MLB rule on fan contact with a batted ball
 

Twins @ Tigers

Must C | Must C Curious: Fan appears to touch Avila's double - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

MLB.com Gameday | tigers.com: Gameday

Was the call correct?

Twins manager Ron Gardenhire didn't agree.

"I don't care who it hit -- when it hits a fan in the stands, it's a ground-rule double and you don't score," Gardenhire said. "However you want to call it, that guy doesn't score. So it doesn't make sense to me and what they told me didn't make any sense, either."

What a surprise, I am shocked!

It wouldn't make sense to Gardenshire if they told him in the middle of the field, at 3pm that it was the afternoon.

Yes, the call was correct.

Yes, the call was correct. In MLB, fan interference equates to elevating the umpires to gods - whatever they want is what will result. :D

I wonder if Gardenhire thought that it wasn't touched by the spectator over the railing but just by the kid while in the stands. Either way, it was the correct call

-Josh

If it only hit the kid in the stands behind the railing, it's a 2 base award from the time of the pitch and R1 would only be awarded third. It's not spectator interference if if goes in the stands and hits a spectator.

If it hit that guy who reached down over the fence, it was the correct award. If it only hit the guy in the orange shirt in the stands, it was not the correct award. From the replay we know what Gardy thought, and from Darling's reaction we know what HE thought.

JJ

Was this a minor league game? Took me 3 viewings to figure out just what was "off" about this clip.

You're saying that the first would be fan interference (dead ball, award bases as appropriate), whereas the second would simply be a fair batted ball leaving the playing field after touching the ground (dead ball, all runners 2 bases).

Good point, and you're right, their ruling tells us what the call was. :)

I do realize that. I didn't word my response as well as I probably should have.

-Josh

The fan interference call was correct. Awarding the runner home was not, in my opinion.

Why not?

Judging by where the runner was on the basepaths, I think it was a large assumption to assume he would have scored on that ball. I'll admit that Young should have continued to hustle on the ball instead of giving up on it, but I don't believe the home team should benefit by an interference by one of their fans on a borderline play.

I don't think the team affiliation should have any bearing on the awards.

Who's to say it was a home team fan? Visitor's fans attend games as well.

home team's responsible for the conduct of fans in their ballpark (unless we're in the odd situation where the host team are designated visitors for that particular game).

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.