Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

I just saw it on the news at lunch for the first time. They only showed the view from third base and the way the catcher had the plate blocked, it looked like he couldn't have touched the plate.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mute point, but dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a pretty quiet point. Not sure if it was totally mute though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a moo point. It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

Youtube link to play at the plate. (not a rickroll)

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It looked like he did because he didn't make a move to go back and touch it. If that happened, then the ump would assume that Holliday did not touch it and he would be out if Barrett beat him to the plate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people have been making this argument. Watching the replay it looks like Holliday kind of got dazed from hitting the ground and actually goes kinda like lift his body in an attempt to try and tag again but it looks like he just gives up. I would chalk up his non effort to get back to the base much more to his being semi knocked out than I would for him thinking he had touched the plate.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mute point, but dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a pretty quiet point. Not sure if it was totally mute though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least I didn't say MOO point!

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

I'm not sure whether Holiday didn't try to crawl back and touch the plate because
(a.) He believed he already touched it.
(b.) He knew he didn't but wanted the ump to think he did
(c.) He was in too much pain to even think about trying to crawl back and touch it.

He at least got a bloody nose from his face plant, and maybe rattled his brain a bit.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
At first I thought he completely missed the plate, but after watching a few replays it looked like his hand swiped the plate right under Barrett's foot. IF there had been instant replay, probably too inconclusive to reverse.

And LOLOL at thinking Barrett was illegally blocking (or "obstructing") the plate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.. obstruction is hilarious. This is not obstruction at any level of play from little league up.

It was really hard to tell either way if he touched the plate, but Holliday was also not sure as you can see in the replays. He was getting ready to scamper back a touch home when he noticed Barrett sitting there with the ball and he just rolled over. Of course this means nothing really other than he was prolly not sure either.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

Pretty sure he didn't get the plate. But he may have got it with his finger. All in all it was too close to complain. And if it was really obvious I think bud Black woul still be yelling.

The ball off of the rail was a double. Watch the lady. The look on her face is, "Crap, it hit the top of the wall." If it hit her wheelchair that she was standing next to, she would have been going nuts before Ron Burgondy went out to interview her and she made up where it hit.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

This play illustrates pretty clearly why you shouldn't slide headfirst into home plate. I'm surprised Holliday didn't break his hand. That replay of his fingers jamming into Barrett's left foot was pretty brutal.

To me it is pretty clear that he never touched the plate. Barrett should have been able to pick up the ball and tag him while he laid on the ground. Very strange reaction and late call by McClelland.

Re: Did He Touch Home?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Football? Meh, now it's all about point spread and gambloors, not the game, so of course it's most important to get it right. Baseball? It's still a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baseball spent its first 50 years as a popular spectator sport in America (pretty much until the 1920s) as little more than a medium for gambling -- something akin to horse racing today. While the Black Sox were obviously the most notorious culprits, the so-called Golden Age of baseball was absolutely rife with gambling. Much of the reason baseball attained the popularity it did in the late 19th/early 20th century is because ballgames were populated with gambloors who used the game as a medium for prop bets with each other.

And if you think gambooling on baseball by the masses stopped after the Black Sox, consider that tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) changed hands just in twoplustwo run fantasy baseball leagues this season.

It has never been "just a game".

/hijack

[/ QUOTE ]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

This 3-disc DVD collection might have something to say about that.