Mookieference Call in ALCS Game 4

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think it is hilarious that on the almost exact same play that occurred in today's Game 5 -- where Mookie did indeed catch the ball -- there wasn't even one Houston fan within 10 feet of his efforts.

Almost the exact same, except for being at least a foot further from the wall. If somebody had tried to interfere with that there would have been no controversy about the call (and they very likely might have paid for their sins with a tumble onto the field).

 

[Max Power]

It's also strong evidence against the idea that we don't know if he would have caught the ball. He definitely would have.

 

[Sampo Gida]

That's a fun tweet. Those wouldn't be Astros fans saying that, would they?

The picture was what I was trying to convey showing the shelf that prevents fans from standing too close to the edge of the fence, obviously the fans were biased, but not the picture

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The picture was what I was trying to convey showing the shelf that prevents fans from standing too close to the edge of the fence, obviously the fans were biased, but not the picture

We don't know:

1) exactly where that picture was taken, and how close that is to where the call took place
2) exactly how deep the shelf is, and whether it's uniform in depth along the whole fence
3) whether the guy holding his hand in the supposed position of Mookie's glove is speaking from direct experience (and if so, whether he is able or willing to remember it objectively), or is just bullshitting.

We do know, from the images taken at the time of the actual event, that this shelf did not seem to incommode spectators in the slightest from getting quite close to the wall, holding it with their hands and appearing, in some of the images, to lean over it.

So, nope.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

West observed a play where he determined one or more spectators interfered with a ball he believed the fielder would have caught. The team at bat challenged, and the video reviewers didn’t find a preponderance of evidence to support overturning his ruling. Fin.

Is that what you mean?

Edit: Okay, I actually read your post like I cared this time.

Thanks to many reviews at slow motion, I think it’s reasonable to assume the fielder would have caught the ball. His glove was there, and it hit the backside of his glove that was closed upon colliding with the fans. And he’s the best defensive RF in the game. He makes those kinds of plays.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Definitely interference. Christ, there are at least three hands out there whacking into his glove. I will admit to some bias, in that I wish fans would just get out of the way when a ball is close like this. In any case, I think a close interference call should go to the fielder.

I have a problem with your last sentence because it’s not horse shoes or hand grenades. “Close” doesn’t exist in the good book. The fielder either reaches into outside the field of play - in which case spectator interference doesn’t apply - or does not. The fan either interferes or does not. After all that, there’s the opportunity for a detailed video review. I believe making it more nebulous would only add confusion and make the umpire’s job harder.

 

[snowmanny]

The fielder either reaches into outside the field of play - in which case spectator interference doesn’t apply - or does not.

Is that right? I thought it was the action of the spectator that dictated the interference. I thought that if a spectator reaches into the field of play and interferes with the ball or the fielder it is interference. Because, of course, a fielder could reach into the stands while or after a spectator interfered with him on the field of play.
I think it's possible that happened here: that there was interference before Mookie's glove went over the wall (if it ever went over the wall).

 

[Fred in Lynn]

To be sarcastic for a moment, of course it’s right. He either did or did not. That’s 100% correct, and being I’m rarely right I’ll revel in that for a minute...

It’s tough to respond because you cherry-picked out a sentence and lost the context of my response to Imbricus’s post. No biggie, just pointing that out. My point to him was that the umpire has to call something. He or she has to have a standard to compare the action to. If the rules were modified to err toward benefiting the fielder in situations of spectator interference - his thought - I don’t think that would improve the process or the fairness of the outcome.

The fans definitely interfered with the flight path of the ball (thank you, Mr. Science). It all comes down to whether Mookie’s glove was in the field of play or not. MM ground rules say that the top of the wall is in play, so it’s the vertical plane extending upward from the inside of the wall if I have this right.

 

[charlieoscar]

Where was Joe West when he made the call? I don't think he was very close and certainly not in a position to look straight up the plane separating the field from the stands. The farther away he was when he made the call, the harder it would be for him to judge where Betts's hand was. When it was replayed, the only camera view that might have explicitly answered that question was blocked by a person. Given that West made the call on what appeared to him as a straight-up jump by Betts, there was nothing to base an overturning of it.

So, apparently, in addition to needing an automatic-strike-zone monitor, there is a need for something to automatically judge where the ball was in the vertical plane at fences (which, of course, has to be able to distinguish between spectators reaching out and and a fielder's glove...and the ball could be on the fielder's side of the plane but the glove partly on the fence side). Finally, on which side of the railing is the plane placed?

