Let me begin by saying that I know my opinion means nothing. That said, for my money, Tim McClelland is the best umpire in the major leagues, and Angel Hernandez has proven himself to be the worst. However, obviously MLB thinks otherwise, since Hernandez is also working the ALCS.

Todd Walker hit a ball deep down the right field line tonight that would have hit the foul pole, if not for a Yankee fan who reached around the pole and hit the ball. Hernandez, the RF umpire, called foul. McClelland, the home plate umpire and crew chief, overruled (correctly, in my opinion, on a relatively easy call) and said home run. Joe Torre didn't argue much.

Two points here...first, I don't know what deal with the announcers was...they couldn't tell if it hit the pole or not. The ball dropped straight down from the pole, meaning it hit the fan. If it had hit the pole, it would have caromed off and not dropped directly down. The ball was hit by the fan in the upper deck, by the way.

Second...Security, HELLO??? Why was this guy talking on his cell phone and not kicked out of the game? In every other instance this year when a ball is messed with by a fan like that, they boot the fan...that's why they announce the disclaimer before every game to NOT TOUCH the ball in the field of play. This ought to be something MLB enforces equally in each ballpark.

totally agree, ive always liked mcclelland despite all the complaning about his "late" calls. hernandez is terrible, and was rated as one of the worst MLB umpires...i mean that call wasnt even close, it clearly hit the pole.

He overruled another umpire's call clearly, CLEARLY in violation of 9.02(c).

Everything else is unimportant. BTW, the replays were hardly conclusive.

Rich

im not going to get into the call too much, but i think it might have went foul. it was hooking foul and the guy deflected it back into the pole. i'll just leave it at that, i think hernandez made the right call but i wasnt there and i didnt have a good angle watching TV.

also, mrm21711, where do you find such ratings of umpires? id like to see who ranks where just out of curiosity.

Clearly in violation? I read the rule four times and I can't see how McClelland was "clearly" in violation of a rule. He was the PU. He is well within his rights to do that.

Whatever happened to getting a call correct? There's nothing wrong with discussing a call and fixing a mistake.

McClelland made the correct call IMO. The replay was more than conclusive that the glove was in front of the pole. The ball hit the glove. How Hernandez could miss that is beyond me, but I'm not on the field.

Tim McClelland is quite possibly one of the best umpires in MLB. He always has a consistent zone and a consistent call, even if it's not audible to the television audience. The voice call is for the people within the vicinity of you. The signal is for everyone else. McClelland best exemplifies this.

Again, this is all my opinion and is not meant to be offensive or argumentative to anyone. :)

"Second...Security, HELLO??? Why was this guy talking on his cell phone and not kicked out of the game? In every other instance this year when a ball is messed with by a fan like that, they boot the fan...that's why they announce the disclaimer before every game to NOT TOUCH the ball in the field of play. This ought to be something MLB enforces equally in each ballpark."

Please, this fan was doing what anyone of the 30 or 40 or even 50 thousand fans at that ball park would do. Catch a souvenir from a MLB game. If any stadium or league doesn't want fans to interfer with fair balls , Put up a Fence. It probably would cost what one yankee player gets for one game. A billion dollar industry can spend pennies to prevent something like this???

Sports Illustrated did an anonymous survey this year of MLB players. I don't think they got a 100% response, but the number was very high. C.B. Bucknor was rated as the worst umpire. Hernandez was one of the 5 worst, as voted on by the players. I personally feel Bucknor does a much better job than Hernandez.

Perhaps I'm one of the few true fans of the game anymore. I don't think that "fans" should interfere with the ball in the field of play. Like I said, in all other ballparks, these fans are tossed. Oh well, in the end, the chump may have cost his team a run.

I think it's funny that so many people could've seen the play so differently. From my couch, it looked to me like the ball missed the fan's glove and hit the pole directly behind the glove. I think it really did hit the pole, without interference from the fan. That would also explain why the fan wasn't ejected -- he never touched the ball.

As far as Torre not arguing, another poster has said that the NY Post quoted Torre as saying that the crew chief told him that 3 other umpires agreed with him that the ball was fair. So Torre didn't think the odds were in his favor to argue it. Is that how these things are decided among umpires?

Also, the guy on the cell phone that was interviewed by the Fox announcer was not the guy who tried to catch the ball. The kid who was involved in the play left on his own apparently; his buddy said it was b/c he was being hounded with questions. (Maybe he really was ejected, and his buddy was just covering for him. . .)

