An Historic Game - And Reason for Change
It was so late even Monday Night Football had gone to bed, with the Cinncinnati Bengals the newest team mauled by the machine-like New England Patriots.
But they were still playing baseball, still finishing the major league regular season, in Denver nearly a full day after J.P. Ricciardi had made his final excuses in Toronto.
Four hours and 40 minutes after it started, the Colorado Rockies had beaten the San Diego Padres 9-8 last night in dramatic, comeback style against baseball's all-time saves leader Trevor Hoffman, ending the longest one-game tiebreaker in major league history in the bottom of the 13th innning.
And emphatically illustrated the desperate need for replay review in baseball.
| WILL POWERS/AP |
| Holliday scores! Or does he? |
Matt Holliday, who moments earlier had tied the game with a triple that also won him the National League batting title over Chipper Jones, was credited with the winning run, racing home on a short fly ball by Jamey Carroll with nobody out and apparently using his left hand to touch home plate, thus evading the tag by catcher Michael Barrett.
Or did he?
As Holliday lay behind home plate and Barrett scrambled to pick up the ball, home plate umpire Tim McClelland made no signal. Not safe. Not out. He seemed to simply stare at home plate, seemingly waiting to make the call, seemingly indicating that the play was still alive because Holliday hadn't touched the plate.
Then an instant later, McClelland made the sweeping "safe" sign, and the Rockies were in the post-season for the first time since 1995 after winning 14 of their final 15 games.
"This is why we in uniform, the people in the front office, the fans, love baseball," said a gracious San Diego manager Bud Black. "It's because of games like this."
But as the Rockies danced around the diamond and a woozy Holliday tried to regain his senses, television replays seemed to indicate that Holliday's attempt to touch the plate had been brilliantly blocked by Barrett.
If McClelland sees it that way and Holliday is tagged out, there's one two outs with nobody on and they're probably still playing.
"The umpire called me safe, that's all I know," Holliday said.
They're been debating replay in baseball for years, and so far there's been no move towards implementing any system.
But surely even a system that decided one thing - did a player touch home plate? - would be simple to implement and logical in a time when football, hockey and baseball all employ some form of review.
To me, it sure didn't look like Holliday touched the plate. If I was a Padre fan - Steve Garvey and those crazy brown uniforms turned me off that team forever - I wouldn't feel at all satisfied with the way the game was decided or the call that was made.
What if it had been Game 7 of the World Series?
Earlier in the game, in the seventh inning with the game tied 6-6, a blast off the bat of Colorado's Garrett Atkins may or may not have cleared the fence for a home run. It was ruled a double, Atkins didn't score and it was another instance in which replay might or might not have been a useful tool for the umpiring crew.
You've got to at least try to get it right. Baseball, after a fabulously dramatic night in the Colorado altitude, should know that for sure this morning.

Hi, I agree very much with your comments but actually the out at the plate would have been the second out after the fly ball out that started the play.
Don
Posted by: Don Jones | October 02, 2007 at 09:00 AM
Replay in the Holliday case would have inconclusive anyway, it was too close to call. And boy that would have brought the game to a screeching halt.
However I think replay would have been ideal in determining the home-run, not a home-run. It was at least obvious to me that the ball hit the wheel chair behind the fence and bounced back.
Posted by: Shaun | October 02, 2007 at 09:38 AM
Damien... yesterday where you give your 2 cents about anything and everything in the world of sports you talked about how you couldn't get excited for this game... Now after one of the best games since the 2004 ALCS, all you do is talk about instant replay. Half the problem with sports is the media making problems out of nothing. Instant replay hasn't exactly been perfect and hasn't exactly made hockey or football better. I mean... what's better then watching a Bills Pats games and having 2 challenges in an extremely short span eating up nearly 10 min of my life.... i'd much rather see an educated on the field judgement call then to fall asleep waiting for the game to start again. There will never be a need for instant replay in baseball, and besides, baseball has much bigger problems to worry about besides instant replay.
Posted by: Michael Dwyer | October 02, 2007 at 10:00 AM
I am not a Ricciardi fan. However, i am tired of him and the team being ripped on for not making the playoffs. what do you expect? only 4 teams from the 14 team AL (as opposedt o 4 from the 16 team NL, can you say imbalance?) can make the playoffs. If it were hockey or Baseball, where 8 of 15, from each conference made the post season, the jays would be yearly contenders. Why not shorten the 160 game season to 140-150 games, and add 2 more rounds of playoff baseball? They could even be best of 5, or best of 3 (as I think you yourself suggested with a 2nd wildcard spot, but why not go further to a 16 team playoff!).
I am sure one of these years in the near future the jays, with or without Ricciardi, will finally make the playoffs.
Posted by: Andrew Barrie | October 02, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Look Andrew, it's not that they haven't made the playoffs, it's that they haven't even come close to making them. Ricciardi came in, sold a vision, and didn't produce.
Posted by: Stephen | October 02, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Damien: I'll give you the brown uniforms, but what's your problem with Garvey? It's been over 20 years man, whatever it was, let it go!
Posted by: Derek Weatherdon | October 02, 2007 at 07:27 PM
Can you imagine if that had been the Yankees that got screwed on the winning run at home plate? Brilliant doesn't even begin to describe how good that play was by Barrett. It was a thrilling game, to be sure, but I was disappointed by the final play. There's just too much room for error. How can you confidently say that the umpires are the best, purest system for baseball when he stands there staring at the plate in a trance while the game hangs in the balance?
Posted by: Jim | October 02, 2007 at 11:32 PM