What was I wrong about? Seriously, the rule spectator interference implies that someone was interfered with. I simply do not think there was interference on this play. Maybe you are talking about something else, but I am talking about what happened on the play not the specific rule. And why you quoted the rule is beyond me.

You for some reason have turned this into something else (which I am not sure what you are implying), but it appears the MLB umpires agreed that there was no interference and that is why the call was the way it was. I just agreed with that. The fan in question reached for the ball and was hit in the torso. It was debatable if the fan was even reaching in live ball territory at all, but the fielder reached over the fence to catch the ball. He would have never caught the ball based on the trajectory of the ball and where the fielder’s glove was located.

I can see this bothers you, because it certainly does not bother me.

Peace

I guess using :rolleyes: makes you feel better.

Going back to your first post, I would conclude one of two things:
1) you didn't really know the rule on spectator interference.
2) you didn't mean that phrase the way it was taken.

I was hoping that you'd see that, but you seem to have missed it entirely.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does. ;)

Actually using ":) :rolleyes: :cool: :p :D" is to make a point. ;)

(Sarcasm on)You are absolutely right. I have not idea what spectator interference is or is not. All the years I have worked games, and levels and achieved in a sport like baseball, I never knew anything about the rule. And I also do not know common rulings on this that would make the Bartman play not interference or another play actual interference. You are so right about this one. (Sarcasm off) :)

Of course I did, all because you said so. Did I forget to turn on the sarcasm brackets? :eek: Do you feel better now?

Peace

Why do so many threads here degenerate into pissing contests or juvenile bantering? :rolleyes: