball at the time of the contact is ridiculous because he cannot vaporize, if the ball had left his possession and he continued to lie there and block the plate now you have obstruction. But as long as the aftermath is immediate like that, its nowhere near obstruction. There’s a reference in the rule book to obstruction when the example they give is when a ball is hit by the first baseman, and he dives for it, and loses it, and then continues to lie on the ground and impedes the progress of the runner from first, then you have obstruction. But the key to it is if he continues to lie on the ground. So the play at the plate wasn’t even , obstruction wasn’t even considered. You have hundreds of those plays a season happen, and there’s no obstruction.

…..

Holliday Never Touched the Plate . COM: I just want to thank you for taking the time to clear this up because it is a topic that is receiving a lot of discussion on the web…

Jim Evans: I’ve been in baseball for over thirty years, teaching and I’ve got the Academy and everything… Anybody that thinks that’s obstruction doesn’t know much about the professional enforcement (of the baseball rules). There may be some rule somewhere that I’m not even aware of in high school or college, and I know there’s some safety rules involved and must slide rules, you’ve got to slide directly into the base, and all kinds of different things. And so, you know I don’t claim to know or be an expert on high school, college, federation, or youth baseball rules, but if you’re enforcing the official baseball rule book, that is not, definitely not obstruction. He’s in the act of fielding the ball. He has a right to be there.

************************
After reading this I hope you can see that all arguments along the lines of “Holliday was safe because Barrett obstructed the plate” have just been fully and totally negated. Really. I don’t think that you will be able to find a more credible source anywhere than the man who is responsible for running one of the only two camps that trains MLB’s umpires. That I am the one who had to seek out Mr. Evans as a source to comment on obstruction as it relates to Holliday’s slide and Barrett’s block is further evidence of the lack of coverage that the media has afforded this disputed call.

If you still want to claim that Barrett obstructed Holliday, you are essentially saying that you know more about professional baseball rules and their enforcement than Mr. Evans does, in which case you are urged to use this site’s contact form to set up an interview.

Henceforward, all comments about blocking and obstruction of the plate as they relate to Matt Holliday’s slide and Michael Barrett’s block should be referred to this page.

ADMIN

http://www.HollidayNeverTouchedThePlate.com

Tags: Baseball Rules, Obstruction // 30 Comments »

Here is conclusive video proof that Matt Holliday never touched the plate. Using a reverse angle still frame that surfaced on MLB.com it is now possible to show what was happening from the viewpoint of Tim McClelland. Unfortunately the video that the still frame came from has yet to appear, so until it does, this is clip is 97% the best analysis that can be done. (note: The sound is a bit out of sync at times but I think you’ll be able to follow along.)

If you can watch this video and still think that Holliday touched the plate then you probably think O.J. Simpson is innocent also. Well maybe that’s a little harsh but you get the idea. Holliday’s hand clearly comes out from underneath Michael Barrett’s foot before he could have touched the plate. Barrett’s heel remains flatly on the ground while his foot blocks Holliday’s hand all the way beyond the plate as Holliday continued his slide.If and when the reverse angle video ever does surface (and just where the heck is it right now?) it could potentially be the only “single shot” proof that Holliday missed the plate. Until then, the best that can be done is this multiple angle, cross referenced, replay that clearly shows, Matt Holliday never touched the plate.

Tags: HNTTP's Videos, McClelland, Video posts // 35 Comments »

On Friday October 12th, MLB Advanced Media filed multiple copyright infringement complaints with YouTube that brought down the links to three of Holliday Never Touched the Plate’s (HNTTP) videos.  The complaints were filed despite the fact that no copyright infringement took place (since the use of the original source media was permissible under normal copyright law given the context of said use.) Basically this means that, according to MLB Advanced Media, if this site wants to examine the question of if Matt Holliday missed the plate, it must somehow do so without using the original video of the slide or any related source material. Maybe I should hire a sketch artist?

In all likelihood, these copyright complaints were not filed in an episode of targeted enforcement to curb discussion of the issue on this site, but rather the complaints were almost certainly filed as part of a broader effort to scrub illegal MLB content from YouTube. I can imagine some intern having the job of searching through every video that incorporates MLB footage and simply sending copyright infringement notices to YouTube on all of them without even bothering to evaluate the context of the use of said footage. Of course the vast majority of baseball highlights that are posted on YouTube are in fact in violation of copyright regulations and MLB Advanced Media is entirely within their rights to ask that they be taken down. However by including this site’s video in the complaint, MLB Advanced Media has cast an overly broad net.

