Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are an embarrassment

[Bubb Rubb]

Player thrown out at the plate, review upholds the call, and they have been crying about it for an inning. So damned unprofessional. They are worse than David Kellum.

[msstate7]

I thought he blocked the plate without the ball.

New York says the tag was clear and definitive. If so, why the heck was it a 5 minute replay?

Garcia says replay that!

[msstate7]

BTW, they've always been horrible at calling games. I really like jim Powell and don sutton on radio

[trob115]

I can't listen to chip or joe. They are imo, one of, if not the worst in the business.

[shoeless joe]

Chip is awful. Joe on the other hand is one of the best IMO. He calls it like he sees it and he definitely knows the game. Know he is a homer...but I like that on a regional broadcast. There's a reason he calls national playoff games...he's good. And I think he's good when he does play by play...really feel FSS missed a key opportunity when they could have had joe and smoltz in the booth together. They were great.

[War Machine Dawg]

Chip is awful. Joe on the other hand is one of the best IMO. He calls it like he sees it and he definitely knows the game. Know he is a homer...but I like that on a regional broadcast. There's a reason he calls national playoff games...he's good. And I think he's good when he does play by play...really feel FSS missed a key opportunity when they could have had joe and smoltz in the booth together. They were great.

Nailed it. Chip Caray is just so bad he drags everyone else down. I don't know why he's still employed. The reason you don't see a Joe & Smoltz or Joe & Glavine booth is pretty simple: Joe isn't very good at play-by-play. They tried it for a while a few years ago and it was bad. Joe just couldn't effectively make the transition from color. We went from one of the best broadcasts in baseball with Boog & Joe to one of the worst with Chip & Joe. Wonder what changed there?

And for the OP: He was safe. It was clear from 2 different angles. I was actually watching for once this year. I don't give a damn what replay said, they blew the call. Twice. More than twice if you count not calling illegal block of the plate. And you're surprised the homer side on a regional broadcast is bitching about it?

[Bubb Rubb]

Nailed it. Chip Caray is just so bad he drags everyone else down. I don't know why he's still employed. The reason you don't see a Joe & Smoltz or Joe & Glavine booth is pretty simple: Joe isn't very good at play-by-play. They tried it for a while a few years ago and it was bad. Joe just couldn't effectively make the transition from color. We went from one of the best broadcasts in baseball with Boog & Joe to one of the worst with Chip & Joe. Wonder what changed there?

And for the OP: He was safe. It was clear from 2 different angles. I was actually watching for once this year. I don't give a damn what replay said, they blew the call. Twice. More than twice if you count not calling illegal block of the plate. And you're surprised the homer side on a regional broadcast is bitching about it?

And in my neutral (read: non Braves fan) observation, they got the call right.

1. He wasn't blocking the plate. He set up in front of it and the runner had a clear path to the plate. He moved in to block the plate as he was receiving the ball, which is allowable under the rule.

2. He tagged him on the knee at first, and then up near the shoulder. If the shoulder tag had been the first one, I would agree that he was safe. But he glanced the knee first, which nobody is talking about. As replay said, it was "clear and definitive." At least it was to me.

The call ultimately didn't matter...the Braves won the game. Umpires are going to miss calls from time to time, but if the language from the replay official is "clear and definitive," then you can bet your ass that they saw something (maybe from another broadcast's camera angle) that made it clear.

I understand homerism and generally don't have an issue with it. But there is a difference between homerism and unprofessionalism.

[starkvegasdawg]

I miss the days of Skip and Don calling the games. Partly because I really like them and partly because the Braves were worth watching back then. Amazing how we went from players like Glavine, Smoltz, Maddox, Neagle, Avery, Merker, Justice, Chipper, Gant, Javy, McGriff, etc. to players that I have literally never heard of before.

We had "The Catch" by Otis Nixon and the slide by Bream under the throw of Bonds. McGriff homering his first game as a Brave after they put out the fire in the press box. The Mets trying to get into Chipper's head by calling him Larry and him still lighting them up. Skip calling the game where the Braves officially went from worst to first.

[louisvilledawg]

I miss the days of Skip and Don calling the games. Partly because I really like them and partly because the Braves were worth watching back then. Amazing how we went from players like Glavine, Smoltz, Maddox, Neagle, Avery, Merker, Justice, Chipper, Gant, Javy, McGriff, etc. to players that I have literally never heard of before.