I think it hit the fan - if it had hit the pole it would have biunced instead of dropping.

I think if the fan had not touched it it would have hit the pole.

I don't think McClellend was well within his rights UNLESS ASKED by Hernandez.

Have you ever felt a foul pole? The one in Arlington is not metal on the outside - it's more like the bottom of a field goal - thick foam on the outside. I would expect a ball hitting that to behave in much the same way as the ball in question did. Looked like it hit the foul pole without hitting the fan to me. The padding is what made it drop nearly straight down.

PS - the friend of the fan who supposedly hit the ball could not have seen the ball hit either glove or pole - he was on the wrong side of the pole to see it. Next time you see the replay, watch for him.

i saw the replay again, and im taking back my original statement. i thought it hit the fan and would have went foul, now seeing the play again i think it would have hit the pole then deflected into foul territory and be a homerun.

im glad this call wasnt mine to make in the first place, because as you can see it took me over 12 hours to get the call corrected.

Hey mbcrowder, I've seen the pole at Yankee Stadium, I've touched the pole at Yankee Stadium, I'm a friend of the pole at Yankee Stadium and let me tell you, the pole at Arlington is no Yankee Stadium pole :p (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Anyway, when a struck ball hits that particular pole it carroms off. It was obvious from replays the fan touched the ball just before the ball was going to hit the pole. A great job by the umps. And I too was wondering just where was Yankee Stadium security.

One other thing that I have been wondering about: when did the foul ball mechanic go from raising both hands in the air to pointing? I've noticed that very few guys now use the 2 hands up mechanic, they go right to the point either fair or foul. On that call Hernandez looked more like a basketball ref than an umpire, and to then get over ruled after selling it with his big call made him look awful. Is this changed or are they using...GASP... "unauthorized" mechanics?

As soon as I saw Angel Hernandez was doing this series I knew there would be problems. McClelland is a fantastic umpire, but whatever possesed the MLB to put a guy like Hernandez on the ALCS is beyond me. Forget about giving the guy a turn, he doesn't deserve one. Hopefully this is the only issue involving him in the series. He's got the dish for game 2 so we'll see how he holds up.

9.02(c)

<i>If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. <b>No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.</b></i>

Does that make it any clearer?

It does not matter that he was the plate umpire. Nothing in the rule book gives the plate umpire the right to overturn a call.

Additionally, there was no indication that Hernandez asked for help.

All that said, this is further evidence that the rumors that Sandy Alderson has instructed umpires to get together and get the call "right" at the expense of 9.02(c) are correct.

In the short term it appears to be working. I fear, however, for the long term.

With regards to 9.02(c)"If a decision is appealed, ..." Did McClelland not change the call before it had a chance to be appealed by the Red Sox manager? Thus McCelland didn't violate this rule.

Btw - McClelland was not only the plate umpire but also crew chief? Doesn't that add any weight to his ability to change the call like he did?

Please the second sentence of 9.02(c)

<b>No umpire shall criticize, SEEK TO REVERSE, or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.</b>

McClelland's action, by his own admission to a newspaper reporter, violated this rule.

There is no exemption to 9.02(c) afforded to the crew chief.

Well...
 

I agree with Garth on what the book says, but if I'm the crew chief and I know the call is missed I'm going to do exactly what PU did and make the call.

That makes it the right call even if it might not be according to what the books say.

But then we really don't know what the books say anymore though really do we...

Thanks
David

In this case, McClelland was lucky. He told reporters after the game he was absolutely certain the ball hit the pole and that is why he "overruled" Hernandez. It turns out he was wrong, the ball did not hit the pole, but the end result was the same.

What happens when he is absolutely certain again, and again is wrong, but this time it affects the result negatively?

9.02 (c) is there for excellent reasons. Exceptions not withstanding, baseball, in the long haul, will regret tinkering with it.

Could I assume that you got this from the hard copy of the MLB rule book? I didn't see this from the MLB site, and if this is the case, I retract part of my earlier post. McClelland was wrong for overruling the call, I admit. But I still stand by my thinking of getting the call correct no matter what. Again, not trying to be argumentative and I do not claim to be an MLB Umpire.

Yes, I quoted the rule from the Official Rules of Baseball.

My problem is the "no matter what" part of your position. No matter that the spirit and even letter of a the rule is violated? No matter that the call is inconsequential and disrupts the game? No matter that it causes other calls to be wrong? No matter that it places umpires in the position of endless debates with coaches and players? No matter that it pits umpire against umpire?

