Fan Interference?

[Thunderheads]

....how is this not fan interference?

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v34888703

[scrounge]

Because she's a cute young blonde...they get away with everything

[UmpJeff]

Looks to me like there should have been an out on the play.  Surprises me that Gibby didn't flip his lid.

[maven]

You can read U1's lips: he ruled that the ball was hooking and would have hit the wall before the fielder could catch it. Replay was inconclusive.

 

U1 might well have ruled spectator INT, since she did reach over the field and touch a live ball. But the penalty is to fix it, and he ruled that it would have been a foul ball. That's the end of it.

[Rich Ives]

Looks to me like there should have been an out on the play.  Surprises me that Gibby didn't flip his lid.

 

It's a "God" rule. The umpires get to decide what might have happened.

[Jimurray]

Looks to me like there should have been an out on the play.  Surprises me that Gibby didn't flip his lid.

 

It's a "God" rule. The umpires get to decide what might have happened.

Would have helped if U1 had given the fan int signal and then ruled foul.

[maven]

 

 

Looks to me like there should have been an out on the play.  Surprises me that Gibby didn't flip his lid.

 

It's a "God" rule. The umpires get to decide what might have happened.

Would have helped if U1 had given the fan int signal and then ruled foul.

 

 

Maybe, but I suspect that communication might have back-fired. When you signal spectator INT everyone is going to expect an out.

 

Of course, many of them did anyway...

[DVA7130]

It is BS that this was reviewable.

 

Everyone saw her catch it....... This is pure judgement.

 

In a few years flipping balks will be reviewable..................

[Thunderheads]

It is BS that this was reviewable.

 

Everyone saw her catch it....... This is pure judgement.

 

In a few years flipping balks will be reviewable..................

boundry calls have been reviewable since IR's inception, ... yes?

[maven]

It is BS that this was reviewable.

 

Everyone saw her catch it....... This is pure judgement.

 

In a few years flipping balks will be reviewable..................

 

They might have reviewed 2 distinct questions:

 

1. Was it spectator INT (was the ball over the field or the stands when touched)?

2. If it was spectator INT, what would have happened?

 

I think the answer to #1 is obvious and not in dispute. The answer to #2 is not obvious from the angles we saw, so they went with the ruling on the field.

 

I'm ok with IR taking a stab at #2 in this situation.

[Larry in TN]

Would have helped if U1 had given the fan int signal and then ruled foul.

 

What is the signal for spectator INT?

[Thunderheads]

 

Would have helped if U1 had given the fan int signal and then ruled foul.

 

What is the signal for spectator INT?

 

hands over head, left hand grabbing right wrist

[DVA7130]

It is BS that this was reviewable.

 

Everyone saw her catch it....... This is pure judgement.

 

In a few years flipping balks will be reviewable..................

 

They might have reviewed 2 distinct questions:

 

1. Was it spectator INT (was the ball over the field or the stands when touched)?

2. If it was spectator INT, what would have happened?

 

I think the answer to #1 is obvious and not in dispute. The answer to #2 is not obvious from the angles we saw, so they went with the ruling on the field.

 

I'm ok with IR taking a stab at #2 in this situation.

No.

#1 Is almost understandable to be reviewable.

#2 (Does he have a chance to catch the ball) Is COMPLETLY judgment the exact same lines as obstruction. Should never be reviewable.

[rjt6]

I think that the right fielder for AZ (don't remember who it is) wouldn't have caught the ball, and to me it looked like the angle that the ball was traveling at, the ball would have bounced off the side wall.  Good call.

[maven]

 

 

It is BS that this was reviewable.

 

Everyone saw her catch it....... This is pure judgement.

 

In a few years flipping balks will be reviewable..................

 

They might have reviewed 2 distinct questions:

 

1. Was it spectator INT (was the ball over the field or the stands when touched)?

2. If it was spectator INT, what would have happened?

 

I think the answer to #1 is obvious and not in dispute. The answer to #2 is not obvious from the angles we saw, so they went with the ruling on the field.

 

I'm ok with IR taking a stab at #2 in this situation.

 

No.

#1 Is almost understandable to be reviewable.

#2 (Does he have a chance to catch the ball) Is COMPLETLY judgment the exact same lines as obstruction. Should never be reviewable.

 

 

I guess I don't understand your reasoning. Judgment calls (including fair/foul, catch/no catch, and safe/out) are all reviewable.

 

BTW: my question #2 was, "what would have happened without the spectator INT," which is different from your #2 ("does he have a chance to catch the ball"). We fix spectator INT by awarding outs and/or bases depending on what we think would have happened. A "chance" to catch the ball isn't really what we're judging.

[Jimurray]

 

 

Would have helped if U1 had given the fan int signal and then ruled foul.

 

What is the signal for spectator INT?

 

hands over head, left hand grabbing right wrist

 

 

I though it was right hand grabbing left wrist after signaling time.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

Would have helped if U1 had given the fan int signal and then ruled foul.

 

What is the signal for spectator INT?

 

hands over head, left hand grabbing right wrist

 

 

I though it was right hand grabbing left wrist after signaling time.

 

I'm partially left handed, my bad! you're right!

[Rulekeep]

Because she's a cute young blonde...they get away with everything

Yes we do.

Although, isn't this really a non-judgement call?

[Rich Ives]

 

Because she's a cute young blonde...they get away with everything

Yes we do.

Although, isn't this really a non-judgement call?

 

 

Not at all. With spectator interference the umpires get to decide what would have happened without the interference.

 

 

 

It is BS that this was reviewable.

 

Everyone saw her catch it....... This is pure judgement.

 

In a few years flipping balks will be reviewable..................

 

They might have reviewed 2 distinct questions:

 

1. Was it spectator INT (was the ball over the field or the stands when touched)?

2. If it was spectator INT, what would have happened?

 

I think the answer to #1 is obvious and not in dispute. The answer to #2 is not obvious from the angles we saw, so they went with the ruling on the field.

 

I'm ok with IR taking a stab at #2 in this situation.

 

No.

#1 Is almost understandable to be reviewable.

#2 (Does he have a chance to catch the ball) Is COMPLETLY judgment the exact same lines as obstruction. Should never be reviewable.

 

 

I guess I don't understand your reasoning. Judgment calls (including fair/foul, catch/no catch, and safe/out) are all reviewable.

 

BTW: my question #2 was, "what would have happened without the spectator INT," which is different from your #2 ("does he have a chance to catch the ball"). We fix spectator INT by awarding outs and/or bases depending on what we think would have happened. A "chance" to catch the ball isn't really what we're judging.

 

 

You can judge whatever you want to judge.

[noumpere]

 

Because she's a cute young blonde...they get away with everything

Yes we do.

Although, isn't this really a non-judgement call?

 

No.  Whether a blonde is cute or not, and how much she should get away with, are entirely judgment calls.