If you are a fan at a game, near the wall, DON"T REACH FOR THE BALL!!!
Now that damn Bennetendi catch was something else. He caught it off my boy Bregman too.
Kershaw pitched an absolute gem.
PUIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!! I love him more and more. I really do.
This was a good night for MLB.
How was it not a home run? Betts reached into the stands, the fan didn't reach onto the field of play. It's only interference if it's the latter. Joe West is fucking terrible.
If you are a fan at a game, near the wall, DON"T REACH FOR THE BALL!!!
Now that damn Bennetendi catch was something else. He caught it off my boy Bregman too.
Kershaw pitched an absolute gem.
PUIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!! I love him more and more. I really do.
This was a good night for MLB.
It was a HR and an awful call.
Nobody reached for the ball other than trying to catch it b/c it was going to land in their lap.
Most definitely shouldn’t have been an out. You can’t assume a catch on so many other plays so how does it make sense to assume a catch like that?
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,291
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
Yup, tough pill to swallow for sure. He signaled HR, then FI. The replay was pretty clear, in my opinion.
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
All stadiums need to have a bit of a barrier between the fans and the outfield wall to avoid stuff like this happening. White Sox stadium has a 2-3 foot space between the wall and where the seats start...would solve everything.
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
All stadiums need to have a bit of a barrier between the fans and the outfield wall to avoid stuff like this happening. White Sox stadium has a 2-3 foot space between the wall and where the seats start...would solve everything.
Screw that. Umpires just have to learn to not be dipshits.
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
But it doesn’t matter if he was going to make the catch. Once the ball is over the wall, there is no interference.
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
But it doesn’t matter if he was going to make the catch. Once the ball is over the wall, there is no interference.
The fans are reaching into the field of play for a ball, touching and affecting the fielder's glove. The ball wasn't over the wall yet. There were numerous hands in front of the guy's glove. He was interfered with from making a play. I don't like the Red Sox, but that was blatant fan interference everywhere but Yankee Stadium.
Seems pretty clear interference, no? It doesnt matter whether you think he would have caught it or not. Fans prevented him from having a chance. Its really bitter if your an Astros fan, but c'mon
That ball looks out of play to me. His body is pretty much against the wall and his arm is obviously further back.
His body is still a away from the wall.
There are hands IN FRONT of Betts' glove touching the ball so that would be interference. Here his body is still 3 feet away from the wall so his arm is clearly not over the wall yet.
Does this pic change anybody's mind?
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,291
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
But it doesn’t matter if he was going to make the catch. Once the ball is over the wall, there is no interference.
Is that the rule? (I don't know, just asking...)
It does look to me like Betts reached into the stands to make the catch, so if that is the actual rule, perhaps it should have been a home run.
Common sense (at least the way I am viewing it) would be that the player had a chance to catch the ball and was legitimately interfered with.
What would your opinion be if he reached into the same spot, the ball was going into his glove (instead of next to his glove, which was being blocked by a fan), and a fan visibly moved his glove while trying to catch the souvenir headed straight for their lap?
I think the guy should have a chance to catch the ball when he makes a great play like that....however that is an "I think" and does not have any official rules knowledge about this call and who hates the Red Sox.
the contact with his glove seemed to happen in front of the wall.
I think its pretty clear he didnt have a fair chance to make the play. He was totally going to make that catch too. Look at below, about 1:49, those slow mo replays. His glove was right on, and that bozo's hand shut his glove and the ball flew right where his open glove would have been.
APPROVED RULING: If a spectator clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
…Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
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.
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
But it doesn’t matter if he was going to make the catch. Once the ball is over the wall, there is no interference.
Is that the rule? (I don't know, just asking...)
It does look to me like Betts reached into the stands to make the catch, so if that is the actual rule, perhaps it should have been a home run.
Common sense (at least the way I am viewing it) would be that the player had a chance to catch the ball and was legitimately interfered with.
What would your opinion be if he reached into the same spot, the ball was going into his glove (instead of next to his glove, which was being blocked by a fan), and a fan visibly moved his glove while trying to catch the souvenir headed straight for their lap?
I think the guy should have a chance to catch the ball when he makes a great play like that....however that is an "I think" and does not have any official rules knowledge about this call and who hates the Red Sox.
It is. I am about to get those seats and start smacking the glove out of people's hands.
Rule 6.01(e) in the Official Baseball Rules states, “No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence . . . to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.”
That ball looks out of play to me. His body is pretty much against the wall and his arm is obviously further back.
His body is still a away from the wall.
There are hands IN FRONT of Betts' glove touching the ball so that would be interference. Here his body is still 3 feet away from the wall so his arm is clearly not over the wall yet.
Does this pic change anybody's mind?
Still think that ball is out, but agree that it is probably not enough to overturn.
the contact with the glove started to be made before that shot though.
If anything, we are talking like a miniscule millimeter difference over the yellow. Even in that case, the 'spirit' of that rule seems to imply something clearly out of play. For all intents and purposes, the ball was very much in play there and it looks like Betts was going to make the catch.
I don't have a skin in the game here. If anyone, I hope the Astros win. I think it would have been a joke to award an HR there
When are the home fans going to realize that you have to get out of the way? Crazy. Tough to say Betts would not have made that catch but that clearly was a homer if he had been able to try w/o fans interfering and he did not make the catch.
Tough pill to swallow for Astros fans, I am sure.
Some really good plays made in the game.
When are people going to realize the fans don't have to get out of the way? If the ball is out of the field of play, it's as much the fans' as any fielder's. A player cannot leave the field of play in attempt to make a catch (only if momentum carries them once the attempt is made). He can reach out of play for the ball, but it can't be interference at that point.
That picture of Betts from behind isn't convincing because of the angle. The ball also touched the fans hand AFTER Betts' glove closed and rebounded off it. The picture in front isn't convincing at all.
Also, the whole "enough evidence to overturn" stipulation is and always has been dumb. If you're going to replay, you're obviously unsure of the call on the field in the first place, that instrinsically means the call is doubtful in the first place and the call on the field should be void at that point. The point of replay should be to get the call right, not "is it enough evidence to overturn?"
If the officials fuck it up, they fuck it up. It's a game played by human beings, goddamn it, not cameras.
I SAW PEARL JAM
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,291
Some passion and fire from non-Astros fans. (Just anti-Sox?)
I still think the fan should not have touched and that the call should be interference/out.
A tough call and I feel for Astros fans.
The different angles do make it appear two different ways.
I am on record as hating on the Sox but I cast my vote for 'correct ruling'.
I also hate that fat bastard West.
Our votes mean nothing but it is interesting to see how strongly different people feel on opposite sides of this.
Sounds kind of like the shitshow going on everywhere in our country. I am sure there must be an AMT asshat to make this about politics, somehow, right?
Now that this rule is out and known known. I am all about the fans taking a more active role. Take the glove right off the players hand, smack the ball out of it. Do what you gotta do! When the ball is out of play that is.
Comments
If you are a fan at a game, near the wall, DON"T REACH FOR THE BALL!!!
Now that damn Bennetendi catch was something else. He caught it off my boy Bregman too.
Kershaw pitched an absolute gem.
PUIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!! I love him more and more. I really do.
This was a good night for MLB.
Also, the walks, passed balls & hit batters didn't help either.
Great catch by Benintendi. If that gets through, game over. Hats off to him.
West's call was absolutely terrible. I don't know how you can see it otherwise while looking at the replay.
They've come back from the hole in the series before and I know they can do it again.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
It was a HR and an awful call.
Nobody reached for the ball other than trying to catch it b/c it was going to land in their lap.
Most definitely shouldn’t have been an out. You can’t assume a catch on so many other plays so how does it make sense to assume a catch like that?
Ugh.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
I love baseball, but not sure how much of that i'll be able to stomach and watch.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Seems pretty clear interference, no? It doesnt matter whether you think he would have caught it or not. Fans prevented him from having a chance. Its really bitter if your an Astros fan, but c'mon
I mean look at this
There are hands IN FRONT of Betts' glove touching the ball so that would be interference.
Here his body is still 3 feet away from the wall so his arm is clearly not over the wall yet.
Does this pic change anybody's mind?
I think its pretty clear he didnt have a fair chance to make the play. He was totally going to make that catch too. Look at below, about 1:49, those slow mo replays. His glove was right on, and that bozo's hand shut his glove and the ball flew right where his open glove would have been.
APPROVED RULING: If a spectator clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
…Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
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.
Rule 6.01(e) in the Official Baseball Rules states, “No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence . . . to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.”
F Joe West and F the Red Sox
If anything, we are talking like a miniscule millimeter difference over the yellow. Even in that case, the 'spirit' of that rule seems to imply something clearly out of play. For all intents and purposes, the ball was very much in play there and it looks like Betts was going to make the catch.
I don't have a skin in the game here. If anyone, I hope the Astros win. I think it would have been a joke to award an HR there
If the officials fuck it up, they fuck it up. It's a game played by human beings, goddamn it, not cameras.