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

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

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!!!

He’s 5’9 and that’s a 7 foot wall. I think he could have sat on it had wanted to (or needed to to catch the ball )

 

[huskeynut]

The initial call by West was fan interference, batter is out.

Replay has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. Evidence that Betts' glove was in the stands can't be determined by the camera angle.

West's call stands.

IMO - Betts' glove was over the plane of the wall and in the stands area. Should have been a homerun.

 

[Bama fan]

I did not watch the game, nor do I have a 'dog in the race', but it seems to me that there is some sort of parallax view occurring in most of the posts. It appears to have a very close correlation to the viewer's team allegiance! Further study is warranted. I feel obligated to add that I have not watched major league baseball since 1992. And Sid Bream is still out!

 

[oldude]

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!

More athletic than Bill Buckner?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist...

 

[Alydar]

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!

I didn't watch the game but it seems you are arguing against yourself.
Twice you say that the ball was past the home run mark. "batted the ball back in play" says that the ball was out of play. Then you admit the possibility that the glove was over the home run line. Either of those things would preclude fan interference and mean it was a home run.

 

[CL82]

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.

It's definitely not clear. I just used known points (hand on the wall) to try to figure out where people were. After doing that, I'm pretty confident that the fans were in the field of play.

 

[TitleTown]

Wat
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.

If that's the way YOU see it, then that's how you see it. I, personally, did not see it that way, I saw Betts leap in the air a few feet away from the wall with his arm angled back. At the point of interference he was exactly over the wall and then his momentum carried him and his arm further back into the crowd.

 

[UcMiami]

If you watch the video and you see that Betts was not at the wall at the time of the interference, his body crashes into the wall half a second later so while his arm was slightly closer to the wall than his body it had not yet crossed that plane. No question the ball was going to crass the wall for a home run - that has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is simply where the contact with the fan occurred and based on the photo, to me it is clear that the fans arms have crossed the plane of the wall and are in the field of play at contact with both the ball and Betts glove.

As to the question of home run or not, if the fan touched the ball first in the field of play without interferring with Betts, it is a double though it likely would have been ruled a home run before replay and likely not overturned.

I liked the Astros managers comments after the game, he wasn't happy, but he also did everything he could to defuse the 'controversy' and was respectful of the process.

 

[oldude]

It's definitely not clear. I just used known points (hand on the wall) to try to figure out where people were. After doing that, I'm pretty confident that the fans were in the field of play.

It will be one of those forever sports arguments, like the immaculate reception (Did Franco Harris catch the ball before it hit the turf?).

 

[eebmg]

In a best of 7 series, the best team wins. Not going to strain my eyes.

 

[hoopsfan22]

What about Kemp's catch in LF the night before? Catch or no catch?

 

[Bama fan]

It will be one of those forever sports arguments, like the immaculate reception (Did Franco Harris catch the ball before it hit the turf?).

I welcome this opportunity to clear up what seems to a point of contention here. Franco Harris caught that ball. If he hadn't, it would not have been called the immaculate reception. The reception part means it was a catch. Mr Art Rooney ,Sr , the owner of the Steelers, was a devout Roman Catholic ( and a ward boss, and an inveterate gambler) and hence the Immaculate part. I was not at that game, didn't get my season tickets until 1974, but absolutely everyone in the stadium said he caught it. As a matter of fact, over the years I met many people in bars around Pittsburgh who were not there, and they even said he caught it. I have evidence of people who were not even born yet that swear he caught it. If today we were to go to Primanti Brothers or some other Pittsburgh landmark, everyone there would say he caught it. Frenchy Fuqua, he of the goldfish in his platform heels ,was the intended target; however Jack Tatum collided with Frenchy and the rest is history. And of course Tatum claims the ball hit Fuqua making it an illegal catch, but Tatum went to Ohio State and played for Woody Hayes so no one on earth could possibly believe him. Surely, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, we can all put this to rest and get on with something nowhere near as important to fuss about! I rest my case, ladies and gentleman of the Boneyard.

 

[oldude]

I welcome this opportunity to clear up what seems to a point of contention here. Franco Harris caught that ball. If he hadn't, it would not have been called the immaculate reception. The reception part means it was a catch. Mr Art Rooney ,Sr , the owner of the Steelers, was a devout Roman Catholic ( and a ward boss, and an inveterate gambler) and hence the Immaculate part. I was not at that game, didn't get my season tickets until 1974, but absolutely everyone in the stadium said he caught it. As a matter of fact, over the years I met many people in bars around Pittsburgh who were not there, and they even said he caught it. I have evidence of people who were not even born yet that swear he caught it. If today we were to go to Primanti Brothers or some other Pittsburgh landmark, everyone there would say he caught it. Frenchy Fuqua, he of the goldfish in his platform heels ,was the intended target; however Jack Tatum collided with Frenchy and the rest is history. And of course Tatum claims the ball hit Fuqua making it an illegal catch, but Tatum went to Ohio State and played for Woody Hayes so no one on earth could possibly believe him. Surely, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, we can all put this to rest and get on with something nowhere near as important to fuss about! I rest my case, ladies and gentleman of the Boneyard.

I have a good friend I've known for many years by the name of Phil Villapiano. He's adamant that the ball hit the ground. In addition he swears he was clipped on the play by a Pittsburgh player, or he would have made the tackle. I believe there's an NFL film on the Immaculate Reception, with Franco, Phil and a bunch of other Steelers and Raiders who played in that game. Great entertainment if you ever have the opportunity to watch it.

 

[Bama fan]

I have a good friend I've known for many years by the name of Phil Villapiano. He's adamant that the ball hit the ground. In addition he swears he was clipped on the play by a Pittsburgh player, or he would have made the tackle. I believe there's an NFL film on the Immaculate Reception, with Franco, Phil and a bunch of other Steelers and Raiders who played in that game. Great entertainment if you ever have the opportunity to watch it.

I have seen it. And I respect Villapiano as a player. Man ,he was fast! And I would never question his veracity. I do not know about the clipping , and it did not get called so... The real controversy was if the ball hit Tatum or Fuqua , and whether or not it was a legal catch. As I said, no one believes Tatum, the whole Buckeye/Woody Hayes moral dilemma tainting anything from that rural area just west of Pennsylvania. (Do you know how flat that place is ,sheesh ) But Franco caught that ball. My guess is that Villapiano, having flown in from California to play, was most likely suffering from jet lag causing his perception to be misguided. I was taught that the punishment for heresy was eternal damnation, and I will never waver in my belief in the Immaculate Reception.

 

[oldude]

I have seen it. And I respect Villapiano as a player. Man ,he was fast! And I would never question his veracity.

I respect Phil as a player. But quite frankly I would definitely question his veracity.

 

[Bama fan]

I respect Phil as a player. But quite frankly I would definitely question his veracity.

Nuff said. This issue has been settled. And now for something completely different.

 

[psconn]

3-1 Sox.

 

[Blakeon18]

Alydar: I did not see the fan touch the ball...maybe I just missed it. But if he did not touch it and Mookie reached over the home run line and batted the ball back i to the field of play that is not a home run. You can legally catch the ball over the home run line...and/or miss the catch but hit it back to the field of play...live ball...as long as it doesn't touch anything over the line while you are doing it.

Pedro Gomez...analyst... said he thought it was interference immediately and then used the picture argument above to prove his point.