Tigers - A's

[bob jenkins]

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]

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.

[hbk314]

They failed to call the fan interference, but ultimately the end result was the same.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by 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).

Well put, however, we will never know if he could have caught it because of the spectators interference.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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]

Originally Posted by tommyleo

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.