What do you think? It looked pretty clear to me that Betts was over the yellow and reaching into the stands, which would mean HR. I don’t see how they called interference on that in such a big game. I just don’t see anything that looks like the fan is reaching too far forward, but I could definitely be wrong. Betts doesn’t jump right at the wall so it does make it hard to tell.
If they want replays MLB should really just have cameras going down the line of the wall either way, doesn’t seem like that would be difficult to do nowadays.
(If this is being discussed elsewhere let me know please)
2. Betts looked like he was in line to make a spectacular catch and rob the HR.
3. The wall camera that likely would have given definitive proof was obscured by the security guard leaning over to watch the play.
If Betts's glove was beyond the boundary of the wall, then it cannot be interference because the fans have a right to that space and to the ball.
My take away is that the fan likely contacted Betts's glove within the boundary of the field even though the ball was unquestionably heading over the wall and is a HR if Betts doesn't make a spectacular play.
But it's really close. And it's hard to assume that Betts is going to make such a spectacular catch even though he timed the jump well and got into position. But if the umpire rules fan interference, then the batter is out.
To me, it's like calling a shooting foul on a 3/4 court heave.
But this is what happens when baseball stadiums allow fans to sit right up against the wall. It creates controversy and robs fans at home the chance to watch excellent defensive plays.
There are clear situations where fans reach down and into the field of play (Jeffrey Maier). But on a play like this, what does baseball except fans like the guys in orange and blue to do? They are standing up pretty vertically, and are reacting naturally to a HR ball flying into them and they put up their hands to catch the ball. The guy in white, on the other hand, acted most egregiously. If you are holding onto the wall as support to be able to lean over, then you have to know that you are over the wall and in the field of play.
Also, for all the hate on Joe West, the night before he called one of the most accurate games ever since umpiring calls has been monitored with pitch f/x technology. Apparently, of callable pitches, he got 159/160 correct, calling a strike in the 7th inning on what should have been a ball. (Note, pitch f/x has a margin of error of 1 inch, so Close Call Sports considers anything within 1 inch of the border a correct call either way).
And, as discussed in the Fangraphs article, while there is no clarification on the space directly above the few-inch width of the wall, a ball that bounces on top of the wall and back into the field is considered in play and that seems like a persuasive argument that the area directly on top of the wall is within the boundary of the field.
We can argue about whether he was interfered, but there's no doubt the fan did reach well over the wall and into the field of play.
AL Wild Card game: was Luke Voit triple the result of fan interference? - ( New Window )
And, as discussed in the Fangraphs article, while there is no clarification on the space directly above the few-inch width of the wall, a ball that bounces on top of the wall and back into the field is considered in play and that seems like a persuasive argument that the area directly on top of the wall is within the boundary of the field.
Well stated and one of your points got me thinking. What do they expect fans to do...sit there and let a baseball hit them. Its your natural instinct to protect yourself and catch the ball.
I think the rule needs to be changed. Unless its completely blatant and overwhelmingly having the fan over the wall, interference should never be called.
The umpire made the call as he saw it (from a distance) ... and replay, rightly, could not overturn it without visual evidence.
Personally, I agree with the call as it was made. I could see someone having a different opinion, but that is all we can give - opinions. No one knows for sure.
We can argue about whether he was interfered, but there's no doubt the fan did reach well over the wall and into the field of play. AL Wild Card game: was Luke Voit triple the result of fan interference? - ( New Window )
The ball, fan hand and glove didn't come in contact with each other, so not really a good example of interference at all.
She said exactly this, "It doesn't matter if he is in the stands or not, Betts is such an excellent fielder that he 100% catches the ball if the fan isn't involved. Because of that, it is the right call"
She clearly doesn't know the rule. It doesn't matter if he would or could matter if he catches the ball, it matters whether or not he was in the stands when the ball contacted him.
Regardless of whether the call was right or wrong, her take was 100% wrong and I firmly believe a lot of people behind the mike don't even know the rules.
She said exactly this, "It doesn't matter if he is in the stands or not, Betts is such an excellent fielder that he 100% catches the ball if the fan isn't involved. Because of that, it is the right call"
She clearly doesn't know the rule. It doesn't matter if he would or could matter if he catches the ball, it matters whether or not he was in the stands when the ball contacted him.
Regardless of whether the call was right or wrong, her take was 100% wrong and I firmly believe a lot of people behind the mike don't even know the rules.
