|
Where's the controversy?
It was pretty clear to me, especially from one of the camera angles, that Reddick's glove was over and beyond the top of the fence when the spectator touched the ball. You cannot have spectator interference on a ball that could be caught beyond the plane of the fence. It's no different than when a fielder reaches into the stands for a foul ball. Yeah, he might've been able to catch it if the spectator hadn't touch it. But the fact that he would have caught it beyond the field of play precludes the protection afforded to him under the spectator interference rule.
And if it WAS interference, it would have only been interference on a catchable fly ball. The only ruling would be an out. Spectator interference rulings that result in base awards for the batter happen on balls that could not have been caught.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013, 12:49pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
