Tigers-A's Game 4 Home Run Review

[hbk314]

No video up yet, but I think they got it wrong.

Right fielder was in a position to make a catch. Ball was obviously touched when it was well in play by a fan.

I think he should have called Martinez out.

[hbk314]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=31112503

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=31112503

[Jocko]

On review, I think the fielder might possibly have caught the ball. Fan INT. 2 bases. Whether he WOULD have or not is immaterial. Was it physically possible? Yes.

As emphatically as the crew chief originally signalled HR and again after the review, I'm inclined to think he stood his ground in the IR meeting.

How do they decide? Vote? CC has final authority?

[hbk314]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=18818993

 

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=18818993

 

It reminded me of that play.

[grayhawk]

I would guess that with the yellow line - any ball that hits that metal railing is a HR?  The fans clearly reached over the railing to catch the ball but let's say there were no fans there and the fielder jumped for it, did not catch it, and it hits the railing - home run, correct?

 

Seems like you would have to be convinced that the fans clearly hindered the fielder from making the catch to call an out.  Absent that, I'm not sure that two bases is an option since if a catch wasn't made, it would have been a HR.  I suppose you could judge that the fielder wouldn't have made the catch, but would have prevented it from hitting above the yellow line (hits the glove and rebounds into LBT), but that seems to be a major stretch.

 

Two choices on this one:  HR or out.  I don't think he makes that catch, so HR is the correct call.

[hbk314]

I would guess that with the yellow line - any ball that hits that metal railing is a HR?  The fans clearly reached over the railing to catch the ball but let's say there were no fans there and the fielder jumped for it, did not catch it, and it hits the railing - home run, correct?

 

Seems like you would have to be convinced that the fans clearly hindered the fielder from making the catch to call an out.  Absent that, I'm not sure that two bases is an option since if a catch wasn't made, it would have been a HR.  I suppose you could judge that the fielder wouldn't have made the catch, but would have prevented it from hitting above the yellow line (hits the glove and rebounds into LBT), but that seems to be a major stretch.

 

Two choices on this one:  HR or out.  I don't think he makes that catch, so HR is the correct call.

 

I think he's close enough to it that out is a better call than home run, otherwise you're just screwing the A's. In the Pence play I posted, there's no guarantee the outfielder makes the catch there either, but they still called him out.

[grayhawk]

 

I would guess that with the yellow line - any ball that hits that metal railing is a HR?  The fans clearly reached over the railing to catch the ball but let's say there were no fans there and the fielder jumped for it, did not catch it, and it hits the railing - home run, correct?

 

Seems like you would have to be convinced that the fans clearly hindered the fielder from making the catch to call an out.  Absent that, I'm not sure that two bases is an option since if a catch wasn't made, it would have been a HR.  I suppose you could judge that the fielder wouldn't have made the catch, but would have prevented it from hitting above the yellow line (hits the glove and rebounds into LBT), but that seems to be a major stretch.

 

Two choices on this one:  HR or out.  I don't think he makes that catch, so HR is the correct call.

 

I think he's close enough to it that out is a better call than home run, otherwise you're just screwing the A's. In the Pence play I posted, there's no guarantee the outfielder makes the catch there either, but they still called him out.

 

 

On the one you posted, the fans hand was basically in the glove - no question there.  In the OP, the fans hands were at least a foot above the top of the fielder's glove.  Unless the ball was coming straight down, the ball hits the rail above the fielder's glove - HR.

[Jocko]

@grayhawk

You spoiled it too soon. I was trying to instigate a 47 page rules discussion on how this could be a 2 base award. Hahaha

[grayhawk]

@grayhawk You spoiled it too soon. I was trying to instigate a 47 page rules discussion on how this could be a 2 base award. Hahaha

Oops. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[mstaylor]

The fan is definitely over the rail but it looks like the ball contacts the arm far enough up that it may be above the wall. 

[hbk314]

The fan is definitely over the rail but it looks like the ball contacts the arm far enough up that it may be above the wall. 

 

I don't dispute that the ball's headed over the wall. I'd dispute saying the ball wasn't going to be caught. I think the benefit of the doubt needs to go to the defense in the case of fan interference, as it did in the Pence play I posted (admittedly the interference took place closer to F9's glove, but there's no guarantee he was going to catch it).

[mstaylor]

My point is if it is contacted at the fence line, it can't be interference

[Mr Umpire]

HR.  Once it left the field of play, fan's ball.  It looks like it clearly would have gone beyond the wall if untouched.  So, it is the fan's ball once it goes beyond the barrier of the field.  No catch can be awarded and no INT to be called.  My guess is the only thing in question was if the ball was beyond or going beyond the field of play.  Yes IMO.

 

The reason an out was awarded in the other video is b/c the ball was not going to leave the field of play. Not even close.  It was going to hit the wall and stay in play.  Whether or not it was going to be caught is judgment.  That makes all the difference.  Where was the ball at the time of INT?  OP, it was already beyond the front of the wall.  2nd video, it was not.

