[M T]

Then weird play #2.  A hard ground ball to second, with a drawn-in infield, and the throw comes home high.  Howell, sliding to avoid the tag, slaps her left hand down on the plate just before the sweep tag hits her shoulder.  Tie game.  

Except the umpire inexplicably says she didn't touch the plate.  He was probably unsighted by the sweeping tag arm, but Howell's hand hit the center of the back of the plate well before she was tagged and went across.  It wasn't really that close; he just missed it.

The replay tonight shows clearly her hand coming down fully on the plate well before the tag, sliding across the plate, and sweeping up dirt as her hand got to the dirt.  Then you hear the ump yelling something such as "... missed the plate".

How he missed the hand on the plate, I don't know.  It appears he should have a clear view of the hand on the plate.

Not only does the ump miss the touch of the plate, he also misses that the catcher apparently tagged the runner (after the touch of the plate), so he declines to call the runner out, forcing the catcher to tag the runner again. 

But, even so, is he supposed to yell out a non-call explanation, or remain silent until there is something to call.  The catcher kneeling on the plate, looking up at the ump, doesn't appear to ask for an explanation.  Is this like an ump yelling out that the pitcher doesn't have the ball when a team attempts a hidden ball trick?

Did you notice that the official tying run missed the plate and had to come back to step on it.  The runner had turned her head to look at the play of the ball, and when she turned around, she was one stride from the plate and the catcher's foot (and body) was about 2" off the opposite side of the plate from her.   To avoid running over the catcher she broke her stride and landed short of the plate with the foot that should have landed on it.  The player and the catcher both twist their bodies to minimize impact. The ump clearly saw the missed plate and watched the runner come back, but failed to call obstruction.   While I don't really know how such situations are normally handled, from the rule book, this appears to be fielder obstruction (by the catcher impeding the path of the player, 9.5.3.1) and that the ump should have signaled a delayed dead ball (which he did not signal).  When the player comes back and tags the plate, there is no further action required, but the obstruction should have been already called, and a delayed dead ball signaled.

9.5.3 Fielder Obstruction.
9.5.3.1 A fielder who is not in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding
a batted ball shall not impede the runner.
EFFECT—(9.5.3.1 to 9.5.3.6)—Whenever obstruction occurs, whether a
play is being made on a runner, obstruction shall be called and a delayed
dead ball is signaled.
If the obstructed player safely reaches the base she should have reached
had there been no obstruction or she is put out at a base beyond the
base she should have reached had there been no obstruction, no further
action occurs.

I hope this umpire gets a full review and his qualifications for this level reconsidered.

[M T]

Then weird play #2.  A hard ground ball to second, with a drawn-in infield, and the throw comes home high.  Howell, sliding to avoid the tag, slaps her left hand down on the plate just before the sweep tag hits her shoulder.  Tie game.  

Except the umpire inexplicably says she didn't touch the plate.  He was probably unsighted by the sweeping tag arm, but Howell's hand hit the center of the back of the plate well before she was tagged and went across.  It wasn't really that close; he just missed it.

The replay tonight shows clearly her hand coming down fully on the plate well before the tag, sliding across the plate, and sweeping up dirt as her hand got to the dirt.  Then you hear the ump yelling something such as "... missed the plate".

How he missed the hand on the plate, I don't know.  It appears he should have a clear view of the hand on the plate.

Not only does the ump miss the touch of the plate, he also misses that the catcher apparently tagged the runner (after the touch of the plate), so he declines to call the runner out, forcing the catcher to tag the runner again. 

But, even so, is he supposed to yell out a non-call explanation, or remain silent until there is something to call.  The catcher kneeling on the plate, looking up at the ump, doesn't appear to ask for an explanation.  Is this like an ump yelling out that the pitcher doesn't have the ball when a team attempts a hidden ball trick?

Did you notice that the official tying run missed the plate and had to come back to step on it.  The runner had turned her head to look at the play of the ball, and when she turned around, she was one stride from the plate and the catcher's foot (and body) was about 2" off the opposite side of the plate from her.   To avoid running over the catcher she broke her stride and landed short of the plate with the foot that should have landed on it.  The player and the catcher both twist their bodies to minimize impact. The ump clearly saw the missed plate and watched the runner come back, but failed to call obstruction.   While I don't really know how such situations are normally handled, from the rule book, this appears to be fielder obstruction (by the catcher impeding the path of the player, 9.5.3.1) and that the ump should have signaled a delayed dead ball (which he did not signal).  When the player comes back and tags the plate, there is no further action required, but the obstruction should have been already called, and a delayed dead ball signaled.

9.5.3 Fielder Obstruction.
9.5.3.1 A fielder who is not in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding
a batted ball shall not impede the runner.
EFFECT—(9.5.3.1 to 9.5.3.6)—Whenever obstruction occurs, whether a
play is being made on a runner, obstruction shall be called and a delayed
dead ball is signaled.
If the obstructed player safely reaches the base she should have reached
had there been no obstruction or she is put out at a base beyond the
base she should have reached had there been no obstruction, no further
action occurs.

I hope this umpire gets a full review and his qualifications for this level reconsidered.