OT: Sox game last night....question for you

[Blakeon18]

Admittedly a big Sox fan so I was glad that it was ruled fan interference....and I think it was the right call.

BUT: I have heard supposed experts say over and over again that the ruling took away a 2 run home run for Altuve.
OVER and OVER!

Am I correct that it simply is not true...no way...no how.
If the fan interference rule by the ump had been overturned, then they would have placed the runners where they thought they would be...second and third..[that is where they wound up before the fan interference call remained anyway]

The ball never landed or bounce off anything that was a home run area. Mookie kinda batted the ball back in play...even though his mitt was clearly touched. The ball was in play....live....and never would have been called a home run. At no point had it landed/touched any place that would have led to a home run.

I can see Astro fans arguing that Mookie's glove was over the home run line and that the fan's hand did not encroach onto the playing area...I disagree...but even if that argument held sway and they ruled that no interference occurred it would not have led to a home run. So...the 'experts' have it wrong...do they not?

What a freaking inning number 9!

 

[oldude]

I don’t have a dog in the hunt, but if the ball was over the wall when the fan touched it, and it fell back onto the field, it would have been a HR. It might have required a replay to confirm, but the ball was clearly going out for a HR. Mookie Betts was clearly interfered with while attempting to catch the ball. The dispute was whether the interference took place in the field of play or in the stands. The player is protected in the field of play, but it’s every man for himself when he goes into the stands to catch a ball. Therefore the ruling was either the hitter is out or it’s a HR.

 

[oldude]

I didn’t completely digest your argument the 1st time I read it. You raise an interesting point. What if Betts knocked the ball back in play off his glove. I tend to agree with you that the ball is still in play.

So I went back and looked at the video. It appears to me that the ball hit the fans hand a split second before it ricocheted off Betts glove back onto the field. If the ball is over the wall that’s a HR.

Now here’s the real dilemma. It may be that the ball hit Betts glove and the fan’s hand simultaneously, in which case I have no idea if it’s a live ball or a HR.

 

[rvwsleep]

It was a home run. The ball was above the wall and broke the vertical plane of the wall. If it's then touched by a fan, it is a home run.
The umpire asked for a review immediately, without waiting for the Astro's appeal. How mlb got it wrong is puzzling. Everyone in the booth and at the network studio said it should have been a home run.

 

[hoopsfan22]

They didn't have enough video evidence to overturn the ruling on the field which was an out due to fan interference. This is how all sports that use replay work. Had the umpire ruled it a HR, that call too would have stood up to the scrutiny of a replay review.

 

[rvwsleep]

They didn't have enough video evidence to overturn the ruling on the field which was an out due to fan interference. This is how all sports that use replay work. Had the umpire ruled it a HR, that call too would have stood up to the scrutiny of a replay review.

That's the part I (and the entire broadcast crew) disagree with. There WAS enough evidence to overturn the call.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

No way to overturn the interference call. Joe West is probably the best umpire in baseball, it wasn’t Angel Hernandez making the call. Every Red Sox fan has seen Mookie make several similar catches.

I’m conflicted whether Mook went into the stands or the fan reached over though.

 

[bleeckerhusky]

Any time that the umpire Joe West is involved you can expect controversy. He didn't hustle out to get a better view of the play and he maintained that MLB proved that his call of fan interference was correct, when in fact there was simply not enough video evidence to reverse his incorrect call.

 

[SVCBeercats]

It was a home run. The ball was above the wall and broke the vertical plane of the wall. If it's then touched by a fan, it is a home run. The umpire asked for a review immediately, without waiting for the Astro's appeal. How mlb got it wrong is puzzling. Everyone in the booth and at the network studio said it should have been a home run.

Per the MLB rules:
Spectator Interference
Definition
In every case of spectator interference with a batted or thrown ball, the ball shall be declared dead and the baserunners can be placed where the umpire determines they would have been without the interference. When a spectator clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball by reaching onto the field of play, the batter shall be ruled out. But no interference is called if a spectator comes in contact with a batted or thrown ball without reaching onto the field of play -- even if a fielder might have caught the ball had the spectator not been there.

6.01 (e) (3.16) Spectator Interference
When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

Rule 6.01(e) Comment (Rule 3.16 Comment): There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 6.01(d) (Rule 3.15). Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
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.
EXAMPLE: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.​

 

[svetbird]

my question (and admittedly I am a die hard Sox fan) is does the call really have anything to do with the ball. As far as I saw the fan interfered with Mookie's glove (a bit more damaging than simply going for a ball). what is the rule on that? all I keep hearing is rules about balls in play.