We had "The Catch" by Otis Nixon and the slide by Bream under the throw of Bonds. McGriff homering his first game as a Brave after they put out the fire in the press box. The Mets trying to get into Chipper's head by calling him Larry and him still lighting them up. Skip calling the game where the Braves officially went from worst to first.

Speaking of Chipper, i'm pretty sure he named his son Shea (after the mets old stadium) because he owned the mets and said he was their daddy. lol

[msstate7]

And in my neutral (read: non Braves fan) observation, they got the call right.

1. He wasn't blocking the plate. He set up in front of it and the runner had a clear path to the plate. He moved in to block the plate as he was receiving the ball, which is allowable under the rule.

2. He tagged him on the knee at first, and then up near the shoulder. If the shoulder tag had been the first one, I would agree that he was safe. But he glanced the knee first, which nobody is talking about. As replay said, it was "clear and definitive." At least it was to me.

The call ultimately didn't matter...the Braves won the game. Umpires are going to miss calls from time to time, but if the language from the replay official is "clear and definitive," then you can bet your ass that they saw something (maybe from another broadcast's camera angle) that made it clear.

I understand homerism and generally don't have an issue with it. But there is a difference between homerism and unprofessionalism.

Perhaps it wasn't just that call, but the cumulation of all the times the braves have been seemingly hosed by replay. It's gotten to the point where I never expect one to go the braves way.

About clear and definitive evidence... If so, the replay should've taken 30 seconds not 5 mins. When it's clear, it's clear... No looking over and over

[Really Clark?]

And in my neutral (read: non Braves fan) observation, they got the call right.

1. He wasn't blocking the plate. He set up in front of it and the runner had a clear path to the plate. He moved in to block the plate as he was receiving the ball, which is allowable under the rule.

2. He tagged him on the knee at first, and then up near the shoulder. If the shoulder tag had been the first one, I would agree that he was safe. But he glanced the knee first, which nobody is talking about. As replay said, it was "clear and definitive." At least it was to me.

The call ultimately didn't matter...the Braves won the game. Umpires are going to miss calls from time to time, but if the language from the replay official is "clear and definitive," then you can bet your ass that they saw something (maybe from another broadcast's camera angle) that made it clear.

I understand homerism and generally don't have an issue with it. But there is a difference between homerism and unprofessionalism.

Sorry. The replays I saw looks like he was under the tag and the catcher never tagged his knee. I haven't seen a replay showing that at all. There have been some game dynamic adjustments to the blocking rule but by the letter of the rule it's NOT he can block while receiving the ball, he has to already have possession of the ball. The catcher dropped down to block the plate before the ball got there after the bounce but before he caught the ball. I really think the replay screwed that call not only does it appear he was safe regardless, you also have the argument that when a throw brings the catcher into the path of the runner and causes him to block the plate the runner is automatically safe on a close play at the plate. No matter what even with the game dynamic adjustments he was safe.

[shoeless joe]

And in my neutral (read: non Braves fan) observation, they got the call right.

1. He wasn't blocking the plate. He set up in front of it and the runner had a clear path to the plate. He moved in to block the plate as he was receiving the ball, which is allowable under the rule.

2. He tagged him on the knee at first, and then up near the shoulder. If the shoulder tag had been the first one, I would agree that he was safe. But he glanced the knee first, which nobody is talking about. As replay said, it was "clear and definitive." At least it was to me.

The call ultimately didn't matter...the Braves won the game. Umpires are going to miss calls from time to time, but if the language from the replay official is "clear and definitive," then you can bet your ass that they saw something (maybe from another broadcast's camera angle) that made it clear.

I understand homerism and generally don't have an issue with it. But there is a difference between homerism and unprofessionalism.


I've just now gone back and watched the play. I'm a big braves fan but very objective when it comes to the game...and you are absolutely incorrect. The runner was safe.

I don't blame the ump for calling him out initially because it was bang bang, but after replay it should have been reversed. Now, I do think that if bonafacio goes head first to the outside or even slides past to touch the plate he's prolly safe and maybe that's what the umps saw as far as the catcher blocking the plate, although that's not what the rule states...but none the less he touched the plate before being touched by the mit. Getting touched by the catchers arm, wrist, knee, shin guard mean nothing...gotta tag em with the ball in the mit.