Some may wonder why this site’s videos are hosted on YouTube and not on the site server. While there are several reasons for this arrangement, two stand out. The first is that it’s cheaper. This is a non-commercial site. There are no products being sold, no paid referral links, not even google adwords. This means that the site has no income stream. Without the ability to raise cash, this site would be unable to afford the bandwidth costs that the viewing of large media files would incur. The second reason relates to usability factors. Because they are so easy to use for viewers and content posters alike, third party sites such as YouTube offer a viable alternative to self hosting video on a dedicated server.

The following affected videos are now hosted on Google as of Sunday October 14th.
Matt Holliday Never Touched the Plate
Multi-angle: Matt Holliday Never Touched the Plate
and
Matt Holliday Never Touched The Plate - Three Camera angles

I will continue to try and keep these videos up as they are essential for the public discussion of whether or not Matt Holliday touched the plate. Imagine trying to determine the answer to that question without being able to see the replays and you’ll see why they are needed.

Tags: HNTTP's Videos, MLB // 2 Comments »

Baseball stood by its man as MLB’s crew of officials for the NLCS will include Tim McClelland as crew chief. Despite criticism that McClelland blew the final play by calling Matt Holliday safe at the plate during the Padres vs. Rockies one game playoff, MLB has tapped him to head the crew of umpires that will work the Nation League Championship Series. This will be the last time this year that viewers will be able to see the “McClelland Doctrine,” (The belief that any call is the correct one as long as no replays show otherwise) put into practice as it is unlikely that he will get an assignment for the World Series this year given the normal pattern of rotation for that assignment.

By my calculations, McClelland will reprise his home plate roll when the series moves to Colorado for game five. That’s a potential storyline that would be hard to ignore. But, since it could lead to an on-air rexamination of his performance the last time he was behind the plate in Denver, the story could be ignored or downplayed since MLB might be looking to avoid any such critique.

Tags: MLB, McClelland // Add Comment »

Key footage of Matt Holliday’s slide has gone missing. The image below is a screen cap from MLB.com’s video of Carroll driving in Matt Holliday. ( You can find a link to it on this page under the related links section to the right of the text.) In MLB.com’s video this image appears a static picture. It looks to be the greatest potential proof from a single camera angle that Holliday missed the plate, yet its just spliced into the footage like a slide in a montage at your cousin’s wedding reception. Given its angle, its resolution, and its appearance on MLB.com it is likely that this image is a freeze frame from a TV camera.

Pardon me for shouting but, WHERE THE HELL DID THIS COME FROM AND WHERE IS THE VIDEO FROM THIS CAMERA? In the days following the game, ESPN and other media outlets kept repeating that “the replays were inconclusive” like a bunch of parrots. However, when ESPN was addressing the question they never used this shot or any of the video from this angle. All the video they used from behind home was either heavily cropped to remove the plate, or had Holliday’s body obscuring the plate. Did ESPN bother to try and track down the video from this camera? Who knows? Perhaps Bud Selig, taking a page from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s playbook on how to deal with a video tape scandal, has already ordered the footage destroyed. This “grassy knoll” cameraman has a perfect clear view of Holliday as he attempts to touch the plate and yet the video has never surfaced to settle the controversy.

In reality I think the possibility that some incredible conspiracy has made this footage disapper is practically nil. But I do think that officials at MLB hinting to ESPN not to show the video is within the realm of possibility, however remote. But, even if this video isn’t missing as the result of conspiracy or unilateral action, the question still remains, where is it? If this video turns out to be “inconclusive” why keep it from view as it can’t hurt anything to show it? If the video were to prove that Holliday was safe, why is it being hidden when it could settle the argument? Should we assume that producers keep forgetting to show the best angle of the slide seen to date and that its omission is just an accident?

The best rational explanation for the continued absence of this live shot from all replays is that it proves that Holliday never touched the plate or otherwise brings McClelland’s call into serious question. The continued withholding of this key footage could be yet another sign that MLB is actively trying to shape the story around McClelland’s call. If MLB has nothing to hide, why is this footage still missing?

Tags: Conspiracy?, ESPN, MLB, McClelland // 3 Comments »