The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2013, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,426
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)
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2013, 12:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 18
Send a message via AIM to tommyleo
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).



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.

Last edited by tommyleo; Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 12:52am.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2013, 01:02am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
They failed to call the fan interference, but ultimately the end result was the same.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2013, 11:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2013, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
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.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2013, 11:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 18
Send a message via AIM to tommyleo
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 12, 2013, 08:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyleo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Catch in Tigers/Twins Game SanDiegoSteve Baseball 16 Sun May 02, 2010 07:18pm
Tigers v Twins: Possible HBP johnSandlin Baseball 10 Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:32pm
Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call jwwashburn Baseball 68 Sat May 09, 2009 09:41pm
Go Tigers schmitty1973 Football 6 Sun Aug 20, 2006 06:10pm
Tigers Win!!! Tigers Win !! mick Basketball 19 Tue Sep 30, 2003 06:19pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1