She's a complete Fucking idiot. If Betts is outside of play, it's anyone's ball and there can be no fan interference. Doesn't matter how great of a player he is. She sucks.
Clearly a blown call. And blaming the guard? he is likely watching to see if anyone reaches over the wall to cause interference which is an auto ejection.
The league should come out and say the blew it. They won't. but they should know by now it was a bad call.
They've already said that the replay is inconclusive and that the fan reached forward, even though those of us with eyes see otherwise.
But then again - a league that has Joe West umping critical games is going to get this kind of horseshit.
The umpire made the call as he saw it (from a distance) ... and replay, rightly, could not overturn it without visual evidence.
Personally, I agree with the call as it was made. I could see someone having a different opinion, but that is all we can give - opinions. No one knows for sure.
Yes we know for sure. You can clearly see that Betts is reaching over the wall.
I also see him closing his glove before it touches the fans hands.
Was sitting with a Sawx fan and when I told him the rule, He said it was a HR.
With that being said, they took 2 runs away from the Sox the night before on a ball that clearly hit the wall that they called a catch. Didn’t end up mattering but at the time was huge.
Regardless, I’m shocked the Sox are up 3-1. I didn’t think they had a chance. But their bullpen has somehow been effective and their offense is relentless. Go Dodgers!
Clearly a blown call. And blaming the guard? he is likely watching to see if anyone reaches over the wall to cause interference which is an auto ejection.
The league should come out and say the blew it. They won't. but they should know by now it was a bad call.
It thought the ball had cleared the fence as well making it not interference and a HR.
I know there wasn't a definitive video down the wall to show the ball over the fence but I did see one picture that to me proves it. It's taken looking out towards Betts and the fence.
It shows fans 3-4 people on either side of the ball/Betts' glove. The guys in the middle are the main guys who touched the ball and glove but 2-3 fans to the CF side in dark brown or red shirts are looking at the action. Their heads are clearly turned all the way left with jaws over their left shoulders, which to me means they're looking at action over the fence. If the ball at that instant was still in the field of play, their heads would be facing front towards the field. Even if only a little but by looking at the action all the way left, it seems obvious to me they're looking at something in their row/stands and not on the field of play.
To me if the ball is still in the field of play he's looking forward and not down the row the way he is. He's clearly looking at the play over the wall IMO.
Link - ( New Window )
But the ship has sailed. So let’s go Dodgers!!
But the ship has sailed. So let’s go Dodgers!!
Agreed.
Here's another thing that makes no sense to me. Why in the hell are the outfield umps not farther out into the outfield?
They gave a reason last night but it sounded so stupid to me. They said the farther out they are the harder it is to make a fair/foul call on a HR and that's why they're so close to the infield.
My thinking is the 1B ump makes that call all year long so what's the big deal? Let him keep making that call. Plus a fair/foul HR can be clearly called correctly on review so to me that's the lesser of calls importance wise an Outfield ump would need to make.
His main job should be calls like last night or deep drives down the line that land fair/foul.
Dodgers in 6.
But the ship has sailed. So let’s go Dodgers!!
Exactly. Dead ball. Let's go to replay. And maybe have more camera angles available.
But no. Let's rely on Joe "Five Chins Running Down the Line" West to determine an ALCS game. Brilliant.
Also, I think Joe West is an asshole and a bad umpire in terms of how he handles the emotional side of the game. But in terms of precision, I thought he was one of the better umps.
Also, I think Joe West is an asshole and a bad umpire in terms of how he handles the emotional side of the game. But in terms of precision, I thought he was one of the better umps.
Anything above or beyond the yellow line on top of the fence is considered a HR and beyond the field of play. The yellow line itself is the last thing still in play and it's my understanding the yellow line does not extend upward like say the plane of the goal line in football does. The way I understand it is the top of the yellow line is the end of the field of play.
I'm not sure I would call Joe lazy on that play either. Just too far away and out of shape to get himself in better position sooner. He had to be around 100 feet away when he made that call.
So are you saying that that if the ball is directly over the wall (above the padding of the wall that is painted yellow on top)-- that it's beyond the field of play and so a fan can catch the ball there and it be legal and a HR.
But, if the fan decides not to catch that very same ball, and instead it bounces on top of the wall and comes back into play-- that it's a HR because even though it left the field of play, it came back into the field of play without contacting anything beyond the field of play?
Do I have that right?
So are you saying that that if the ball is directly over the wall (above the padding of the wall that is painted yellow on top)-- that it's beyond the field of play and so a fan can catch the ball there and it be legal and a HR.