I agree that getting the call correct is important. But I also believe that getting it correct, correctly is equally important. Nothing is bigger than the game. Not even a missed call.

...Not at the expense of the game...
 

Sorry guys, but I've done it. I've just flat-out overruled my partner and slept well afterwards.
I have a real problem with people (the rulebook) using terms like NEVER, ALWAYS, and MUST. Any number of things can happen in a game involving 12+ individuals on the field at the same time, and alot of things are beyond the realm of 'what-if's'.
In my situation, a ball hit into the night deep to right was 'clearly over the fence' according to my partner on the bases, who went out on the hit, but to the rest of us on the field, it obviously short-hopped the fence, and came to rest on the warning track.
I'm not waiting for him to formally ask me in private whether or not I feel that the ball was over the fence- rulebook-be-damned!

For the vast majority of instances where appeals to partners are required, of course it should be requested! I'm not saying that I agree with correcting a partner- " 'safe'. 'No, BOB, he was out!'". But I do believe that if a person interferes with the game, be it a batter, runner, fielder, or OFFICIAL, it is the responsibility of the officials to recify the situation.

GET IT RIGHT, not just RIGHT NOW.



Bainer.

I can see we have some differences in opinion which is great. But, let me warn you, I am a terrible debater.

I agree that not all calls need to be overturned like "He's safe. No Jimmy, he's out." What I am saying is that in a call of that magnitude, and I believe this call was really important IMO, there needs to be a correction. The ball would've hit the pole had the glove not been there. There's no doubt in my mind.

In response to your other questions, I cannot imagine an overturned call which would affect the rest of the game in a matter that you describe. Any umpire should not be affected by a previous call. Take it one at a time. If a coach or player has a beef and argues about a previous call and creates that endless debate, then there's always the parking lot/locker room waiting for him/her. We do not have to put up with that.

I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't have handled it the way McClelland did now that I know the rule, but he got the call correct. Yes, he violated the written rule, but I do not believe the rule was written to pit umpires against each other in argument, just a checks and balances system. If I felt that I was absolutely correct, I would confer with my partner privately even if it wastes time or is inconsequential and yes, even if it may violate the rule. If he thinks I'm wrong, that's fine. That would be an agreement we would have. If I think he's wrong, I would let him know my opinion and we'll weigh what we both saw. I think every call is important--overturned or not.

So, you think the game is more important than the call. I think they both affect each other so the calls need to be made correct. But hey, I'm a softball umpire... what do I know? I don't know if that means anything. My head hurts. Nap time. :(

Just my opinion, don't shoot me!

I agree with Garth on this point, and so does the PBUC. Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual, entitled <i>Instructions to Umpires</i>, says in part:<ul>Cooperate with your partners. Help each other. Don't hesitate to ask for assistance if you are blocked out on a play. The main objective is to have all decisions ultimately correct</ul>That tells me two things about making the right call<ol><li>You don't have to get it correct straight away - getting it "ulitimately correct" is what is important<p><li>There is a process to be followed for dealing with questionable calls - the initiative is with the umpire making the call to "ask for help"</ol>I didn't see the decision in question. I have no opinion on the relative abilities of either McClelland or Hernandez. What I do have is a great belief in the crew system as it is outlined in the rules of the game.

IMHO the ONLY way McClelland should have become involved in this call was if Hernandez asked him OR if another official other than Hernandez OR McClelland made a different call on that same play bringing OBR 9.04(c) into effect.

Hope this helps

Cheers

im sorry i even have to ask this, but who the hell is Jeffrey Maier? his name is in the thread title, cant think of who he is.

He was the 12 year old NY fan who reached over the fence and into the field to snare a Derek Jeeter fly ball that could have been caught, and the umpires ruled it a home run because they thought the ball was going to go over the fence when interferred with.

Hope this helps

Cheers

McClelland violated the part of 9.02(c) that Garth already quoted, but I'll repeat:

<i>No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.</i>

McClelland flat out overruled Hernandez's call, and there is simply no basis in rule or professional custom and practice for what he did.

The great irony is that McClelland was almost surely WRONG about what he saw - he has been quoted today as saying that he was certain the ball hit the foul pole, but most observers who have studied the replays are convinced the ball never hit the foul pole; it hit the fan instead.

