The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Tigers - A's (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/96242-tigers.html)

bob jenkins Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:30am
The glove was "beyond" the wall, but the ball wasn't. The ball was interfered with, the glove wasn't.

(as I recall the video; I didn't watch it again)

tommyleo Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:48am
What's made this call controversial is the fact that something very rare -- likely unique -- happened: the ball was within the field of play when it was interfered with -- yet the fielder's only chance to catch the ball would have been beyond the field of play. This still frame shows this clearly (you can see the trajectory of the ball nicely).

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...0at54655PM.png

The right call was made, but the confusion by the general public and media is understandable due to the uniqueness of the situation, a direct result of the configuration of the stadium's wall and railing in Detroit.

hbk314 Sat Oct 12, 2013 01:02am
They failed to call the fan interference, but ultimately the end result was the same.

jicecone Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo (Post 907314)
What's made this call controversial is the fact that something very rare -- likely unique -- happened: the ball was within the field of play when it was interfered with -- yet the fielder's only chance to catch the ball would have been beyond the field of play. This still frame shows this clearly (you can see the trajectory of the ball nicely).
Well put, however, we will never know if he could have caught it because of the spectators interference.

Rich Ives Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 (Post 907316)
They failed to call the fan interference,.
We don't know that.

They could have decided that there was interference and that the result if there had been no interference would have been a home run - thus awarding the home run. That's how the rule works.

tommyleo Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 907364)
Well put, however, we will never know if he could have caught it because of the spectators interference.
That seems to be covered by Rule 3.16: APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

My logic goes like this. Since it would have taken an extraordinary effort for Reddick to have caught that ball, we can't assume he would have caught it. Therefore, the interference did not clearly prevent Reddick from catching that fly ball.

The reasoning is the same as if that ball went untouched by a fan and it bounced into and out of Reddick's glove. No one would give Reddick an error, even though he had a chance to catch the ball.

jicecone Sat Oct 12, 2013 08:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo (Post 907366)
That seems to be covered by Rule 3.16: APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

My logic goes like this. Since it would have taken an extraordinary effort for Reddick to have caught that ball, we can't assume he would have caught it. Therefore, the interference did not clearly prevent Reddick from catching that fly ball.
I am not assuming he would have or would not have caught the ball but, if it wasn't touched by a spectator, based upon the video we have all seen, there may have been a catch. The probable reason it was called an HR was because it was NOT CLEAR, whether it prevented a catch or not.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1