Lindsay Posted October 5 Report Share Posted October 5 Did a Brewers fan commit interference by pushing the protective netting as Mets first baseman Pete Alonso attempted to catch William Contreras' fly ball along the fence-line?With two out and two in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Mets-Brewers Wild Card deciding Game 3, the spectator displaced the protective netting MLB mandated be installed along the infield at all stadiums for fan safety by pushing it toward the playing field, on and over the warning track.Alonso, tracking the foul fly, failed to catch it as it landed near the fan in question, on the warning track, as 1B Umpire Alan Porter signaled "safe": no catch and no interference.Does this constitute interference?The definition of spectator interference states, "Spectator interference occurs when a spectator (or an object thrown by the spectator) hinders a player’s attempt to make a play on a live ball, by going onto the playing field, or reaching out of the stands and over the playing field."Even though the rule does not specifically address the case of a fan pushing a loose infield net over the field but not themself reaching out of the stands, yes, this play is eligible for spectator interference, which is also a reviewable play (it wasn't challenged). Furthermore, pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(e), the batter may be called out for the actions of the interfering fan. With that in mind, what's your call? Video as follows:Alternate Link: Spectator interference question visits Milwaukee in final WC game vs New YorkView the full article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbdumb Posted October 6 Report Share Posted October 6 E- management--unless management has the exact same call as the umpire on the field and does not signal for a replay. Then it becomes their error for not asking for replay or you could say E-batter for not giving the manager the replay sign (just like you would on a tag play call) because you think it is fan interference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeingEyeDog Posted October 6 Report Share Posted October 6 Just additional evidence here that managers and GMs do not read the rules nor do they read comms from the league offices that inform them what is and is not reviewable... Also further evidence here that the league needs to improve their oversight of...when they change something about The Game (in this case, the netting...) they need to do a better job reviewing and anticipating how that change might also need to be accommodated in the OBR. Dare I ask if umpires or umpire supervisor's are engaged in a rules review like this? ~Dawg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbdumb Posted October 6 Report Share Posted October 6 46 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said: Just additional evidence here that managers and GMs do not read the rules nor do they read comms from the league offices that inform them what is and is not reviewable... Also further evidence here that the league needs to improve their oversight of...when they change something about The Game (in this case, the netting...) they need to do a better job reviewing and anticipating how that change might also need to be accommodated in the OBR. Dare I ask if umpires or umpire supervisor's are engaged in a rules review like this? ~Dawg it took until 2005 for mlb to put a mlbu (larry young) on the rules committee. that is all you need to know what they really think of umpires, and still to this day as a necessary evil, or they would have had someone on the committee years and years ago. after young was brian gorman whose father umpired and was later a NL supervisor. now it is bill miller. you would think that in house JD and an MBA to go with it, graduate dan bellino would at some point, due to his legal background, and putting things concisely, and having that mind that thinks of a million contingencies for anything under the sun, and is involved with all the legalese of real estate laws would eventually be on the committee. now, for the inner workings/engagement issues someone would have to call 1800larryyoung or 1800briangorman or 1800billmiller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerguy55 Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 On 10/6/2024 at 10:19 AM, SeeingEyeDog said: Also further evidence here that the league needs to improve their oversight of...when they change something about The Game (in this case, the netting...) they need to do a better job reviewing and anticipating how that change might also need to be accommodated in the OBR Meh - MLB history is full of cases where rules need to be changed because someone found a loophole that no one else anticipated. It happens. There's always the God rule if you don't think the scenario is covered in the rules. In the OP, what's unclear to me is whether or not the ball hit the netting. That would be clear cut in whether or not it's interference. if the ball didn't hit the netting (as a result of the fan pushing out the netting), then it's not so clear cut, and definitely judgment, to whether or not the fan reaching into the field hindered the fielder's ability to catch the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchAngel72 Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 51 minutes ago, beerguy55 said: Meh - MLB history is full of cases where rules need to be changed because someone found a loophole that no one else anticipated. It happens. There's always the God rule if you don't think the scenario is covered in the rules. In the OP, what's unclear to me is whether or not the ball hit the netting. That would be clear cut in whether or not it's interference. if the ball didn't hit the netting (as a result of the fan pushing out the netting), then it's not so clear cut, and definitely judgment, to whether or not the fan reaching into the field hindered the fielder's ability to catch the ball. blowing up the video full screen so I can see it.. Yeah there is a joke there somewhere 🤓 Anyway. To me it appears that the ball grazed the screen and or possibly the player. Via this the fan reaching that far out in the field did commit interference with the 1st baseman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerguy55 Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 31 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said: Anyway. To me it appears that the ball grazed the screen and or possibly the player. Via this the fan reaching that far out in the field did commit interference with the 1st baseman. That's my point...it hit the screen OR the player. You're guessing. On video replay review. With slow motion and zoom. And if it hit the player...that means it didn't hit the fan. Did the fan cause it to hit the player. Did the fan cause the player to miss. I know you don't need contact to have hindrance but typically fan interference does mean, if not explicitly in the rule but at least by anecdotal practice, that the fan has touched the ball or the player to prevent the catch. We have the