The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 09, 2013, 12:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 656
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 09, 2013, 12:49pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 09, 2013, 02:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 09, 2013, 02:21pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Only a controversy with the stupid media and some fans and dumbazz players.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 09, 2013, 08:09pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 09, 2013, 09:23pm
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachP View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2013, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2013, 01:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2013, 05:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 10, 2013, 08:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
What Manny said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2013, 12:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 329
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.

Last edited by Dave Reed; Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 12:28am.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2013, 07:56am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed View Post
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

__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2013, 08:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed View Post
Manny thinks that if the glove is over and past the fence, interference can't be called. That's wrong.
No, Manny's right.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2013, 09:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 11, 2013, 10:21am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
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.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Catch in Tigers/Twins Game SanDiegoSteve Baseball 16 Sun May 02, 2010 07:18pm
Tigers v Twins: Possible HBP johnSandlin Baseball 10 Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:32pm
Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call jwwashburn Baseball 68 Sat May 09, 2009 09:41pm
Go Tigers schmitty1973 Football 6 Sun Aug 20, 2006 06:10pm
Tigers Win!!! Tigers Win !! mick Basketball 19 Tue Sep 30, 2003 06:19pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1