Jump to content
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4731 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Posted

So, the fan might have touched the ball. If he hadn't touched the ball it would have hit the railing?or gone into the stands?or hit the wall? So the umpires had to have decided the the fan turned a ball that would have stayed live into a dead ball. Was the principle followed that the home team gets screwed by its own fan's stupidity? That's right from the MBLUM by the way.

Posted

It's a moute point about what happened afterwords becuase Cuzzi killed the play once he determined the fan touched the ball. At that point, MLB 3.16 takes effect and "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." The umpires ruled that the run should score and so they awarded the runner home. It's apparent that in the conference, they were discussing where the runners should be placed, not that the fan did or did not touch the ball. Hence the award of the run.

 

Did the fan touch the ball. That's a tough one, so Cuzzi went off what he felt strongest about. Apparently there was no indecision on his behalf because he did not use the reaction of the left fielder to help guide him into the call. It was spontaneous and deliberate. He had no doubt.

Posted

It's a moute point about what happened afterwords becuase Cuzzi killed the play once he determined the fan touched the ball. At that point, MLB 3.16 takes effect and "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." The umpires ruled that the run should score and so they awarded the runner home. It's apparent that in the conference, they were discussing where the runners should be placed, not that the fan did or did not touch the ball. Hence the award of the run.

 

Did the fan touch the ball. That's a tough one, so Cuzzi went off what he felt strongest about. Apparently there was no indecision on his behalf because he did not use the reaction of the left fielder to help guide him into the call. It was spontaneous and deliberate. He had no doubt.

So did they discuss whether the fan interfered with a ball that would have stayed live or would have been dead anyway.

Posted

 

It's a moute point about what happened afterwords becuase Cuzzi killed the play once he determined the fan touched the ball. At that point, MLB 3.16 takes effect and "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." The umpires ruled that the run should score and so they awarded the runner home. It's apparent that in the conference, they were discussing where the runners should be placed, not that the fan did or did not touch the ball. Hence the award of the run.

 

Did the fan touch the ball. That's a tough one, so Cuzzi went off what he felt strongest about. Apparently there was no indecision on his behalf because he did not use the reaction of the left fielder to help guide him into the call. It was spontaneous and deliberate. He had no doubt.

So did they discuss whether the fan interfered with a ball that would have stayed live or would have been dead anyway.

 

Once the fan interferes, the ball is dead the moment the fan touches it. The umpires must decide, had there been no fan interference what they feel would have justifiably happened to the runners. Had they made the decision based on the ball going into dead ball territory, or that they ruled the ball would have gone into dead territory, then a book-rule two base award follows from TOP, and all runners advance accordingly. R1 would only have been awarded 3rd base. That didn't happen. They scored him, so it is evident that their discussion was where they felt the runners would have ended up had no interference occurred and the ball remained in play. So they made their award based on probable advancement of the runners.

  • Like 3
Posted

I think the fan did touch it. Since it was a Cardinals home game and more then likely a Cards fan, not sure why they awarded Jay home. Certainly doesn't nullify anything. And I'm a die hard Cardinals fan.

Posted

3.15 When a fan reaches into the field and touches a batted ball, the ball is dead, and the umpires place the runners. Placing R1 was the subjection of the conversation, I'd wager. If he has any speed at all (and Jay does), scoring him is correct. maven

Posted

3.15 When a fan reaches into the field and touches a batted ball, the ball is dead, and the umpires place the runners. Placing R1 was the subjection of the conversation, I'd wager. If he has any speed at all (and Jay does), scoring him is correct.

maven

The question is, what is a ball hitting the recessed railing at Busch Park. MLB.com ground rules don't address this. On the premise the railing is in play, if the fan touched the ball did he cause it to hit the railing instead of going thru it? On the premise of the recessed railing is out of play, if the Fan touched the ball did he deflect it up to the out of play railing instead of it hitting the wall and staying live?

In any case, if I'm a knowledgeable fan and can get the right seats ( highly unlikely that a fan could both be rules knowledgeable and get the right seats) I could change an unlucky book rule double ( lets say a deep center bounce into the stands) into my guys scoring more than the book rule double by reaching out and interfering with the ball as it's about to go dead.

Posted

In any case, if I'm a knowledgeable fan and can get the right seats ( highly unlikely that a fan could both be rules knowledgeable and get the right seats) I could change an unlucky book rule double ( lets say a deep center bounce into the stands) into my guys scoring more than the book rule double by reaching out and interfering with the ball as it's about to go dead.

 

And earn an ejection of your own in the process...

  • Like 2
Posted

It's a moute point about what happened afterwords becuase Cuzzi killed the play once he determined the fan touched the ball.

Did Cuzzi kill it with the fan interference signal or with just the dead ball signal?  I didn't see it on the video and the announcers said "put his hands up" so based on that (and knowing theymight be wrong) it was just the dead ball.

 

And someone on the video seems to say if I read the lips correctly "I didn't see it hit the fan" or something like that.

Posted
 I could change an unlucky book rule double ( lets say a deep center bounce into the stands) into my guys scoring more than the book rule double by reaching out and interfering with the ball as it's about to go dead.

 

Not if the umpires can correctly see whats going to happen with the ball.  If you stop it from going into the stands they are going (in theory at least) rule that it would have gone into the stands and just award everyone two bases.

Posted

In any case, if I'm a knowledgeable fan and can get the right seats ( highly unlikely that a fan could both be rules knowledgeable and get the right seats) I could change an unlucky book rule double ( lets say a deep center bounce into the stands) into my guys scoring more than the book rule double by reaching out and interfering with the ball as it's about to go dead.

And earn an ejection of your own in the process...

And, I think, the ejection is forever. I don't think I'd fall on that sword for my home team. I don't think they ejected the fan in the OP though it looks like Cuzzi pointed and said " that guy".

Posted

 

It's a moute point about what happened afterwords becuase Cuzzi killed the play once he determined the fan touched the ball.

Did Cuzzi kill it with the fan interference signal or with just the dead ball signal?  I didn't see it on the video and the announcers said "put his hands up" so based on that (and knowing theymight be wrong) it was just the dead ball.

 

And someone on the video seems to say if I read the lips correctly "I didn't see it hit the fan" or something like that.

 

The signal for Fan Interference is your arms closed above your head and fists closed. Yes, he did make the signal because you can see him lowering his arm and then pointing towards 2nd base area. There is no such thing as a "dead ball" signal in baseball. There is only "Time!" which is two hands raised a little wider than shoulders width, straight up, palms forward, fingers together and verbally expressing "TIME!" and whatever is to follow.

 

I did not see Cuzzi say "I didn't see it hit the fan." I'll look again.

Posted

 

The signal for Fan Interference is your arms closed above your head and fists closed. Yes, he did make the signal because you can see him lowering his arm and then pointing towards 2nd base area. There is no such thing as a "dead ball" signal in baseball. There is only "Time!" which is two hands raised a little wider than shoulders width, straight up, palms forward, fingers together and verbally expressing "TIME!" and whatever is to follow.

 

 

 

I did not see Cuzzi say "I didn't see it hit the fan." I'll look again.

 

 

I think the signal is grasping your wrist with your other hand with both hands above the head.

 

On the time and dead ball -- they are really the same signal and the same thing, but you are probably right here.  HS has the signal for "foul, time and dead ball" as what its listed for.

×
×
  • Create New...