So as the other thread's title states, McClelland saw it wrong but got it right, for no reason other than luck. He acknowledges that he didn't handle the situation "technically" correctly; I would argue that he didn't handle the situation correctly in <b>substance.</b>

There is precedent for changing a foul call to a homerun; it's even one of Carl's "Fab Five." But you don't change it the way McClelland did. And as can be seen already by the discussion on this and other boards, McClelland's handling of the matter is being lauded by many who subscribe to the "get it right at all costs" philosophy. This play is a bad, bad example of that doctrine, because in this case they got it right for all the wrong reasons.

If you guys didn't see it, they talked with steve Pailermo (sp?) in the stands. They had said he was in charge of the umpires or something to that affect. He had said that the umpires have been told that if they are absolutely certain that a wrong call was made, they are to correct it immediately. The reason given was so that it doesn't look as if a manager is influencing the decison if it is changed after an argument. Steve also said that if McClelland was positve about what he saw, then he did the right thing in over-ruling Hernandez immediately.

9.02(c) is the rule.

But even if that is ignore, how does any one umpire "know" that his view of a play situation is any better than someone else's?

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...437#post106437

He doesn't - not really - but you already knew that. That's why the rules also offer 9.04(c), so the UIC can arbitrate.

The fact is that as UIC, if that is what McClelland was at the time, he shouldn't overrule in favor of his own point of view without first having the benefit of a conference with the other umpires in the crew. By his action he has just said that he and ONLY he had the perfect view. He ignored the process, and there was simply NO NEED to do so. Either way the ball was dead!

I think he suffered a rush of blood ... either that OR he also believed Hernandez had no place on that diamond. Neither reason is any excuse for an experienced MLB crew chief to ignore one of the fundamental tenets of the game, at least as far as officials are concerned.

Cheers

I'm sorry but either you or Palermo have it WRONG. Here is why I can say that; an extract from the MLB umpire's manual:<ul>(3) In a limited number of situations, a partner may have critical information that is unknown to
the umpire making the call. When the partner is certain that the umpire making the call could
benefit from such additional information, the partner should alert the other umpire that there
is additional, important information that should be shared. While the mechanics of bringing
this information to the attention of the umpire who made the call is left to the crews (walking
towards the partner, inconspicuous signal, etc.), crucial, potential call-changing information
should not be withheld on a play that has clearly been missed. As noted in the Official
Baseball Rules, "Each umpire team should work out a simple set of signals, so the proper
umpire can always right a manifestly wrong decision when convinced he has made an error."
Nevertheless, the ultimate decision to change a call rests with the umpire who made the call.</ul>The irony is that BOTH Steve Palermo and Tim McClelland were members of the Umpire Training Committee that drafted the manual.

Hope this helps

Cheers

The irony I recognize on a more personal level is your endorsement of a citation that is based on a statement in the General Instructions to Umpires. I can remember a time when my citations of that same section of the rulebook earned only a dismissive "that stuff is all obsolete and not part of the real rules anyway" response. I think you were on the side that held that view, weren't you?

Well...Obviously, they have changed their minds and forgot to inform you.

I can see why an outfield umpire wouldn't have the best view on this play. He's looking up into the lights, looking way up into the upper deck, and he's simply too close to get a great angle on that.

However, there were two umpires pointing foul -- U9 AND U1.

I have no problems with getting this call right. None. But what difference would it have made had the Boston manager gone to Hernandez, Hernandez enlists the help of U1 and U2 and the PU. they talk about it, and Hernandez comes out and signals the home run?

Like I said in the other thread, how would this discussion play out today if the ball was, indeed, six inches foul?

Rich

I was there
 

I happened to be sitting one row behind, and one seat to the right of, Josh Mandelbaum. I can say the following things with certainty:

1) The ball hit his hand. His hand was fairly red several minutes later.

2) He reached over the rail to grab the ball. He did not, as he told reporters, stop the ball from hitting his face.

3) I thought the ball had a good chance of glancing the foul side of the pole but for Josh's attempt to catch the ball.

4) Most of the folks around me thought the ball was headed foul, but they were almost exclusively Yankees fans. I'm agnostic.

5) Josh didn't have a cell phone. He was quickly swarmed by reporters and then left his seat. It was another guy talking on the phone.

Now, now. You know better than that, Dave. Yes I was on that side, and I was right too!

The MLB instruction might have its genesis in the <i>General Instructions to Umpires</i> in the same way that our current rules come from the Knickerbocker Rules of 1847, but that doesn't make them any less obsolete. The <i>General Instructions to Umpires</i> appearing in the rule book were superceded by the <i>Instructions to Umpires</i> contained in Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual.

