Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo
That seems to be covered by Rule 3.16: APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
My logic goes like this. Since it would have taken an extraordinary effort for Reddick to have caught that ball, we can't assume he would have caught it. Therefore, the interference did not clearly prevent Reddick from catching that fly ball.
|
I am not assuming he would have or would not have caught the ball but, if it wasn't touched by a spectator, based upon the video we have all seen, there may have been a catch. The probable reason it was called an HR was because it was NOT CLEAR, whether it prevented a catch or not.