 

[TitleTown]

It was a home run. The ball was above the wall and broke the vertical plane of the wall. If it's then touched by a fan, it is a home run.
The umpire asked for a review immediately, without waiting for the Astro's appeal. How mlb got it wrong is puzzling. Everyone in the booth and at the network studio said it should have been a home run.

Wow, you must have had a different angle than me. I watched the replay dozens of times and I can't tell one way or the other whether the fan broke the plane of the wall or not.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Joe West is probably the best umpire in baseball,

What??????????

In every survey of MLB players, Joe West has been ranked as one of the worst umpires. Hard to believe at his age he suddenly went from worst to first.

 

[stamfordhusky]

my question (and admittedly I am a die hard Sox fan) is does the call really have anything to do with the ball. As far as I saw the fan interfered with Mookie's glove (a bit more damaging than simply going for a ball). what is the rule on that? all I keep hearing is rules about balls in play.

If the interference is not in the field of play, it doesn't matter if the fan touches his glove or the ball. Not interference in either case.

 

[oldude]

my question (and admittedly I am a die hard Sox fan) is does the call really have anything to do with the ball. As far as I saw the fan interfered with Mookie's glove (a bit more damaging than simply going for a ball). what is the rule on that? all I keep hearing is rules about balls in play.

Looking at the slow motion replay, the ball hits the fan’s hand almost simultaneously with the fan’s hand hitting Bett’s glove. It’s all about where the ball was at that instant in time. If it was over the field of play, it’s fan interference. If it was beyond the field of play, it’s every man for himself.

 

[BobbyJ]

All I know is that somehow the Patriots are gonna get blamed for this.

 

[rvwsleep]

Wat

Wow, you must have had a different angle than me. I watched the replay dozens of times and I can't tell one way or the other whether the fan broke the plane of the wall or not.

Watch Mookie's left arm. He's at the wall, jumps and his arm is not straight up. He reaches into the space on the fan's side of the wall. Everyone in the booth and in the studio saw it the same way. I watched the game and the post game show. At the high cost of lost sleep.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

All I know is that somehow the Patriots are gonna get blamed for this.

Clearly the security guard is actually Tom Brady

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

 

[hoopsfan22]

As a Red Sox fan we were lucky the security guard was blocking the down wall camera angle which would likely show Mookie reaching into the stands to bring that HR back. That's why it was almost a spectacular play and not him just catching it up against the wall.

 

[CL82]

I posted this in the MBB thread on the game. Look at gray shirt guy. His hand is on the wall. Now look at the red dots. At best they are at the wall though his hand seems to be forward of his body. Now look at orange shirt guy. His hands (blue dots) are good 6"-12" in front of gray shirt guy. He's in the field of play.

 

[oldude]

I posted this in the MBB thread on the game. Look at gray shirt guy. His hand is on the wall. Now look at the red dots. At best they are at the wall though his hand seems to be forward of his body. Now look at orange shirt guy. His hands (blue dots) are good 6"-12" in front of gray shirt guy. He's in the field of play.

I appreciate the photo, but frankly it looks to me like the hands of the guy with the orange shirt as well as Mookie’s glove are both behind the hand of the guy with the gray shirt.

 

[Raaj45]

Amen that... it's a homerun! ( and this site is dedicated to the best women's college basketball team in the country, not an MLB team!!)

 

[CL82]

I appreciate the photo, but frankly it looks to me like the hands of the guy with the orange shirt as well as Mookie’s glove are both behind the hand of the guy with the gray shirt.

It's a bad angle but look at the index finger of gray shirt guy's right hand. It's on the forearm of orange shirt guy's arm with the outstretched hand. (That's the blue dots.)

 

[oldude]

It's a bad angle but look at the index finger of gray shirt guy's right hand. It's on the forearm of orange shirt guy's arm with the outstretched hand. (That's the blue dots.)

Yes I agree. But the guy’s forearm is bent back and his hand is bent further back from his wrist in the manner that someone who had played baseball would actually try to catch a baseball.

I’m not saying your wrong. I just don’t think it’s particularly clear, and in such cases the decision made by the umpire on the field is upheld.

 

[HuskyPhan]

As a diehard Sox fan, all I can say is we were probably saved by that security guard. That was the only angle that would have definitely allowed for the on the field call to be reversed. It was definitely one of those plays where the initial call was going to stick (unless the security guard wasn't there). Controversy aside, how about Mookie Betts? Between that almost catch and throwing out the player trying to get a double leading off the ninth, I have to believe I'm watching the most athletic player to ever where a Red Sox uniform. Watching him play is like watching Maya and Stewie in their UCONN days-you go to a game wondering, what amazing display will I see today!!!