Indians/Yankees replay

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As you know, the question concerns spectator interference. Where the ball "would have gone" is irrelevant to determining spectator interference.

While where the ball "would have gone" is irrelevant to determining whether there was interference, it's exactly the criteria to use to determine the penalty for the interference.

[UMP25]

You mean it's not a "ground rule double," Bob, like McCarver, Harrelson, Morgan, et. al. say it is?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As you know, the question concerns spectator interference. Where the ball "would have gone" is irrelevant to determining spectator interference. What matters was (a) did a fan touch a live ball, and (b) was the ball over the field when touched by a fan.

If it was a good call, it was not such for the reasoning you're providing.

So if the ball went 10 rows up and the fielder jumps to catch the ball, but a fan reaches over, you do have interference because where the ball went is not relevant?

Just want clarification for how you make these calls without some knowledge of where the ball is going.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So if the ball went 10 rows up and the fielder jumps to catch the ball, but a fan reaches over, you do have interference because where the ball went is not relevant?

Just want clarification for how you make these calls without some knowledge of where the ball is going.

Peace

Sure, I'll be happy to clarify for you. Here's the rule:

Originally Posted by OBR 2.00 Interference

Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and touches a live ball.

So I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "a fan reaches over" -- as usual, your mode of expression is quite opaque.

As you can plainly see, however, the rule does not mention the trajectory of the ball, only its location -- over the field of play or not when a fan touches it. "Where the ball went" is indeed quite irrelevant to this call.

Hope that helps clear things up in your mind.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

While where the ball "would have gone" is irrelevant to determining whether there was interference, it's exactly the criteria to use to determine the penalty for the interference.

Well, since in the OP, no interference was ruled, the point is moot. And in any case, the criterion is more where the runners would have ended up. I agree that where the ball would have gone is relevant to that question.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sure, I'll be happy to clarify for you. Here's the rule:

So I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "a fan reaches over" -- as usual, your mode of expression is quite opaque.

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by OBR 2.00 Interference

Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and touches a live ball.

Originally Posted by mbyron

As you can plainly see, however, the rule does not mention the trajectory of the ball, only its location -- over the field of play or not when a fan touches it. "Where the ball went" is indeed quite irrelevant to this call.

Hope that helps clear things up in your mind.

You can clarify all you want to, but the ball did not get touched in live ball territory. And the ball was over the fielder's head and hit the fan clearly in the stands. That is why they ruled what they did apparently. So yes, where the ball goes has something to do with this call. Maybe not by the actual rule, but as Bob said, how can you make the call without that consideration?

Peace

[johnnyg08]

could you, with a straight face, give him a double? they got this one right.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So yes, where the ball goes has something to do with this call. Maybe not by the actual rule, but as Bob said, how can you make the call without that consideration?

Not by the actual rule, so no, the trajectory is still irrelevant. And Bob's comment applies to cases where the umpire rules that spectator interference occurred, which was not the ruling in this case.

It's OK to admit when you're wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not by the actual rule, so no, the trajectory is still irrelevant. And Bob's comment applies to cases where the umpire rules that spectator interference occurred, which was not the ruling in this case.

It's OK to admit when you're wrong.

What am I wrong about? The umpires made the right call in my opinion (and I did not hear the league say otherwise). And nothing you have said contradicts the play or the ruling on this play. The ball was not touched in live ball territory. And the point Bob seemed to be making, is that you cannot make a call without where the ball is about to land. This was no different than the “Bartman” play but this was for a home run, not a foul ball and a possible out.

Did you actually see the play?

Peace

[johnnyg08]

I compare this ruling to the "throw your glove at the ball rule" where the umpire can award 4 bases if the ball is judged to have been a homerun had the glove not hit the ball...how is that not allowing the umpire to judge where the ball would've landed?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I compare this ruling to the "throw your glove at the ball rule" where the umpire can award 4 bases if the ball is judged to have been a homerun had the glove not hit the ball...how is that not allowing the umpire to judge where the ball would've landed?

That's correct if the spectator had reached out over the playing field and made contact with the ball -- and the officials had, thus, judged this to be interference.

But, apparently, the contact was over the stands, thus was not interference, thus it was a home-run and not interference.

I think that's mbyron's point.

to-may-to, to-mah-to.

[johnnyg08]

I agree.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What am I wrong about?

You need to back up to what you wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The ball was way over his head and would have gone into the stands.

Your context implied that this was one of the factors for determining whether or not there was spectator interference; that was wrong, and mbyron called you on that (and only that).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by celebur

You need to back up to what you wrote earlier:



Your context implied that this was one of the factors for determining whether or not there was spectator interference; that was wrong, and mbyron called you on that (and only that).

Huh?? I guess it makes you feel better.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by celebur

You need to back up to what you wrote earlier:

Your context implied that this was one of the factors for determining whether or not there was spectator interference; that was wrong, and mbyron called you on that (and only that).

Exactly right.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Huh?? I guess it makes you feel better.

How it makes anyone feel is another of your red herrings. You were wrong. That's only as important as getting the rules right ever is.