|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 10:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hesitate bringing this question to the board. But I think it serves for brushing up on some situations we don't run into all that often. The Cubs game 6 NLCS, 8th inning ,1 out, fly ball hit into left field foul territory, barely into the stands. The left fielder attempts to catch the ball. A fan makes contact with ball before the fielder and spoils the catch attempt. As best as I can tell from replays, the fan contact occurred in the stands, The umps ruled no interference (correctly,IMO. No, I am NOT a Marlins fan).
In my reading of OBR and MLBR, The only penalty for Spectator Interference is a dead ball. No one is called out. In this instance then, had there been spectator interference called, the only thing that would have happened is that the play would be dead, and no catch possible. The same result as what happened. The ball is dead(foul ball) and no catch. The only way an out would have occurred is if Alou (F7) had caught the ball. Is this Correct, or am I missing something? Don 
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 11:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 On spectator interference, the umpire "plays God" -- he assesses whatever bases / outs he thinks would have occurred. So, in this example, he *could* have declared two outs -- the batter on the catch and R2 on appeal. Of course, it would be the last call he'd likely make in his career.
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 01:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I did not happen to be home when the play actually happened, but after watching the replay several times over, I feel the RF umpire Mike Everitt made the right call.
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 03:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cubbie Fan
Okay, maybe I'm wrong in this...I don't know the rules all that well. However, momentarily ignoring the fact that ruling this as fan interference would have resulted in a dead ball, which might have yielded little difference in the outcome of the game, I'm still hooked on why this was not ruled fan interference.
Maybe the definition of fan interference shouldn't be determined by which side of the fence a ball was caught by a fan, but by whether or not the player going after the ball had a reasonable chance of catching it and making it playable. Yes, it looks like it was *technically* acceptable for this fan to attempt to catch this ball -- it was falling on his side of the fence. However, it was marginally falling on his side of the fence. This inch or two probably would not have affected Alou, as he still seemingly had a chance of catching the ball. The fact of the matter is, I think we can all say that if this guy hadn't been there, Alou would have had this ball, no question. Now, if the ball had been coming toward this guy and was more than, say, an arm-length on his side of the fence, sure, it would be have been fine for him to go after it. But anything less than that would have made it possible for Alou to catch the ball, and therefore would have made it possible for the out to be called. Maybe umps should consider this, if it's possible. A lot of people might feel that even discussing this rule is a moot point. In fact I know a lot of people think so because many have said that ANY fan would have gone after this ball. Not so. There were at least three people to this guy's left who were pulling back from the falling ball like it was covered in Anthrax -- check out the pictures. *AND* if this guy had his headphones on during a game, my guess is he was listening to the commentators, which probably would have alerted him to the fact that Alou was coming his way. I guess it might warrant going back and listening to what the commentators were saying at this time. Had they already called a home-run or were they still unsure? My guess is they were unsure but were saying Alou was running back, which should have tipped our fellow off. So, because it is possible for fans to know what they're doing, maybe it's possible to ingrain in their heads that they are not allowed to touch a ball that is falling close to the fence -- no matter if it's a mere three inches in their favor. We've all been witness to too many amazing feats by players folding their wrists over fences so their gloves can reach another six inches on the other side. It's possible to catch these foul fly balls. So if the ball had been ruled fan interference (like I'm saying it should be been), maybe the Cubs wouldn't have felt so disheartened. Would Gonzalez still have flubbed up? Yeah, probably. But I guess we'll never know. Let's just hope the Cubs win tonight so this guy doesn't have to live with his face plastered all over his television screen for the next three months.
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 03:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Minnfan-->
Not to sound offensive, but you basically answered your own question as to why it was NOT ruled fan interference. You pretty much stated what the rule IS, and it was ruled upon correctly. Then you stated how you feel the rule SHOULD BE written. Whether or not you feel your opinion of that should be taken up, the fact remains that how the rule is currently written, umpire Mike Reilly made a 100% correct call.
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 04:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
a normal human reaction
I guess this isn't really an umpiring point, but I need to vent and since the subject is being discussed here...
I keep hearing this poor guy villified for trying to catch the ball. And someone's even adding to it by saying "others around him were trying to get away from it". Take 10 people, put them into a confined area, and drop a baseball on them from, say, the top of a 10 story building. Then watch what they do. I'd wager that they will all, in some way, try to defend themselves. Some will try to get the heck out of the way, and some will no doubt try to catch the ball. They won't know if the ball is going to land on them, or the person next to them, or on no one. They're looking up into the sky, trying to track a baseball, and won't even know if they're leaning out over the rail or back away from the rail. They will just react as best they can. Realize that these people don't catch popups for a living on a daily basis. It has nothing to do with who you're a fan of, or even if there's a game going on. I seriously doubt the guy even realized that Alou was in the immediate vicinity...he was looking at the ball! Do you think Alou shouted "ball, ball" or "I've got it" to let the guy know he was going to catch it and that he should back off?
__________________
Thanks, Jim
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 05:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
YoungRighty
You are 110% correct, In fact if everyone else had this level of intelligence the world would be a much better place, I have been a Cubs fan almost since birth and what really pisses me off is all of the people who jumped on the Cubs band wagon when things are going good, you have this kid who is only guilty of being in the wrong seat at a ball game, clearly a fan wearing his radio so he can listen play by play to the game, the people saying thats not a Cubs fan, the governer of our state even making sickening comments about the kid not being a fan, the look on his face when he relized what had just happened, going from pure joy to terrior in seconds, I guess a Cubs win tonight can only fix this mess, Anyone who would turn on another fan like that is the one who isn't a Cubs fan, thats not baseball, This whole thing has made me really sick to be a fan, to know this could have been me, hell ya i would have done the same thing, I hope you so called Cubs fans are happy now, it is you fans that have ruined the game for this die hard, not the loss to the Marlin's,
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 07:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I knew what this was going to start and I guess people needed to vent, which was the rason for my hesitation on being the first one out of the shoot on this play. But that's OK.
I am not a Cubs Fan either, the wife on the other hand.... I agree that people need to back off this guy. But, emotions are running high right now and the need for someone to blame is running higher. It is easier to look at someone else than look inside. Emotions are why there are sports officials, to impartially enforce the rules of the game. Hopefully, with a cool head, and as correct as HUMANLY possible. Which is what my post was really about, the rules of the game. I haven't umpired in a while, my books are packed away, and my memory, well... the old adage "Use it, or Loose it" comes to mind. But, my desire to know the answer of " what would the penalty be, if there had been Spectator Interference ruled by blue" overcame me, so here I am. Bob, For my future reference and the ones who also want to know, would you mind citing the rule numbers (not the whole rule, unless of course, you have nothing else better to do) for your conclusions. Thank you in advance. FOR MY WIFE, GO C U B S !!! Don
|
|
Wed Oct 15, 2003, 10:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
2.00 INTERFERENCE d) Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and touches a live ball.
3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference. APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
|
Thu Oct 16, 2003, 09:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich Ives,
Thank you for your help. I knew that Bob was right and had found 2.0. But I could not remember or find in the MLB online rules the 3.16. I was looking in 6.0 and 7.0. It seemed like there was another ruling besides 2.0 but could not find it. Thanks again Don
|
|
Fri Oct 17, 2003, 01:49pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Bob
|
|
Fri Oct 17, 2003, 02:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: a normal human reaction
Quote:
HAHAHA, im a cubs fan. im ready to start joking about the situation now, i realize the guy did nothing wrong. by the way, i had no problem with the call
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