But, if the fan decides not to catch that very same ball, and instead it bounces on top of the wall and comes back into play-- that it's a HR because even though it left the field of play, it came back into the field of play without contacting anything beyond the field of play?
Do I have that right?
You have some of it right. The yellow line itself is still in play, just not anything above or beyond it.
If it's above the yellow line a fan has a right to it as that's no longer considered in the field of play. If it hits their hands and they drop it onto the field it's a HR because it left the field of play.
However if they don't touch it at all and it hits the top of the wall (yellow line) that is still in play and can bounce back onto the field and be a live ball. The actual yellow line itself is the last thing considered in play. It's only a HR when hitting the yellow line if it bounces beyond it and into the stands.
Picture a plane of glass above the yellow line and the line itself like a window sill. If it hits the sill it's in play (could bounce out for a HR or back onto field and be live) but if it hits the glass it's a HR. If a fan touched the glass it's legal because it's beyond the field of play. The sill is the only thing still in play there.
If a fielder touched the glass, his glove is out of the field of play. He could still make the catch but a fan can't be called for interference since the fielder is technically out of the field of play.
Conversely if a fan was touching the yellow line itself and made contact with a fielder on the line it is interference because the line is in play.
That's always been my understanding of ground rules based on some paid umps that are close friends of mine. Not MLB umps but high enough to where the rules are the same.
I wonder how some of these guys stay employed.
Easy...unions
I saw it as above the yellow line but not over onto the field side but we never got a true look straight down the line of the wall to tell for sure.
My thinking is based on the fans to the side of the action. They're looking sideways and not out towards the field when the ball,glove and hands all met.
The yellow line, however, is not thin. In covers the entire top part of the padding of the wall. If the line is the last thing in play, then should that refer to the back of the padded part of the wall covered in yellow? Shouldn't the pane of glass star at the back end of the padded wall (the last part that's yellow)?
Quote:
While I dont think Betts makes that catch, I see the fan's hand making contact with Bett's glove on the FIELD side of the yellow line. I hate the red sox, but that was the right call.
I saw it as above the yellow line but not over onto the field side but we never got a true look straight down the line of the wall to tell for sure.
My thinking is based on the fans to the side of the action. They're looking sideways and not out towards the field when the ball,glove and hands all met.
Yea but the fan's perspective is not a concern. Rationalize it how you want, but a player has more right to make the play than a fan getting a souvenir. So when its that close, and a fan actually makes contact with the player, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the player.
If the fan contacted the BALL at the same point and not the player, I might feel differently because you could say the ball was going out. But contacting the player is different
The yellow line, however, is not thin. In covers the entire top part of the padding of the wall. If the line is the last thing in play, then should that refer to the back of the padded part of the wall covered in yellow? Shouldn't the pane of glass star at the back end of the padded wall (the last part that's yellow)?
Again, its more about the fan contacting Betts when the ball was not out of play yet.
What if when Jeter dove into the stands for the great foul catch it was in Boston and a Boston fan blocked him off at the wall not allowing him to make a play? The ball was still over the wall, but you cant contact a player trying to make a play.
When its as close as the play was tonight, I 100% would call it in favor of the player.
Quote:
In comment 14135082 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
While I dont think Betts makes that catch, I see the fan's hand making contact with Bett's glove on the FIELD side of the yellow line. I hate the red sox, but that was the right call.
I saw it as above the yellow line but not over onto the field side but we never got a true look straight down the line of the wall to tell for sure.
My thinking is based on the fans to the side of the action. They're looking sideways and not out towards the field when the ball,glove and hands all met.
Yea but the fan's perspective is not a concern. Rationalize it how you want, but a player has more right to make the play than a fan getting a souvenir. So when its that close, and a fan actually makes contact with the player, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the player.
If the fan contacted the BALL at the same point and not the player, I might feel differently because you could say the ball was going out. But contacting the player is different
Not when he's above the yellow line it isn't. It's all about where the contact was as far as over the fence on the field side or just straight up above the yellow line or last it into the stands.
My thinking on the fans looking at the action is about the guys to the side. I know it's not actual evidence but it is something to draw a bit of a conclusion on IMO. They're looking directly to their left down their row and not out onto the field. If the action/contact was on the field side of the yellow line they'd be looking out, not directly left IMO.
The yellow line, however, is not thin. In covers the entire top part of the padding of the wall. If the line is the last thing in play, then should that refer to the back of the padded part of the wall covered in yellow? Shouldn't the pane of glass star at the back end of the padded wall (the last part that's yellow)?
