Who are you rooting for to win the World Series?
| Boston Red Sox |  20 (10.64%) |
| Colorado Rockies | 155 (82.45%) |
| Don't care either way | 13 (6.91%) |
188 votes | 11 featured comments
Anyone besides myself who believes the Rockies' advance to the playoffs is unjust because Holliday never touched the plate?
Well, even if Holliday was called out the game wouldn't have been over.
Well there was an Atkins homerun in that game that was called foul, so my sense of justice is not bothered.
I understand all sorts of reasons to excuse the Rockies.
They are playing like a deserving team and swept the Padres during the penultimate weekend of the regular season.
They've done plenty to earn their success and came back from enormous depths to overtake the Padres. No question.
But the run that finally pushed them over the top so dramatically was not true. Logically, a call that went against them earlier in that 163rd game or way back in game 54 could be cited as the difference in the season's outcome as much as the play where Holliday bloodied his chin and looked like he performed one of the worst baserunning miscues in history.
I was pulling for Holliday, who made a terrible miscue in fielding a fly ball in the eighth (generously scored a double by Giles) to atone for a mistake that could have lost the season for his team. Which is a tough thing for an MVP to swallow, I'd imagine. It was all making for a very dramatic game but it ended on a bad call.
And I mean he looked terrible in his technique coming to the plate. Were he called out and the Rockies lost, I can only imagine the offseason jeers he would be hearing. The botched fly ball he should have caught and the slide into home plate where he looked just as lost and confused.
Yet today he is fortunate on a legendary level, along with the rest of his team, to do what they have done. But they certainly didn't earn every bit of it. They got some help.
They are playing like a deserving team and swept the Padres during the penultimate weekend of the regular season.
They've done plenty to earn their success and came back from enormous depths to overtake the Padres. No question.
But the run that finally pushed them over the top so dramatically was not true. Logically, a call that went against them earlier in that 163rd game or way back in game 54 could be cited as the difference in the season's outcome as much as the play where Holliday bloodied his chin and looked like he performed one of the worst baserunning miscues in history.
I was pulling for Holliday, who made a terrible miscue in fielding a fly ball in the eighth (generously scored a double by Giles) to atone for a mistake that could have lost the season for his team. Which is a tough thing for an MVP to swallow, I'd imagine. It was all making for a very dramatic game but it ended on a bad call.
And I mean he looked terrible in his technique coming to the plate. Were he called out and the Rockies lost, I can only imagine the offseason jeers he would be hearing. The botched fly ball he should have caught and the slide into home plate where he looked just as lost and confused.
Yet today he is fortunate on a legendary level, along with the rest of his team, to do what they have done. But they certainly didn't earn every bit of it. They got some help.
Geoff, I'm not sure I understand your point. You're saying the Rockies don't deserve to be where they are since they were "helped"? I would need to proof that the Rockies had more calls in their favour over the course of the season than other clubs to really accept that, and even then MLB does not have instant replay, so bad calls are fair play. A victory as a result of a bad call is still an "earned" victory.
I read this elsewhere and would love for somebody confident to clarify this for me concerning the Holliday play at home plate. Apparently the rules state that a catcher cannot block home plate if he is not in possession of the ball. The catcher did not have possession of the ball, so on that basis Holliday would be safe due to interference. The debate lies around the fact that the catcher CAN block the plate while in the process of fielding the ball. In which case it would be a botched call due to Holliday not touching the plate before eventually being tagged.
The catcher cannot block the plate unless he is in the process of catching the ball. "In the process" here refers to some time before the ball actually arrives. According to the rules, and more than 100 years of baseball tradition, the catcher more than had the right to block the plate like that in this case. There was no interference on the play. As plate blocks went, it was fairly minor, and would have been easily knocked aside by a hard feet first slide.
Blown safe call, yes. Blown interference call, no. Taineted victory, not in my book.
Blown safe call, yes. Blown interference call, no. Taineted victory, not in my book.