fan reaching into the field and we have the player missing the ball. We don't have the fan contacting the player or ball. And we are not clear on whether or not the fan pushing the screen out 2-3 feet caused the ball to hit the screen. It's not even clear if the fan's arm caused the player to alter his path. This is interference by rule if we determine hindrance (ie. the fan's hand is over the field...doesn't matter if he's inside the screen)...but I just don't see anything definitive to show hindrance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 18 minutes ago, beerguy55 said: I just don't see anything definitive to show hindrance. I agree. And the player didn't react in any way that indicated that he felt the fan interfered. That, to me, is the clearest evidence that this was just nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeingEyeDog Posted October 9 Report Share Posted October 9 On 10/7/2024 at 2:50 PM, grayhawk said: I agree. And the player didn't react in any way that indicated that he felt the fan interfered. That, to me, is the clearest evidence that this was just nothing. "Yeah, Coach...I appreciate YOU think the fan hindered or impeded your fielder from making the play but, you know what...since your fielder didn't react a certain way, I don't have interference here..." Cool... ~Dawg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted October 10 Report Share Posted October 10 We do use reactions in our judgment (think HBP), but I am with Dawg that I am NOT making a claim that it is the "clearest evidence." On a video replay of what we have, I can agree there is not enough evidence in that video. If the ball touched net, unquestionably interference. If the fielder gave indication (which I think his reaction did, even if he didn't stand there and throw a tantrum), I am inclined to lean towards the interference call. As for the argument that "the fan stayed on the other side of the net" . . . Just because the net is pliable doesn't mean THAT is the measurable boundary. Over the playing area, beyond the stands boundary . . . potential for interference. Think of it this way, if the fan stuck a hat or a glove over that boundary, we have interference even if their hand doesn't cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted October 10 Report Share Posted October 10 11 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said: "Yeah, Coach...I appreciate YOU think the fan hindered or impeded your fielder from making the play but, you know what...since your fielder didn't react a certain way, I don't have interference here..." Cool... ~Dawg Using that information to help make a judgment is wise, but I would never tell the coach that. Same as when a batter might have fouled it off his foot, but we didn't see it. But we do see the batter not running and use that information to make the call. We don't tell the coach for the defense, "I didn't see whether it hit his foot or not, but he didn't run so I killed it." 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeingEyeDog Posted October 10 Report Share Posted October 10 13 hours ago, grayhawk said: Using that information to help make a judgment is wise, but I would never tell the coach that. Same as when a batter might have fouled it off his foot, but we didn't see it. But we do see the batter not running and use that information to make the call. We don't tell the coach for the defense, "I didn't see whether it hit his foot or not, but he didn't run so I killed it." Sustained...withdrawn...thanks, 'Hawk... ~Dawg 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted October 10 Report Share Posted October 10 This would be one for MLB to copy NFL and do the proactive non-coach initiated reviews (I forget what they call it) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted October 10 Report Share Posted October 10 6 hours ago, Velho said: This would be one for MLB to copy NFL and do the proactive non-coach initiated reviews (I forget what they call it) NCAA allows for a crew chief review in the last 2 innings if the team is out of challenges. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted October 11 Report Share Posted October 11 Why are there these stupid provisions on replay? No, coach I am not sure. But you have a challenge left, so you need to initiate it. Had you been a dumb@$$ and used all of them up earlier, then I could bail you out. No, I still don't know. Is the purpose to get the call right or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted October 11 Report Share Posted October 11 16 hours ago, grayhawk said: 22 hours ago, Velho said: This would be one for MLB to copy NFL and do the proactive non-coach initiated reviews (I forget what they call it) NCAA allows for a crew chief review in the last 2 innings if the team is out of challenges. That's good to know. Thanks. The NFL situation I was referring to was (a bit of speculation here since I haven't investigated and only know what the announcers say) the replay center proactively looks at a play unbeknownst to the on-site crew. Often it's to correct a spot. The replay center stops calls into the referee to stop play and says "change the spot of that last play. It's the 35. Not the 30 you placed it at." On field crew announces the change, does it without question, and play continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted October 11 Report Share Posted October 11 11 minutes ago, Velho said: That's good to know. Thanks. The NFL situation I was referring to was (a bit of speculation here since I haven't investigated and only know what the announcers say) the replay center proactively looks at a play unbeknownst to the on-site crew. Often it's to correct a spot. The replay center stops calls into the referee to stop play and says "change the spot of that last play. It's the 35. Not the 30 you placed it at." On field crew announces the change, does it without question, and play continues. I think they call that "Replay Assist." I can see MLB evolving into something like that on calls like hit by pitch, catch/no catch, fair/foul, batter fouling it off himself, boundary calls. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 On 10/9/2024 at 6:55 PM, grayhawk said: Using that information to help make a judgment is wise, but I would never tell the coach that. Same as when a batter might have fouled it off his foot, but we didn't see it. But we do see the batter not running and use that information to make the call. We don't tell the coach for the defense, "I didn't see whether it hit his foot or not, but he didn't run so I killed it." Interestingly, this happened in a game yesterday. I was on the plate, the RH batter hits the ball down in front of him. It comes off with an awkward spin and rolls down the 3B line. The batter just stands there for a couple of seconds, and then starts to run. I didn't see it hit him but I use the information at hand and kill it. No argument. Seeing is believing, and not seeing but using other relevant information can be believing too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.