 

[Jim Ed Rice in HOF]

My point to him was that the umpire has to call something. He or she has to have a standard to compare the action to.

The fans coming in contact with the glove probably sealed the call. If the fans came in contact with just the ball, even if the trajectory showed it was heading towards Mookie’s gloveand the fans weren’t egregiously reaching over the wall, it may have made West’s call different.

 

[Monbonthbump]

This is a bona fide and not smart-ass question I have had since I found out about the part of the rule which states the space beyond the "home run" line "belongs to the fan". Does that mean that the fielder should not stick his glove into that space unless he plans to be interfered with? Does that mean a fan can Karate chop the arm, douse the fielder with beer, or stick a hatpin into his hand? Should home fans who have seats in the front row be allowed to bring small bats into the stadium? BTW I think Joe West got this one right and he was much closer to this than most of us except for Mookie and the jerk with the Regan hat (who should have been escorted out because of the interference). I haven't gotten through the whole thread yet, so apologies if the question has already been answered.

 

[Jim Ed Rice in HOF]

Where was Joe West when he made the call? I don't think he was very close and certainly not in a position to look straight up the plane separating the field from the stands. The farther away he was when he made the call, the harder it would be for him to judge where Betts's hand was. When it was replayed, the only camera view that might have explicitly answered that question was blocked by a person. Given that West made the call on what appeared to him as a straight-up jump by Betts, there was nothing to base an overturning of it.

So, apparently, in addition to needing an automatic-strike-zone monitor, there is a need for something to automatically judge where the ball was in the vertical plane at fences (which, of course, has to be able to distinguish between spectators reaching out and and a fielder's glove...and the ball could be on the fielder's side of the plane but the glove partly on the fence side). Finally, on which side of the railing is the plane placed?

Obviously we don’t get a true perspective of distance here but this is the only photo I’ve seen with West in the picture.

 

[drbretto]

Keep in Mind that Joe West has two eyes and thus depth perception.

We don't need automatic sensors on the walls. A professional ball and strike caller can handle the call. Interference is never the default. If interference is called, the ump clearly believes it's interference. This idea that he "had to call something" is ridiculous. If he was unsure and had to call "something" it would be a home run. If an umpire immediately and confidently calls interference and there's literally no evidence to the contrary, that IS enough. Put simply, there's no controversy here. There's simply a lack of acceptance.

West has 42 years of experience and is one of the most consistent ball and strike callers there ever was. He says he clearly saw the ball interfered with on the playing field, I believe him. That there are angles that can make it kinda look like it might not be, and only from literally the worst possible angle to judge that distance, is not compelling. Neither is the fact that the best angle was blocked by a security guard leaning over the fence. BECAUSE the security guard was leaning so damn far over the fence, he just proves that fans can quite easily lean way over the fence.

Every angle that is remotely informative suggests that the ball was inside the wall. The extremely experienced umpire that made the call immediately still confidently states that he saw it clearly. The review crew was not able to find any evidence to the contrary. The amateur fan evidence is also consistent with the result. This was the correct call.

 

[dhappy42]

I have a problem with your last sentence because it’s not horse shoes or hand grenades. “Close” doesn’t exist in the good book. The fielder either reaches into outside the field of play - in which case spectator interference doesn’t apply - or does not. The fan either interferes or does not. After all that, there’s the opportunity for a detailed video review. I believe making it more nebulous would only add confusion and make the umpire’s job harder.

Re bolded: that’s not the rule.

Many people have said or written that if the fielder reaches into the stands then there can be no fan interference. That’s not correct.

If a player reaches into the stands and a fan touches the part of the player’s body that is *in the stands,* that’s not interference. But if a player reaches into the stands and a fan reaches *into the field* and touches the player, even if another part of the players’s body is in the stands, it is fan interference.

For example, if (before the full-netting era) a catcher attempting to catch pop foul ran to the fence and reached over the wall into the stands, a fan coming into contact with his glove would not interfere because the catcher’s glove is in the stands. But if a fan were to reach into the field of play and touch the catchers body, that would be interference regardless of whether another part of the catcher’s body was in the stands. It’s not where the player is that’s determinative. It’s where the fan-player contact occurs.

The short of it is: if a fan reaches into the field of play and touches a player attempting to make a play,* it’s interference. And that’s exactly what happened on the Altuve-Betts play.


*Assuming the play can be made. If a fan reaches into the field of play and touches a player and the ball lands 15 rows up in the stands, there’s no interference.

 

[dhappy42]

Keep in Mind that Joe West has two eyes and thus depth perception.

