I believe MLB is planning to differentiate between home and visitor's fans right after they rewrite the balk rules differentiating between RHPs and LHPs.

While that may be true, my point is that just as easily as one could say the home team benefited from the interference of a home fan, one could also make the case that the home team got the benefit of the doubt when a fan from the visiting team thought it'd be smart to touch the ball making it dead and have the umpires hold the runner at third.

Hence why taking into account which team's fan interfered isn't a good idea.

MLB Crew Error?
 

I am puzzled about the extra base award, fan int. or not. It was clear why the OF did what he did. The runner then stole home. It isn't too difficult sending him back to 3rd base where most runners are at TOI.

Don't teams protest anymore?

Fan Interference awards are not protestable. Of course, as with any unusual call they are no doubt reviewed and discussed - and shared with the rest of the MLB umpire staff. Ozzy had it right on page 1.

JJ

My point is that it was a BORDERLINE situation in making the base award. I agree that I would take no consideration into account if the award was obvious. In a BORDERLINE situation, I would do so.

Grd
 

Quite often the offense is penalized when an extra base hit goes into the stands and R1 is not allowed to score when they clearly would have had the ball stayed in the FOP. The call made in this post (right or wrong) better reflects the events that occurred. Maybe all ground rule doubles should be the umpire's decision as to allowing the R1 to score or keeing him at third.

Can we at least all agree that a fair, bounding ball into the stands is a rule book double? Please?

Thanks for the information, guys.

Since this situation is NOT a "ground rule double", and since in this situation it is umpire judgement as to the placement of runners, so be it.

Last time I checked, its a dead ball when FI occurs and Umpire(s) award bases, and/or call outs, that nullify the FI. Umpires must have ruled that R1 would have scored, absent the FI.

If you insist on being the pedantic guy, sure.