Indians/Yankees replay

[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

[celebur]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Huh?? I guess it makes you feel better.

I guess using 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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Peace

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by celebur

I guess using makes you feel better.

Actually using " " is to make a point.

Originally Posted by celebur

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.

(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)

Originally Posted by celebur

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.

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Exactly right.



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.

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