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?

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.

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.

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

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

What Manny said...



What you said......


Where's the difference?

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.

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>

No, Manny's right.

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.

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.

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)

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).

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...0at54655PM.png

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.

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

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

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.

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.