We don't need automatic sensors on the walls. A professional ball and strike caller can handle the call. Interference is never the default. If interference is called, the ump clearly believes it's interference. This idea that he "had to call something" is ridiculous. If he was unsure and had to call "something" it would be a home run. If an umpire immediately and confidently calls interference and there's literally no evidence to the contrary, that IS enough. Put simply, there's no controversy here. There's simply a lack of acceptance. ...

I agree with everything you wrote except the bolded. Why was HR the obvious or easy default call? The ball never went into the stands. It bounced off Betts’s glove (and maybe a fan’s hand) onto the field.

This irks me because countless announcers and sportswriters act as if West’s call robbed Altuve of a HR instead of a double. There’s an argument that it *could have been* a HR, but that would have required an unusual and controversial decision too. Most HRs end up in the stands, not on the outfield grass.

I’m nitpicking, but that’s what this thread is for, right? And Game One isn’t for another three days.

 

[brandonchristensen]

Where was Joe West when he made the call? I don't think he was very close and certainly not in a position to look straight up the plane separating the field from the stands. The farther away he was when he made the call, the harder it would be for him to judge where Betts's hand was. When it was replayed, the only camera view that might have explicitly answered that question was blocked by a person. Given that West made the call on what appeared to him as a straight-up jump by Betts, there was nothing to base an overturning of it.

So, apparently, in addition to needing an automatic-strike-zone monitor, there is a need for something to automatically judge where the ball was in the vertical plane at fences (which, of course, has to be able to distinguish between spectators reaching out and and a fielder's glove...and the ball could be on the fielder's side of the plane but the glove partly on the fence side). Finally, on which side of the railing is the plane placed?

That’s right before he left frame.

 

[drbretto]

I agree with everything you wrote except the bolded. Why was HR the obvious or easy default call? The ball never went into the stands. It bounced off Betts’s glove (and maybe a fan’s hand) onto the field.

This irks me because countless announcers and sportswriters act as if West’s call robbed Altuve of a HR instead of a double. There’s an argument that it *could have been* a HR, but that would have required an unusual and controversial decision too. Most HRs end up in the stands, not on the outfield grass.

I’m nitpicking, but that’s what this thread is for, right? And Game One isn’t for another three days.

To clarify, that statement should probably have simply said the default would have been not to call interference, not so much the specific call I mentioned. It only came out that way because I believe it would have been a home run, but you're right, that's debatable. Even if it looked like it would have gone over the fence, if there was no fan interference and the ball bounced off the glove into the field, that would be a double, right?

 

[snowmanny]

Re bolded: that’s not the rule.

Many people have said or written that if the fielder reaches into the stands then there can be no fan interference. That’s not correct.

If a player reaches into the stands and a fan touches the part of the player’s body that is *in the stands,* that’s not interference. But if a player reaches into the stands and a fan reaches *into the field* and touches the player, even if another part of the players’s body is in the stands, it is fan interference.

For example, if (before the full-netting era) a catcher attempting to catch pop foul ran to the fence and reached over the wall into the stands, a fan coming into contact with his glove would not interfere because the catcher’s glove is in the stands. But if a fan were to reach into the field of play and touch the catchers body, that would be interference regardless of whether another part of the catcher’s body was in the stands. It’s not where the player is that’s determinative. It’s where the fan-player contact occurs.

The short of it is: if a fan reaches into the field of play and touches a player attempting to make a play,* it’s interference. And that’s exactly what happened on the Altuve-Betts play.


*Assuming the play can be made. If a fan reaches into the field of play and touches a player and the ball lands 15 rows up in the stands, there’s no interference.

Exactly.

I think it’s possible, but unlikely, that at some point Betts had his glove over the wall and a fan touched it.
That is not interference. But, if that happened, it’s also likely that Mookie’s glove or arm had already been interfered with by a specatator within the field of play.

 

[DJnVa]

This isn't even a difficult call to me. At all.

The dude in blue and the dude in orange are up against the yellow line. They are touching Mookie's glove and the ball about a foot in front of their bodies. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if they are essentially up against the yellow and touching something in front of them, then they are in the field of play by the definition used.

If you're going to try to convince me that there is more room between their thighs and the yellow line, and their bodies where they are impacting Betts, then you will need to get me very drunk first.

Can we lock this thread eventually? I mean, who are we even arguing with?

 

[drbretto]

Actually, the home run/double thing brought and interesting question to me that I'm not sure of. So, let's pretend Mookie's glove was outside the fence. And let's take the fan interference out, this is purely hypothetical. If a player reaches over the fence and knocks the ball back into the field of play, is that a home run or a double?

