Indians/Yankees replay
 

How did they not rule that fan interference? Fans glove clearly hit the indians players glove and deflected it before he could field the ball.

They institute replay for questionable calls and still cant get the call right?

So they just quoted the MLB rule book that if the fielder reaches into the stands, they do so at thier own risk. Is the top edge of the fence considered to be in the stands?

Everything beyond the field side face of the fence is out of the field of play.

It was a good call.

Its amazing how you can sit in your living room and have a better view of the play than those umpires less than 50 feet. away. Your really good.

OH, I am sorry, did someone say that got the call right. Never mind!!!!!!!!

From my living room vantage point, on one angle, it was pretty clear the fan reached over into the field of play, and made contact with the fielder's glove.

I think they missed this one. YMMV.

There is something else about the play
 

I am an Indians fan, just another burden that I carry each day, and I turned on the Cleveland game broadcast the next inning. Rick Manning said he thought that the Tribe did not get the call "because they were in Yankee Stadium" (i.e, the visitors always get screwed by the umps).

Reply: "You don't believe that do you?"
Manning: "I've seen it too many times over 20 years. If it was a Yankees hitter do you think that call would have gone the same way?"

My respect for Manning just hit the floor. I love the Tribe too, but that stinks. Looks he he is heading for McCarver territory.

Posada's HR call?
 

Upon further review, the complete story is now on the newswire.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap;_y...419110&prov=ap
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

Looks like Jeffrey Maier all over again.

Im just curious why Crawford declined to comment to the media on the play.

the umpires are instructed by their policy to not comment on calls like that for X amount of time by MLB if you're talking about an ump

You'd think that after the Cubs' incident fans would learn to leave it alone.

The umps blew a simple call, All you have to do is look at the shadow of the fans glove on the wall to know he was in the field of play!!!

When in doubt, just look at the shadow! I'm going to try that in tomorrow's game!

I just saw the play today. It looked like a good call to me. The ball was way over his head and would have gone into the stands. Over the fence is the fan’s territory.

Peace

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.

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.

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

:D

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I agree.

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. :rolleyes:

Peace

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

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: