The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 07:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Home Run or?

Interesting play in Indians-Tigers tonight.

Ordonnez hits fly to deep right center for a home run.

Slo-mo replay show fan MAY have caught the ball below the yellow line.

The fence is too high at that point to allow a fielder a chance at the ball.

In the off-chance the umpire could have been certain that the ball would not have cleared the fence, what would the ruling be?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 08:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler
Fan interference on this play is a rule book double.

Fan interference is a "God" rule. Umpires award what they think would have happened sans the interference.

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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 09:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
I had no idea that rats would think of this as a "God" rule. "Impartial arbiter rule" would seem more apt, since it's not strictly necessary to be omniscient to know what would have happened without the interference.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 09:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
Fan interference is a "God" rule. Umpires award what they think would have happened sans the interference.

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.
Carlos Guillen removed any controversy( and there was really none) by plunking the next pitch far into the rightfield stands.

Quite a game. Jurrgens, Zumaya,Rodney and Jones combined for a one hitter and Carmona only allowed 3 on 77 pitches in 8 innings. 1 hour and 59 minutes, 2-1. Tigers.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 09:50pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
Slo-mo replay show fan MAY have caught the ball below the yellow line.

The fence is too high at that point to allow a fielder a chance at the ball.
If the fence is too high, in your opinion (you as umpire), for a catch then you place all runners including the batter-runner where you think they would have wound up absent the fan interference.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 10:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Thanks to all.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 21, 2007, 11:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Cleveland sure has wasted some impressive pitching performances in the past few weeks. It's been particularly painful for this faithful Tribe fan!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 03:48am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
I had no idea that rats would think of this as a "God" rule. "Impartial arbiter rule" would seem more apt, since it's not strictly necessary to be omniscient to know what would have happened without the interference.
You are correct, mbyron. I just checked with God, and He said that the only 3:16 that's a God rule is John 3:16.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 09:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
I had no idea that rats would think of this as a "God" rule. "Impartial arbiter rule" would seem more apt, since it's not strictly necessary to be omniscient to know what would have happened without the interference.
I didn't make up the phrase. I borrowed it from postings here and on other boards where "real" umpires used it.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 09:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
I had no idea that rats would think of this as a "God" rule. "Impartial arbiter rule" would seem more apt, since it's not strictly necessary to be omniscient to know what would have happened without the interference.
The term "God Rule" doesn't imply some sort of omniscience ... it means it's one of the rules where the umpire is required to do "whatever is necessary" to make things right (in his opinion, of course), as opposed to those rules that have specific penalties or awards attached to them.

PC or not, I'm not about to change my own usage of that term to "Impartial arbiter rule", and I think most here would agree with me.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
PC or not, I'm not about to change my own usage of that term to "Impartial arbiter rule", and I think most here would agree with me.
I said nothing about PC, and far be it from me to try to tell a Texan that there might be a better way.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 12:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 226
the GOD part here reffers to the all-powerful part of Him, not the all-knowing part!

cmon guys
__________________
It's sad when you're at a baseball game and realize that you'll never have the money, status or talent that the guys on the field take for granted. And it gets even worse when the grounds crew gives way to the players.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 01:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
For an in-depth treatment of the subject of "God Rules" in baseball, see:

http://search.officiating.com/?q=Divine+Right&x=16&y=12

JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 02:16pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
The "God" Rule is indeed 9.01(c). It gives the umpire authority to rule on things that occur that are not covered specifically within the rules. In using this rule, there had better be no specific manner of dealing with the occurrence within the confines of the rulebook, or one cannot invoke this rule.

3.16 is not a "God" rule, as it lays down specific criteria for determining the call. Just because it requires umpire judgment as to where to place a runner, it does not give him any latitude as to the manner that he rules. It is specifically stated in the rules how he must rule. He must designate a number of bases to award. He can't, for instance, say, "go back two spaces, hop over the base on one foot, and scream ooga-booga!" He cannot just make up a ruling when using a specific rule.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 22, 2007, 03:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 362
I do recall a game where Ricky Henderson was involved with two outs where the batter hit the ball to third base. F5 picked up the ball and threw wildly to first that got by the first baseman, subsequently a fan reached over and picked up the ball at the fence.

The umpires got together and put the BR at second and gave Henderson home because they felt he would have easily scored if the fan didn't interfere even though the rules specifically indicate that Henderson should have gotten third.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
home run? Blue19 Baseball 6 Fri Jun 10, 2005 07:10pm
Out on a home run? mastdk96 Softball 9 Thu May 26, 2005 04:37pm
Between 3B & Home dddunn3d Baseball 9 Wed Apr 06, 2005 03:51pm
Home Run - or was it? WestMichBlue Softball 11 Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:12am
Home Run?? whiskers_ump Softball 4 Fri Apr 27, 2001 06:23am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1