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I think it is hilarious that on the almost exact same play that occurred in today's Game 5 -- where Mookie did indeed catch the ball -- there wasn't even one Houston fan within 10 feet of his efforts.

It appears therefore that Houston fans can indeed be trained.

Even better, the fans in those seats stood up straight and put their hands in the air to remove all doubt.

I wouldnt have given Houston fans credit for humor or irony, but that was very impressive.

 

[dhappy42]

Edit: Nm. I was completely wrong. Misunderstood the question.

 

[DJnVa]

Umpire judgement call. If in the umpire’s judgement the ball was headed over the fence, then home run.

Wait, no. He said no fan contact. The ball has to touch something beyond the fence to be a HR. I've seen players go over the fence to bring ball back, not make the catch, and the ball is live. The poster was contending no interference by fans--just player and ball.

Can you point me to one example of a player bringing the ball back from over the fence, not making catch, and umps awarding HR?

For example, on this play below, are you contending that if Pillar grabbed ball, but didn't hold it and dropped it on field of play, umps would award a HR?


And this one would be a HR if he didn't hold it?

 

[uncannymanny]

Umpire judgement call. If in the umpire’s judgement the ball was headed over the fence, then home run. If the umpire thinks the ball’s trajectory would not have carried it over the fence, then it’s a dead ball at the moment of fan contact. Then it’s another judgement call as to whether the batter deserves a single, double or triple. A double would be the normal call in almost every instance.

No idea if the umpire’s judgement calls re trajectory and hit value (single, double, triple) are reviewable. I suspect the first is and the second is not.

No fan contact was the scenario. This would be a live ball, wouldn’t it?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Umpire judgement call. If in the umpire’s judgement the ball was headed over the fence, then home run. If the umpire thinks the ball’s trajectory would not have carried it over the fence, then it’s a dead ball at the moment of fan contact. Then it’s another judgement call as to whether the batter deserves a single, double or triple. A double would be the normal call in almost every instance.

No idea if the umpire’s judgement calls re trajectory and hit value (single, double, triple) are reviewable. I suspect the first is and the second is not.

Spectator interference is reviewable. So is home/run no home run. Runner placement is only reviewable if the underlying call is reversed.

So imagine a ball touched by a fan called no home run and the ump gives three bases. If replay says no home run the placement stands. If replay says the ball was a home run notwithstanding the fan touching then obviously it’s four bases.

Now imagine a ball touched by a fan that a fielder did not have a realistic chance to catch called a home run. Home run is reviewed and if reversed the replay official places runners.

 

[dhappy42]

Wait, no. He said no fan contact. The ball has to touch something beyond the fence to be a HR. I've seen players go over the fence to bring ball back, not make the catch, and the ball is live. The poster was contending no interference by fans--just player and ball.

Can you point me to one example of a player bringing the ball back from over the fence, not making catch, and umps awarding HR?

For example, on this play below, are you contending that if Pillar grabbed ball, but didn't hold it and dropped it on field of play, umps would award a HR?


And this one would be a HR if he didn't hold it?

You’re right. I’m wrong. I misunderstood “no fan contact” as no contact with a player, not no contact with the ball.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Wait, no. He said no fan contact. The ball has to touch something beyond the fence to be a HR.

Not really relevant to anything we are discussing here but this is not necessarily true in all circumstances. Consider the following case. Line drive toward the three foot wall in Fenway. Fan in the front row who is six foot tall reaches up to try to catch it. He touches it four feet above the wall but a couple inches over the field and it bounces off his hand on to the field. I believe this can be called a home run. I will look for a rule later today.

Edit: Just for completeness, technically, the call here would be spectator interference with four bases awarded to remedy the interference. Whether or not this is a “home run” is probably semantics under the rules but as a matter of scoring the batter would be credited with a four base hit/home run, and all rbi and stuff credited as a four base hit.

 

[drbretto]

So, just to clarify on my question (ball hits glove over the wall and bounces back in with no fan interference hypothetical), the ball hitting the fielder's glove over the wall doesn't count as the ball hitting something, therefor remains a live ball in play. And, if the call WAS interference, at that point, it would be umpire's discretion (but probably a double), not necessarily a home run?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Actually, the home run/double thing brought and interesting question to me that I'm not sure of. So, let's pretend Mookie's glove was outside the fence. And let's take the fan interference out, this is purely hypothetical. If a player reaches over the fence and knocks the ball back into the field of play, is that a home run or a double?