My "beef" was with people relying on the long outdated version when the current version, complete with notable changes, was readily available. It would be more accurate for you to say that the MLB statement arose from Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual than to declare that it "<i>...is based on a statement in the General Instructions to Umpires</i>" that follows OBR 9.05, which version is of general historical interest only at this point.

Cheers

No, you were wrong. You claimed a part of the General Instructions was obsolete, when it has now been quoted in the <b>current</b> MLB Umpires Manual. It has been a part of the rules since it was introduced, and by quoting it, the authors of the MLB Umpire Manual are validating that it remains just as relevant today as it was when it was first introduced.

Our current rules don't QUOTE the Knickerbocker Rules; the MLB Umpire Manual QUOTES the General Instructions to Umpires. That does, indeed, disprove the notion that the General Instructions are or ever were obsolete.

If you replace "superceded" with "supplemented," then I would agree. The entire PBUC Manual is a supplement to the Official Rules. Section 7 should be treated no differently, and there is no such statement that it "supercedes" the General Instructions.

That is an astonishing statement. The MLB Umpire Manual citation you referenced cites and attributes a <b>direct quote</b> to the General Instructions that follow OBR 9.05. Here it is, pasted directly from your post:

The sentence in quotes is <b>NOT</b> from PBUC Section 7, it is from the OBR's General Instructions to Umpires. For you to say, with a straight face, that it would be more accurate to attribute the MLB Umpire Manual reference you cited to PBUC Section 7 rather than OBR General Instructions to Umpires is, as I said, astonishing. It makes me wonder if you've been taking lessons on citations and attributions from some of your eumpire.com colleagues.

I have NEVER claimed that the specific part of General Instructions requiring a "simple set of signals" was obsolete. On the contrary, I advocated that very thing myself. Do your searches. Produce evidence for that contrary claim. Your memory on this subject is obviously faulty.

What I DID claim was that the admonition that "<i>The first requisite is to get decisions correctly</i>" was clearly superceded by the instruction from the PBUC Umpire Manual that "<i>The main objective is to have all decisions ultimately correct</i>". The two are demonstrably NOT the same.

The question arose over the General Instructions suggestion on doubtful calls that "<i>If not sure, ask one of your associates</i>" was almost <i>carte blanche</i> approval for umpires to ask for help anytime they felt it necessary. Not so. That, too, was clarified in the updated Instructions to Umpires from the PBUC Umpire Manual. The newer admonition was to "<i>...ask for assistance <b>if blocked out on a play.</i></b>"{my emphasis}

It may prove that particular part is no longer obsolete. It does NOT disprove, logically, that the General Instructions "<i>are or ever were obsolete</i>". There has been much water pass under the bridge in the meantime. Perhaps MLB has now rediscovered that, at least in that respect, the old way was the best. Good for them. That doesn't mean the old General Instructions are to be reinstated in their entirety.

Actually the PBUC Manual is an Official Interpretation of those rules and instructions, and as such it takes precedence over the original in our understanding. That means it <b>supercedes</b> the original in our understanding of its meaning and intent. The Official Rules have been changed by interpretation for decades. Notice I said "changed" and not "supplemented" or even slightly modified. You know that to be true.

Yes it does. But that was NOT the issue under debate in our previous discussions on those General Instructions, and I believe you know it! The question was when and how to obtain help.

I endorsed Childress' "Fab Five" reasons for umpires to go outside of the process and offer help before it was requested - the same "limited number of cases" to which the MLB manual refers. What I objected to was the suggestion that the General Instructions made getting the call right more important than the process for achieving that. I have been entirely consistent on that point. That was also the reason for my citation of the MLB manual in this thread.

Cheers

Red Sox Manager Grady Little was out on the field immediately when it was called foul. I believe McClelland was reacting to Grady's presence when he "overruled" Hernandez.

You are right, though, Rich. There wouldn't have been a difference. I think if McClelland had it to do all over again, I think he would've met as a crew before making his ultimate decision at the very least.