Yes, that's right as far as contact by a fan with the wall and player goes. Say for instance a ball is coming right down on top of the yellow line (either front or back of it) and the contact is made on the line, that's interference.
The question with this play though was the contact beyond the line, above it or right on it? IMO it was definitely above and possibly even beyond it but not actually on it, so it shouldn't have been interference.
It's the same with foul balls. If a fan has his hands straight up and a player is reaching over the fence/wall to try and catch it, the fan has every right to the ball even if he makes contact with the fielder. A fan is just not allowed to reach out over the wall towards the field. He is allowed to reach straight up above it, or anything on his side of the wall.
No question about that. I was only trying to piece some things together to help me get a better view of where the contact was.
The shitty part was a conclusive replay wasn't available and the play stood instead of being confirmed. I wish there was a view that either conclusively overturned it or confirmed it. Having it stand could've went the other way too if he called it a HR, and there would still be a question and some doubt. Without a good replay it will always be left open for debate.
The key point to me is it was above the yellow line and that's not interference.
It can be over the back of the yellow line just not over the front (field side) of it. Anything above any part of the line is legal as long as it's not over onto the field and that's the part we never got a good look at.
If the fan made contact over the field side or right on the yellow line itself it's definitely interference. We saw conclusively it was above, just not whether it was over onto the field. It very well might've been like you saw it. I saw it the other way though and didn't think they were over onto the field.
To each their own but I just wish we had a conclusive replay. That's the worst part to me.
Quote:
That the fan's hands were straight up. I see it as at angled forward and possibly slightly over the yellow.
The key point to me is it was above the yellow line and that's not interference.
It can be over the back of the yellow line just not over the front (field side) of it. Anything above any part of the line is legal as long as it's not over onto the field and that's the part we never got a good look at.
If the fan made contact over the field side or right on the yellow line itself it's definitely interference. We saw conclusively it was above, just not whether it was over onto the field. It very well might've been like you saw it. I saw it the other way though and didn't think they were over onto the field.
To each their own but I just wish we had a conclusive replay. That's the worst part to me.
We disagree as to where the fan's contact happened with Betts, but again, it was far to close to kill the officiating crew.
Whatever, fuck Boston
The more I look at it, there is no conclusive evidence either way. I think I have an answer, but thinking is not enough. It is one of those calls like you see plenty of times in football where whatever is ruled on the field is going to stand.
The padded wall that is painted yellow is what, four inches thick? So if the "pane of glass" boundary is at the back part of the padded wall extending upwards and that pane delineates out of play and in play, then there is a four inch area above the padded wall that would be considered in play. So if a player or ball is contacted there (in the area directly above the padded wall painted yellow).
What makes this more confusing is that the official MLB Groundrules website for Minute Maid Park doesn't have updated pictures of the top of the wall painted yellow. This is the RF wall from the Ground Rules site. The added yellow highlighting and blue arrow indicates how the wall looks now (with the top painted yellow) and the blue arrow indicating the space that I"m talking about.
Per the official ground rules, "Batted ball in flight striking the top of the wall in the right field above the padding beyond the yellow line and rebounding onto playing field: Home Run."
This rules seems to be indicating what happens if the ball hits the spot where teh Green 17 is.
But this is what the wall looks like now:
It does seem more consistent to just have the outfield wall side painted yellow and not the top IMO. Seems to me if some ballparks don't have the top painted yellow and a ball hits the top of the wall it would be a HR, but if it's painted yellow in other parks and a ball hits it, it would still be in play.
I guess different parks could have different ground rules but I'm not 100% sure about that. I just know what I was told about the above and beyond part of the yellow line and tried to relay that in my posts as best I could.
Sorry if it was confusing, and you've certainly brought up a good question with your pics above. Next time I get together with those umpire friends I'll see if I can get even more clarification.
I get where you're coming from but Houston was the lesser of the two evils for me. Maybe not by much but definitely lesser.
Emam, there are universal ground rules here (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/ground_rules.jsp) and below is the link to all of the park-specific ground rules.
https://groundrules.mlb.com/ - ( New Window )
Wasn’t rooting for either but I agree. They were so cocky and proved they couldn’t handle any adversity. Bregman posting that Instagram story showing all the HRs they hit off Eovaldi in a meaningless game certainly came back to bite them in the ass. Much like Judge’s trolling. Red Sox didn’t lose to either team after those events. They certainly mean business. Still shocked they won though.