Edit: Sorry, misunderstood. More coming.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

So, just to clarify on my question (ball hits glove over the wall and bounces back in with no fan interference hypothetical), the ball hitting the fielder's glove over the wall doesn't count as the ball hitting something, therefor remains a live ball in play. And, if the call WAS interference, at that point, it would be umpire's discretion (but probably a double), not necessarily a home run?

Right. Ball in play. If umpire judges it correctly, play on. If umpire incorrectly calls it a home run on the field for touching a fan then the play is a dead ball and if replay reverses replay places the runners as necessary to remedy the erroneous call.

Ok, so now try these.

1 Player reaches over the boundary and is bringing the ball back over the boundary when a fan touches his glove above the field of play and makes him drop the ball.

2 Player reaches over the boundary and securely catches the ball but a fan rips it out of his glove while the glove is still over the boundary.

3 Player reaches over the boundary and while his glove is over the boundary a fan takes his finger and touches the ball in the player’s glove for an instant before the player brings the ball back over the fence. Fielder never loses possession.

4 Player reaches over the boundary and hits the ball with his glove causing the ball to bound back toward the field at which point a fan touches it over the field of play. Fielder did not have a realistic chance to catch the ball as it was headed back into the field of play.

5 Same as 4 but after the fan touches it, the fielder makes an amazing play and catches the ball after it bounces off the fan’s hand.

 

[drbretto]

I'm gonna play anyway, even if these are guesses:

1) Interference. If the ball isn't considered "caught" already, then it's live. Once the fan interferes in the field of play, normal interference rules would apply. Ump's discretion on what he thinks would have happened.

2) Once the ball is securely caught, batter is out and ball is dead.

3) Batter is out. The fan's interference is superfluous because the fielder is reaching outside of the fence. If the fielder never loses the ball, then the batter is out like normal.

4) Interference. Same as the first one, only instead of the ump likely calling it an out, this one ends up likely being a double as the umpires decides that the fielder would not have held on.

5) Out! I remember from the 2003 ALDS that interference itself doesn't mean any particular result and the remainder of the play factors into it. The fielder catches the ball and the batter is out.

Am I even close? lol

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I actually don't know the answers. I chose ones that are debatable just because it's interesting. Here would be my guesses.

1) Yup, I think this is interference.

2) I believe this is a home run. The ball is still live even after the catch unless and until time out is called and since the touching of the ball occurs in the fan's side of the boundary I think this is a home run. But I think your point is actually a good one and is the reason that this one is tough. A batter is out if the ball is caught. Catching the ball means securing possession with enough time to take an act that would constitute voluntary release. This one is a cluster fuck. I have no idea.

3) No fucking idea. I deliberately tried to write this one between several rules. Assuming the touching occurred before enough time has passed to say that the fielder had the ability to voluntary release the ball then I just don't know. Could be a home run. No idea.

4) Yup, I think this is interference, place the runners.

5) Batter is out, but why? Does it even matter? Almost never but it theoretically might matter. Imagine the following. The fan touches the ball, but the fielder catches it, and then a runner at third base tags and tries to score. He trips on the way and breaks his leg and is tagged out. He otherwise clearly would have made it. Ump did not see the ball touch the fan. But it's clear on replay. Can the manager of the batting team ask for replay and take the position that the ball was dead as soon as it touched the fan and therefore the runners should be placed based on normal action? Does the fact that the runner fell down get taken into account even if the play was dead at the time the ball was touched? The rule says that a ball is dead upon "interference." Does touching a ball that is ultimately caught constitute "interference"?

 

[dhappy42]

Right. Ball in play. If umpire judges it correctly, play on. If umpire incorrectly calls it a home run on the field for touching a fan then the play is a dead ball and if replay reverses replay places the runners as necessary to remedy the erroneous call.

Ok, so now try these.

1 Player reaches over the boundary and is bringing the ball back over the boundary when a fan touches his glove above the field of play and makes him drop the ball.

2 Player reaches over the boundary and securely catches the ball but a fan rips it out of his glove while the glove is still over the boundary.

3 Player reaches over the boundary and while his glove is over the boundary a fan takes his finger and touches the ball in the player’s glove for an instant before the player brings the ball back over the fence. Fielder never loses possession.

4 Player reaches over the boundary and hits the ball with his glove causing the ball to bound back toward the field at which point a fan touches it over the field of play. Fielder did not have a realistic chance to catch the ball as it was headed back into the field of play.

5 Same as 4 but after the fan touches it, the fielder makes an amazing play and catches the ball after it bounces off the fan’s hand.