This whole discussion points out just how difficult it is to be a baseball umpire on any level, and that being a "people person" is just as important as being technically right on certain calls. We've all heard a coach yell, "Get help on that pulled foot", but after years of umpiring we've also learned that, if we did everything else right in making the call, we don't NEED to go for help if we are convinced we got it right. We've also had partners after a game say, "I think you missed that whacker in the third inning" - which NOBODY else questioned or argued. Boy, I'm glad my partners don't step up and volunteer their opinion on every call they think I've missed. There's ongoing discussion on the NCAA level among umpires and supervisors about which calls we should be "huddling up" on. Our ultimate goal is to get the call right, but even multiple TV replays from different angles are inconclusive - which leads us back to the beginning - let the umpire responsible for the call MAKE the call, and if he has any doubt in his own mind let HIM ask for help. God help us all if we're allowed to volunteer our own decisions on every judgement call - they think the games are long now - wait until the crew huddles up on every close one. The Supreme Court is way too busy now :)

Ball Hit Fan, Then Fair Pole
 

The kid could be seen, on film, in replay's, describing how the ball hit his hand. In a later interview the kid said the ball hit his hand. But the ball was directly in line with the fair pole, and it didnt make any difference. It would have hit the fair pole directly in the middle.

So what are the chances of the same type of thing happening twice, in the same playoff series, over in the NLCS, a couple of days later?
Last night, with 5 outs to go, a foul ball that in my opinion drifted back into fair territory, was grabbed out of Moises Alou's glove, which would have been the second out, and was not called fan interference. This cost the Cubs the series winning game, and it was "Jeffery Maier all over again".
Whats funny is that ESPN, just two days ago, did an interview with Jeffery Maire, who is all grown up and a pretty good college ball player, of all things, and he says that he knew, he knew, as soon as the controversy insued, his name would be mentioned again. He has had to live this down for years now. Being a Yankee fan, he says the first two or three days were great. He was 12, and he loved the attention, but had no idea how hated he would be everywhere else in the country, and that everytime a fan interfered with a ball, his name would be mentioned.
And sure enough, in the Cub game last night, his name was mentioned again......"another Jeffery Maire incident"!
If the Cubs should go on to loose their chance to go to the world series, this poor guy, (who did what anyone would do at a ball game...try and grab a souvenier)and who asked to be un-named, will be absolutely hated by the Cubbie faithful. He will be reviled by his own friends, divorced by his wife, fired from his job, beat up on the streets of Chicago....and the tragedy is that he is a "hope to die" Cub fan! Too sad and too bad. I know the guy just reacted and wanted a foul ball, but when your at your teams home field, and theres a chance your team can make an out, and its the WORLD SERIES were talking about, you get the heck outta the way, give your team a chance to make the out.
Poor dude. You gotta hope that the cubs win tonight, just so that this guy can live out the rest of his life without having to hide his face, and being interviewed every year at playoff time for the next 30 years.
RLM

If anyone should be hated it should be Alex Gonzales for booting that sunday hop double-play ball.

I feel for the guy too. Yeah - if he'd had his wits completely about him, or had it to do again, he'd get out of the way... but look at the rest of the fans. They were trying to get it to. No one was pulling him back or anything.

Also - first off - the ball was nowhere near "heading back fair", but I'll assume you meant heading back into play. Even if that's what you meant, a ball just doesn't tail that way - it was tailing foul if it was tailing at all. Plus, look at both the fan and Alou when the ball hit. The fan was standing in the stands, not reaching over the railing. Alou's wrist was CLEARLY bent over the railing. There's really no question it was out of play. The only real question is whether Alou could have caught it if the fan hadn't interfered --- but I don't believe he could have. I don't think he timed it right - his wrist had already come down on the top of the fence, and was bending forward when it hit (if you have the ability - frame by frame it and you'll see). I doubt he'd have caught it anyway.

And no - I'm not a Marlins fan. I have no affiliation on this particular series whatsoever, and don't care who wins. If I have any inclinations, it's to see a Cubs-Red Sox errorfest to see who can try the hardest to lose the Series.

Its all academic now
 

Well, Mike... what i meant was it looked like the ball was drifting back into the direction of fair, maybe blown back in from the spin and the wind.
And I think absolutely Alou timed that jump right and that out would/could have changed the outcome of the whole game.........
But, its all academic now isnt it??
I heard they had to escort that guy out of the park that particular day, he had to call in sick from work the next day, had to change his phone number, had helicoptors buzzing his home both game days, all day, all night. press lined up and down his street.
He released a sincere, tear filled statement,(which i believe)..something to the effect that "everyone was reaching..if i had any idea it Alou had a play i would have backed off. Im sorry to all cubs fans everywhere".
His only chance was if the Cubbies won last night and we all know how that went....PHHHHHHT!
Im a Dodger fan, but I was caught up in the idea of a Cubs/ Soxs world series. The Cubs had more than their chance to pull it off, they blew it, the man in the stands will be blamed foreever. a new curse for the cubs to worry about, every time october rolls around.
what a shame! really!
russell