# Talk:2007 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game

Had Holliday not been called safe, the Rockies would have had two outs in the bottom of the 13th.

One from Carroll's sacrifice fly.
One from Holliday being tagged out at home.
Struhs 03:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

After Carroll's sac fly was caught, Helton left first and kept running.  He was rounding second when the throw came in at the plate and most likely would have been safe at third had Holliday been called out.
Struhs 16:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, based upon what I see in videos of the play (which can be seen at this web site: http://www.hollidaynevertouchedtheplate.com/) ... it sure looks to me like Helton was still standing on 1st base when the throw from Giles went (way) over his head.
Lynchmob98 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is being monitored for edits which are not factual and for vandalism (e.g. additions of opinion as to which team "sucks", assertions of whether an umpire got a call right, or comments regarding whether or not the game's outcome was a verifiable act of God).  Such edits will be undone.
Struhs 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not unanimous that the replay of the final play of the Rockies 2007 regular season is "inconclusive" ... here's a few links that suggest otherwise ...
http://www.hollidaynevertouchedtheplate.com/
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/video?id=3071027
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-rockieslist101807&prov=yhoo&type=lgns ... "Holliday's chin bounced off the ground, leaving a scrape that today continues to heal. His hand, sealed off by Barrett's leg, never touched the plate. And yet home plate umpire Tim McClelland called him safe."  
Lynchmob98 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the word "inconclusive" needs to go.  no problems saying that the call was controversial, but there are plenty of people who think the video evidence is conclusive.
--12.110.35.146 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I re-wrote that section from a more encyclopedic and historical point of view.  I think the final operating word is "inconsequential".  The main point was to say that many have an opinion about the call, but none matters except the unpire's.  None of those bloggers' or sports writers' commentary is anything but their opinion, so you can say their words exist, but they can't be stated as fact.  Fair enough?
Struhs 06:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good.
--12.110.35.146 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort ... I like this ... yes, fair enough :-)
Lynchmob98 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So does this game reflect on the regular season standings? 
--Howard the Duck 04:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this game counts as a regular season game in every way.  The Rockies and Padres both played 163 official games, and any hits, runs, RBI, ERA, strikeouts, walks, errors, etc. also count for each player's individual regular season and career records.
Struhs 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Does a section about the "controversial" ending really need to be included.  Holliday touched the plate, end of story.  NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE made a big deal of this, the announcer questioned it after it happen.  No need for this section.  REALLY????? Standleylake40 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversy and public discussion that followed is not only significant, but one of the major aspects of this game that adds to its historical impact.  To say no one made a big deal of this is laughable.  I am also one of those who believes Holliday DID touch the plate, but we should tell the whole story, not just our side.  (Please see previous discussion threads.) Struhs (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to add your citations to this article or this could be taken off as rumor and un-true. Standleylake40 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me.  Wikipedia reaps untold benefits from diligent watchdogs such as yourself.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.  I just wonder why you keep removing the section entirely.  If you care that much about it, why didn't you just add the references yourself?  Do you go systematically through Wikipedia removing any and all articles lacking what you deem to be sufficient documentation, or only the ones that contain information you don't care to read?  Struhs (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall this is a good article, though I have a few concerns:

"the competition over the Wild Card lasted to the last day of the season." Tweak the wording, lasted to the last sounds a bit off.
"They propelled themselves into the Wild Card race, however, going 46–29 in the second half of the season" This doesn't feel worded right to me. maybe 'by going 46-29' would help there.
"including a season-best 11-game winning streak from September 16 through September 27" season best for the team or the league? I assume team but it'd be a nice fact if it was league.
I'd throw in cites for the game summary at the end of each paragraph with the baseball-reference source. We know where the info comes from and it's obvious to us, but it might not be to others.
I'll put the article on hold and pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the 2nd sentence of the Aftermath section shouldn't it say "Prior to the 2007 playoffs Helton..." Obviously, Todd played in the playoffs before 2009.
--170.144.116.240 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Travis N.

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to MLB.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to  upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher).  I'll also remove redundant 'location' parameters (e.g. work=New York Times|location=New York), as suggested by the template's usage guidelines. Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the paragraph in the controversy section regarding the dropped ball.
MLB rule 7.06 has this 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."
It is arguable that Barrett was "fielding a ball" while at home plate (some could argue that he wasn't).  Due to "fielding a ball" being debatable, this section should be removed.  Furthermore, it doesn't exactly contribute anything to the article, as both the play and call were already discussed.
209.150.92.91 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)