1. Interference. Batter out.
2. Out. Once the ball is secured, what happens next is of no significance.
3. Out. And dead ball once the fan touches it, which is important if there are baserunners.
4. Interference, but not on the catch. Batter is safe. Dead ball when fan touches ball in play, so umpire determines where batter and runners advance.
5. Same as #4. Batter is safe. No catch because ball is dead when fan touches it in play. Umpire places batter and runners.

Basically, in examples 1-4-5, once a spectator touches the ball in play or a player on the field (but not a player glove or body part in the stands) the ball is dead and anything that happens afterwards doesn’t matter.

In example 2, the play is over before the fan touches the ball.

In example 3, the catch is complete, but dead ball on the fan touch.

How’d I do?

 

[drbretto]

#5 is interesting. I've now started to type and deleted it 3 different times. The key point is whether or not the fan touches it in the field of play, which I believe is the scenario.

I am guessing the player is out. I just refreshed and see dhappy's take on it, but I DON'T think the ball is dead.


Everyone remembers this one, right? A very famous example of twin interference calls with wildly different results. As I understand it, the umpires were 100% correct on both calls even if the fans (mostly in Oakland) didn't agree. The key difference was that Tejada (I think) moseyed down the line after the interference call. But because the ball was NOT dead, rather the interference call is more of a flag on the play with the consequences being decided after the play is complete, Tejada's lack of hussle was deemed the reason he was out instead. Varitek was hustling all the way and the interference WAS the difference between out and safe, thus he was awarded the base.

So, in this case, I believe it would still be a live ball that hasn't touched an inanimate object, thus the batter is out. Interference in this case would not factor into it. EVEN if the ball would not have been caught in the first place without it.

 

[dhappy42]

I'm gonna play anyway, even if these are guesses:

1) Interference. If the ball isn't considered "caught" already, then it's live. Once the fan interferes in the field of play, normal interference rules would apply. Ump's discretion on what he thinks would have happened.

2) Once the ball is securely caught, batter is out and ball is dead.

3) Batter is out. The fan's interference is superfluous because the fielder is reaching outside of the fence. If the fielder never loses the ball, then the batter is out like normal.

4) Interference. Same as the first one, only instead of the ump likely calling it an out, this one ends up likely being a double as the umpires decides that the fielder would not have held on.

5) Out! I remember from the 2003 ALDS that interference itself doesn't mean any particular result and the remainder of the play factors into it. The fielder catches the ball and the batter is out.

Am I even close? lol

#5 is the interesting one because instead of a situation where a spectator interferes with a player or ball *preventing* a catch, you could conceive of a situation where a fan *helps* a player make a catch (on purpose or inadvertently) by reaching into the field of play and deflecting a ball upwards, sort of like a volleyball player setting up a spike.

Edit: @drbretto — I think the ball in play, i.e. in the field of play, is dead as soon as it is touched by a fan, even if the fan’s touch does not effect the ball’s motion. So what happens before that, e.g. a catch or a missed catch, stands, and everything after the touch doesn’t count.

Spectators touching balls in play outcomes seem pretty clear to me. What made the Altuve-Betts play confusing to some wasn’t the fan touching the ball. It was the fan touching the player and the question about whether the player was touched on the field of play or in the stands.

 

[drbretto]

#5 is the interesting one because instead of a situation where a spectator interferes with a player or ball *preventing* a catch, you could conceive of a situation where a fan *helps* a player make a catch (on purpose or inadvertently) by reaching into the field of play and deflecting a ball upwards, sort of like a volleyball player setting up a spike.

Yes, I started on that angle before deleting it on my last post.

I don't think that actually matters. If the ball is not deemed dead, then the play is ongoing, an interference call at this point can only help the fielder, not hurt him. If the result of the play is an out, then there's nothing for the interference to overturn, so the batter should be out.

_______________________________________


Wait, no, you're right. The play I posted above was not fan interference it was at the bases and only included players. I looked up the rules on fan interference and it explicitly states that the ball is dead.

When a spectator or other person not associated with one of the teams (including such staff as bat boys or ball girls) alters play in progress, it is spectator interference, colloquially called fan interference. It is worth noting that the latter is also (incorrectly) used to refer to fan obstruction – for instance a spectator running onto the field and tackling a baserunner.[4] The ball becomes dead, and the umpire will award any bases or charge any outs that, in his judgment, would have occurred without the interference.[5]

Therefor, for number 5, the batter is clearly safe, bases awarded at umpire's discretion.

Man, these rules are complicated, lol

Edit: I suppose that's precisely why the ball is dead on fan interference. To remove the entire question of whether or not a fan could "help". Especially since you obviously don't want fans to try to "help" in the first place.

