Thu Oct 10, 2013, 08:58pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
|
|
What Manny said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
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.
|
What you said......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed
I don't believe that is correct. From 3.16:
However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference
The umpires ruled that Reddick couldn't have clearly caught the ball even if the fan hadn't touched it. I agree with them.
|
Where's the difference?
|
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
