The Official Forum

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

CoachP Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:05pm

Tigers - A's
 
What? No home run controversy discussion yet??
:)

So what would be the ruling if it WAS called fan interferece? Batter out? Ground rule double?

Manny A Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:49pm

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.

Dave Reed Wed Oct 09, 2013 02:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 907105)
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.

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.

JRutledge Wed Oct 09, 2013 02:21pm

Only a controversy with the stupid media and some fans and dumbazz players.

Peace

DG Wed Oct 09, 2013 08:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 907105)
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.

I saw no such replay. At best Reddick was a foot short of the top of the fence. The ball might have bounced off the fence un-caught if not touched, but since it was ruled a HR on the field and visual evidence could not refute the ruling stands.

Publius Wed Oct 09, 2013 09:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachP (Post 907102)
So what would be the ruling if it WAS called fan interferece? Batter out? Ground rule double?

The umpire "plays god" and awards bases or charges outs that he judges would have occurred without spectator interference. We can't know what the crew would have done in that case had they ruled interference.

jicecone Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:43am

You get what the umpire rules , period. If the league would stipulate that all lines designating OB territory be made so that a clear visual of what happened could be easily detected then this wouldn't be a problem. Even then, $$it happens.

MD Longhorn Thu Oct 10, 2013 01:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 907113)
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

You just agreed with him. he said the same thing you said.

Dave Reed Thu Oct 10, 2013 05:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 907195)
You just agreed with him. he said the same thing you said.

No he didn't, which you'll be able to realize if you actually read what Manny wrote.

asdf Thu Oct 10, 2013 08:58pm

What Manny said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 907105)
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 (Post 907113)
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?

Dave Reed Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:23am

asdf,
Your quotation is not the part I disagree with. Go back to my original post to see where Manny thinks that if the glove is over and past the fence, interference can't be called. That's wrong.

Manny A Fri Oct 11, 2013 07:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 907240)
Go back to my original post to see where Manny thinks that if the glove is over and past the fence, interference can't be called. That's wrong.

Not true. When a player reaches into the crowd for a foul ball, his glove is "over and past the fence". I know you're not suggesting interference can still be called in this case.

As for the play in question, I may be wrong in my interpretation of 3.16. I was always led to believe that if a fielder reaches over the fence to rob a home run, he's in the same situation as the fielder on the foul ball. But I suppose the issue isn't so much where the glove is; rather, it's where the ball is when the fan touches it.

But if that's the case, that's one heckuva dilemma for an umpire to judge. If in this play, the fan touched the ball not on the playing field side but beyond it, then there clearly wouldn't be interference. So the umpire is left to judge where the ball was relative to the top of the fence when the fan touches it.

This is different than what happened in the Jeffrey Maier case. There, Maier reached down under the level of the wall and touched a ball that wasn't heading into the stands.

Video: BB Moments: '96 ALCS, Gm 1: Fan Helps Jeter's HR | MLB.com

<iframe src='http://wapc.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=3345251&width=400&height=224 &property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

MD Longhorn Fri Oct 11, 2013 08:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 907240)
Manny thinks that if the glove is over and past the fence, interference can't be called. That's wrong.

No, Manny's right.

asdf Fri Oct 11, 2013 09:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 907240)
asdf,
Your quotation is not the part I disagree with. Go back to my original post to see where Manny thinks that if the glove is over and past the fence, interference can't be called. That's wrong.

Beg differ.....

2013 OBR - 3.16 Comment... Page 29

No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. 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.

Manny A Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG (Post 907142)
I saw no such replay. At best Reddick was a foot short of the top of the fence. The ball might have bounced off the fence un-caught if not touched, but since it was ruled a HR on the field and visual evidence could not refute the ruling stands.

Look at 1:54 of this video (I hope the link works):

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

Added: It doesn't work (I don't know how to embed video). But if you go to the link above, and then click the Video tab, then scroll through the videos til you find "V-Mart's reviewed homer ties it", you'll see that Reddick's golve was well above the yellow line and beyond the plane.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1