 

[dhappy42]

[QUOTE="drbretto, post: 3098316, member: 62121"...
Man, these rules are complicated, lol[/QUOTE]

Ahh, baseball.

Another interesting thing from the rule you posted is that “fan interference” doesn’t apply only to fans. It applies to ball boys and girls, and base coaches as well. Presumably players in the dugout too.

So a line drive that caroms off the helmet of a 3rd base coach or ball boy and into the air is a dead ball on contact, and not an out of a fielder catches before it hits the ground. Wasn’t there a play this year where a ball girl fielded a fair ball down the third base line?

 

[charlieoscar]

That’s right before he left frame.

I'm assuming that you are referring to West. And that being the case, given where he was, two eyes and stereo vision or not (^drbretto), he has to have a problem in telling precisely where the ball was

 

[drbretto]

I'm assuming that you are referring to West. And that being the case, given where he was, two eyes and stereo vision or not (^drbretto), he has to have a problem in telling precisely where the ball was

Why? The guy's entire career is based on knowing where something is in 3D space. And he's one of the best at it.


Edit: pulled the relevant quote and fixed the link

In 2007, the Hardball Times comprehensively reviewed MLB umpire strike zones, with author Jonathan Hale concluding that, of all umpires, Country Joe "had the fewest number of extra balls and strikes, which is a sign of consistency." For that reason, West received Hale's "top vote."

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

2. Out. Once the ball is secured, what happens next is of no significance.

I think you guys have the gist and I'm enjoying the discussion and I really don't have a great answer for some of these very unusual plays, so I'm happy to just keep reading.

But I did want to add a small point about an ambiguity I was trying to get at where a fan touches or grabs a ball while the fielder is above the wall. In 2014, largely due to reply, MLB quietly tweaked its rules a little bit in order to ensure that there would be better bright lines for slow motion replays. The one that I think everyone knows about by now is that a force out can be had based on the time when the ball touches the glove, not when it is secured, so long as the catch is subsequently completed. They did this to permit out and safe calls to be more objective when being reviewed by instant replay.

Another rule they changed though was the definition of "catch." I think this was done to make it more objective when trying to decide whether a drop was on the catch or the transfer. They made it so you don't have to hold the ball as long to now demonstrate a catch as you used to. The rule used to be that it wasn't a catch until the fielder actually voluntarily released the ball. That's why you see players, after they make a catch, flip the ball to another player. Under the old rules, you could theoretically run all the way to the dugout and still not have technically caught the ball. Now, it doesn't require an actual voluntary release, but only that the ball be held long enough that you can presume that the subsequent release was voluntary and intentional. It's a silly distinction, but that's what they did. Anyway, that's what I was kind of playing around with on the hypothetical plays where the glove is still over the wall and something happens. Here's the language:

"In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught."

 

[drbretto]

That's more or less what I was thinking on that one anyway, I just wasn't aware that was a recent rule change. I was thinking about a second basemen losing the ball during a transition and applying it to the outfield (though, that's a dangerous train of thought as I did something similar with the interference rules and it turned out they were actually different rules that applied).

 

[BigJimEd]

Ahh, baseball.

Another interesting thing from the rule you posted is that “fan interference” doesn’t apply only to fans. It applies to ball boys and girls, and base coaches as well. Presumably players in the dugout too.

So a line drive that caroms off the helmet of a 3rd base coach or ball boy and into the air is a dead ball on contact, and not an out of a fielder catches before it hits the ground. Wasn’t there a play this year where a ball girl fielded a fair ball down the third base line?

You missed the part about "not associated with either team."

 

[BaseballJones]

This isn't even a difficult call to me. At all.

The dude in blue and the dude in orange are up against the yellow line. They are touching Mookie's glove and the ball about a foot in front of their bodies. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if they are essentially up against the yellow and touching something in front of them, then they are in the field of play by the definition used.

If you're going to try to convince me that there is more room between their thighs and the yellow line, and their bodies where they are impacting Betts, then you will need to get me very drunk first.

Can we lock this thread eventually? I mean, who are we even arguing with?

I think the funny thing is that there are other people who see that same exact picture and conclude that it's equally obvious that Mookie's glove is over the yellow line and into the stands.

Eye of the beholder, I think.

(For my money...I have no idea. Just glad we got the call!)

 

[dhappy42]

You missed the part about "not associated with either team."

You’re right. I read that backwards. So what’s the ruling when a coach or ballboy/girl interferes with a ball in play or a player and how does it differ from spectator interference?