My first point is that were it not for a bad call to end the season, the Rockies would not necessarily be in the playoffs. I'm not suspicious that it was deliberate and I did plenty to clarify that the team has done much to earn the success that they enjoy.
Secondly, that the Rockies and especially Holliday, are very, very fortunate for how that final game turned out. I can't get that game out of my head. It was unreal and the ending was unforgettable. I've tried to imagine how the Rockies view it, how a Rockies fan views it, how a Padres fan views it. It was such a small and decisive turning point with some really ugly baserunning by an MVP candidate. That's all.
Secondly, that the Rockies and especially Holliday, are very, very fortunate for how that final game turned out. I can't get that game out of my head. It was unreal and the ending was unforgettable. I've tried to imagine how the Rockies view it, how a Rockies fan views it, how a Padres fan views it. It was such a small and decisive turning point with some really ugly baserunning by an MVP candidate. That's all.
Any time someone wants to complain about the call at the plate, you CAN'T forget that the game should have ended as a Rockies win in regulation.
You can't complain about a botched call but then say that the other botched call was acceptable.
The Rockies earned their way into the play-offs. There is no question about it.
According to the rules, and more than 100 years of baseball tradition, the catcher more than had the right to block the plate like that in this case.
From mlb's site:
Rule 7.06(b) Comment: [...] NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.
Catchers typically block the plate before they even catch the ball and routinely violate this rule. Tradition, not the rules, permit this behaviour. Imagine a second baseman blocking second base on a stolen base attempt, as catchers now do on plays at the plate. To my mind, those plays are equally legal (i.e., not at all). But tradition has it that it's not worth risking injury conceding the 90 feet between first and second. The machismo is only supposed to be strapped on for the 90 feet between third and home.
From mlb's site:
Rule 7.06(b) Comment: [...] NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.
Catchers typically block the plate before they even catch the ball and routinely violate this rule. Tradition, not the rules, permit this behaviour. Imagine a second baseman blocking second base on a stolen base attempt, as catchers now do on plays at the plate. To my mind, those plays are equally legal (i.e., not at all). But tradition has it that it's not worth risking injury conceding the 90 feet between first and second. The machismo is only supposed to be strapped on for the 90 feet between third and home.
The key part of the rule to my eye is : "...only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. "
This is implying that the catcher (or other fielder) can block the plate before he has the ball, since it specifies fielding the ball as separate from having the ball already. So there is some leeway to being in the way before the ball is actually there. A fielder isn't required to not be in the way, catch the ball, and then move into position to make a tag. The play in question would seem to be legal under the rules. Catchers certainly do get more leeway than they should sometimes by this rule, when they are blocking the plate well before the ball arrives, but not in this case.
Other fielders do occasionally block the bags by accident (or sometimes not) in the course of making a play, and I don't recall ever seeing it called interference. The lack of padding makes this far more dangerous though, as if fielders took to blocking the bag on a steal, runners would soon resort to a perfectly legal feet first slide directly into the exposed leg. They might also start sharpening the cleats a little. Headfirst (well, hands first) slides are pretty useless against a well positioned catcher, as Holliday found out.
But that's only my reading of the rule...
This is implying that the catcher (or other fielder) can block the plate before he has the ball, since it specifies fielding the ball as separate from having the ball already. So there is some leeway to being in the way before the ball is actually there. A fielder isn't required to not be in the way, catch the ball, and then move into position to make a tag. The play in question would seem to be legal under the rules. Catchers certainly do get more leeway than they should sometimes by this rule, when they are blocking the plate well before the ball arrives, but not in this case.
Other fielders do occasionally block the bags by accident (or sometimes not) in the course of making a play, and I don't recall ever seeing it called interference. The lack of padding makes this far more dangerous though, as if fielders took to blocking the bag on a steal, runners would soon resort to a perfectly legal feet first slide directly into the exposed leg. They might also start sharpening the cleats a little. Headfirst (well, hands first) slides are pretty useless against a well positioned catcher, as Holliday found out.
But that's only my reading of the rule...