[BalkHawk]

Is it really that clear that it would have been over? Clear as mud...

[Richvee]

It certainly COULD have hit the wall and stayed in, or been caught. However, the ruling was HR, and I don't think the video evidence is clear cut enough to say for certain the ball would not have cleared the yellow line. So the on field HR call must stand. 

[Jimurray]

Did a fair ball go over or have the posibility of going over a fence" or "gone out of the playing field" ? Is the (fair) playing field defined as the perpendicular extension of the fence upwards? What does the yellow line mean?

Rules wise there is much to debate. To me, if the home team fan interfered, it's interference. I haven't checked who did what in this game. But I like to punish fan stupidity as much as possible.

[Haid D' Salaami]

HR.  Once it left the field of play, fan's ball.  It looks like it clearly would have gone beyond the wall if untouched.  So, it is the fan's ball once it goes beyond the barrier of the field.  No catch can be awarded and no INT to be called.  My guess is the only thing in question was if the ball was beyond or going beyond the field of play.  Yes IMO.

 

The reason an out was awarded in the other video is b/c the ball was not going to leave the field of play. Not even close.  It was going to hit the wall and stay in play.  Whether or not it was going to be caught is judgment.  That makes all the difference.  Where was the ball at the time of INT?  OP, it was already beyond the front of the wall.  2nd video, it was not.

I agree... that ball was well above the yella line.

[hbk314]

HR.  Once it left the field of play, fan's ball.  It looks like it clearly would have gone beyond the wall if untouched.  So, it is the fan's ball once it goes beyond the barrier of the field.  No catch can be awarded and no INT to be called.  My guess is the only thing in question was if the ball was beyond or going beyond the field of play.  Yes IMO.

 

The reason an out was awarded in the other video is b/c the ball was not going to leave the field of play. Not even close.  It was going to hit the wall and stay in play.  Whether or not it was going to be caught is judgment.  That makes all the difference.  Where was the ball at the time of INT?  OP, it was already beyond the front of the wall.  2nd video, it was not.

 

So it doesn't matter that the ball was in play when it was contacted? It hadn't reached the fenceline yet.

[Lindsay]

The visual evidence is clear and convincing that we have spectator interference. We clearly do. Whether the penalty taken to "nullify the act of interference" was proper (e.g., HR vs out due to probable catch) is what is up for debate.

 

The rules error here is the failure to call spectator interference. Even if the penalty is to award the home run ("nullify the act"), spectator interference should still have procedurally been called if for no other reason than to allow Comerica Park security to eject the offending fan for interfering with a ball in play, thereby screwing with the game.

 

[Concernedcitizen2]

Any chance we'll get an official explanation from MLB on this?

[Thunderheads]

@grayhawk

You spoiled it too soon. I was trying to instigate a 47 page rules discussion on how this could be a 2 base award. Hahaha

Jocko, you don't have to do that,....it can happen all on it's own!! LOL

 

 

By the way, ... HR, good call, Tigers win

[jkumpire]

Gotta be a home run, RFU got it right. Gil, interesting point about INF, but the nearest cop in Detroit is probably in Windsor, who is going to throw the fan out?

[afaber12]

The initial call was apparently just a home run, as opposed to a spectator interference 4 base award. (I can't be sure because I haven't seen the camera angle that was focused on the RFU all game.) Though there may not have been clear evidence that the ball would not have gone out of play, there was clear evidence to overturn the call to spectator interference. After that its judgement as to whether or not it likely would have been caught, or gone over the yellow line, or stayed in play for some less-than-4 base award. Given the angles I saw, I think its possible the ball could have been caught. (Both radio teams thought it was going to be an out when they saw the replays, and you figure one of them would be biased towards leaving it a home run.) I don't know how likely it would have been, but I think there's a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the fielding side in these situations. Also, I'd like to see the A's beat the Tigers, so that may be colouring my opinion here.

 

I wonder what the standard is for making the call in this IR situation. Does there have to be clear evidence to overturn the result of the play as well as the actual ruling, or only the actual ruling and then rule on the spectator interference from scratch?

[MidAmUmp]

Did a fair ball go over or have the posibility of going over a fence" or "gone out of the playing field" ? Is the (fair) playing field defined as the perpendicular extension of the fence upwards? What does the yellow line mean?

Rules wise there is much to debate. To me, if the home team fan interfered, it's interference. I haven't checked who did what in this game. But I like to punish fan stupidity as much as possible.

So if the fan was wearing a green jacket as opposed to a blue jacket you would have called it a homerun?

[Mudder]

How is this any different really than a player jumping into the stands to catch a fly ball say down the 3rd base line.  If a fan is going after the ball as well as the player and the fan causes the fielder to drop the ball, then its not fan interference as the ball is in out of play territory so the fielder is not protected.  In this case here the ball is past the yellow line, clearly headed for out of play territory (the railing) and that's when the fan made contact, so no interference.

 

Just can't believe they configure the seating like that, you're just asking for trouble.