 

[dhappy42]

I think the funny thing is that there are other people who see that same exact picture and conclude that it's equally obvious that Mookie's glove is over the yellow line and into the stands.

Eye of the beholder, I think.

(For my money...I have no idea. Just glad we got the call!)

That Ratsos fans see Mookie in the stands in that and other photos, but don’t see the fans reaching over the fence line, I totally get.

That TV announcers, commentators and sportswriters see it that way, I don’t get. I expect more from journalists. Even sports journalists. Even ex-jock sports journalists.

That anyone can call a ball that ended up on the outfield grass, picked up then thrown to second base an obvious home run, I don’t get either. If the ball ended up in the stands, then maybe.

 

[YLAB]

This isn't even a difficult call to me. At all.

The dude in blue and the dude in orange are up against the yellow line. They are touching Mookie's glove and the ball about a foot in front of their bodies. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if they are essentially up against the yellow and touching something in front of them, then they are in the field of play by the definition used.

If you're going to try to convince me that there is more room between their thighs and the yellow line, and their bodies where they are impacting Betts, then you will need to get me very drunk first.

Can we lock this thread eventually? I mean, who are we even arguing with?

Not only that, but you can see two distinct shadows on the yellow. Assuming one shadow is Mookie's arm, pretty easy to conclude the other is the dude in the blue. If he were back in the stands, it would not be possible to project a shadow on that line. He would have to be reaching over to project at that angle of shadow.

 

[BigJimEd]

You’re right. I read that backwards. So what’s the ruling when a coach or ballboy/girl interferes with a ball in play or a player and how does it differ from spectator interference?

Idon't believe a ballboy/girl is considered part of the team.
A base coach needs to get it of the way. They can be called for interference for getting in the way of a fielder or touching a batted ball.
A thrown ball can be different. If a thrown ball actually hits a coach it is still live. That is assuming the coach did all he could to get out of the way.

 

[dhappy42]

Idon't believe a ballboy/girl is considered part of the team.
A base coach needs to get it of the way. They can be called for interference for getting in the way of a fielder or touching a batted ball.
A thrown ball can be different. If a thrown ball actually hits a coach it is still live. That is assuming the coach did all he could to get out of the way.

They might be “associated” with the teams, though.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Re bolded: that’s not the rule.

Many people have said or written that if the fielder reaches into the stands then there can be no fan interference. That’s not correct.

If a player reaches into the stands and a fan touches the part of the player’s body that is *in the stands,* that’s not interference. But if a player reaches into the stands and a fan reaches *into the field* and touches the player, even if another part of the players’s body is in the stands, it is fan interference.

For example, if (before the full-netting era) a catcher attempting to catch pop foul ran to the fence and reached over the wall into the stands, a fan coming into contact with his glove would not interfere because the catcher’s glove is in the stands. But if a fan were to reach into the field of play and touch the catchers body, that would be interference regardless of whether another part of the catcher’s body was in the stands. It’s not where the player is that’s determinative. It’s where the fan-player contact occurs.

The short of it is: if a fan reaches into the field of play and touches a player attempting to make a play,* it’s interference. And that’s exactly what happened on the Altuve-Betts play.


*Assuming the play can be made. If a fan reaches into the field of play and touches a player and the ball lands 15 rows up in the stands, there’s no interference.

Spectator interference doesn’t apply when the player reaches into the stands. You should have highlighted the entire sentence and not just a fragment, because that’s what I wrote, albeit not with the greatest clarity.

Edit: Also, the rule doesn’t state that a fan touching a player in the field of play is automatically interference. The umpire has to determine that the contact prevented the player from fielding the ball. Of course, this doesn’t apply in the Game 4 scenario.

 

[dhappy42]

Spectator interference doesn’t apply when the player reaches into the stands. You should have highlighted the entire sentence and not just a fragment, because that’s what I wrote, albeit not with the greatest clarity.

I don’t think it’s true that fan interference can’t apply when a player reaches into the stands. If a player reaches into the stands and a fan punches him the face (the players‘ s face being in the field of play) it would be fan interference the way I read the rule.

Edit: Also, the rule doesn’t state that a fan touching a player in the field of play is automatically interference. The umpire has to determine that the contact prevented the player from fielding the ball.

I agree. I think I said that.

Of course, this doesn’t apply in the Game 4 scenario.

Why not? West apparently determined that a fan (or fans) touched Betts in the field of play and that the contact prevented Betts from fielding the ball. Maybe I’m not understanding you, but it seems to me that it exactly applies.