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)
Link - ( New Window )
Awful call that changed the game and series.
Um a higher wall? How about a space between the wall and the stands. The Yankees outfield wall is legit 3 feet wide. Very hard to actually reach over and Jeffrey Maier it.
Yeah I saw that. What a shitty thing to do. It’s clear he didn’t do anything wrong but we all know he isn’t going to get shit for it.
It doesn’t matter if he would’ve caught it. The ball was in the stands the fan has just as much of a right to it as the player. BS call
And the fact that West was 100 feet away when he made the call should absolutely be taken into account in reaching an outcome that upholds the intent of the rule.
Horrible call. And would not have gone Astros' way if uniforms were reversed.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out...
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference.
Was a great catch by Benitendi to end it in the ninth; that's what the game should be about, not Joe West.
I wonder how some of these guys stay employed.
The league wants that rule coming into play in clearly obvious situations like, say, the type of situations that would be conclusive in a video review.
Astros got fucked.
Also - Andrew Benintendi is a ridiculously good player who is going to be a PITA for a long time.
Not sure what you're remembering here, Tuckrule.
Um a higher wall? How about a space between the wall and the stands. The Yankees outfield wall is legit 3 feet wide. Very hard to actually reach over and Jeffrey Maier it.
3 feet wide??? more like 3 inches wide.
He's talking about Yankee Stadium now, not in 1996.
No he would not have caught it. If you watch it closely, Betts’ glove was already closing (on his own) before it ever hit the fans hand. He closed his glove too damn early. Besides the fact that the fan has every right to that ball, it was over the wall. So even your off base “he would have caught it” comment means shit.
Link - ( New Window )
that is irrelevant unless Betts' glove is in the field of play (I believe). Hard to tell, though with Bill's link it looks more like Betts was in the field of play when he was interfered with which would make it the right call, but that angle can be hard to tell, need an overhead view to be sure.
The umps are just as likely to get calls right or wrong for both teams and this was a really tough call to make even with all the angles available and slowed down video so you can't take it out on West for making a bad call as if it were totally clear.
Astros had other opportunities as well and just haven't been able to make as many plays. Still not over though so who knows what is next...
Not sure what you're remembering here, Tuckrule.
Quote:
Tuckrule : 8:06 am : link : reply
Um a higher wall? How about a space between the wall and the stands. The Yankees outfield wall is legit 3 feet wide. Very hard to actually reach over and Jeffrey Maier it.
3 feet wide??? more like 3 inches wide.
Yeah, great point bringing up something that happened 22 years ago IN A DIFFERENT FUCKING STADIUM. Genius.
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 )