Home Run or?

[jimpiano]

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?

[Rich Ives]

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.

[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.

[jimpiano]

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.

[DG]

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.

[jimpiano]

Thanks to all.

[BretMan]

Cleveland sure has wasted some impressive pitching performances in the past few weeks. It's been particularly painful for this faithful Tribe fan!

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

the GOD part here reffers to the all-powerful part of Him, not the all-knowing part!

cmon guys

[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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[tibear]

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.