fan interfernce?

[SoCal Lurker]

Last night in the Angels-Yankees game, a ball hit the fence and appeared to be touched by a fan.  As I recall, it was R1 and R2, both scored on a triple.  Josh Hamilton complained that a fan touched the ball -- which appeared to be true.  Soscia came out and argued (I presume that he wanted R1 back at third and BR at second, but I'm guessing) and then (surprise, surprise!) nothing changed.

 

Assuming, in fact, that the fan touched the live ball, should U have (1) immediately killed play or (2) waited to see if he thought it mattered?

 

Assuming it was interference, it would be a "god rule," right?  So U could have decided that the same thing would have happened without the interference and changed nothing?

[maven]

Spectator INT involves a fan reaching over the field and touching a ball in play. You're right: it's an immediate dead ball, and the umpires place runners where they think they would have ended up.

 

If they didn't kill it, they ruled no INT. IIRC, this call is not reviewable.

[grayhawk]

Saw that play.  Of course, He-who-shall-not-be-named said that if the fan touched it, it's a ground rule double.  

[mstaylor]

Of course it would be a groundrule double, everybody knows that. it is a God rule and probability left alone. Sounds like even if touched it didn't affect play.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2