The Fan Interference Call Was Probably Good
Let’s just get this out of the way now: That sucked. I mean, the game between the Astros and Red Sox was great, and it couldn’t have ended in a more dramatic fashion, but ultimately, the Red Sox won by two runs. And, in the bottom of the first inning, a controversial call and replay review might well have cost the Astros two runs. Yes, you’re right, the game would’ve played out differently had that call been made differently. We have no idea what that alternate game would’ve looked like. But the Astros have been pushed to the brink now, and a two-run homer would’ve been a pretty big deal. No one ever wants to think a game and season were damaged by umpires. It’s a very unsatisfying kind of disappointment, when the outcomes aren’t solely determined by the players themselves.
I don’t think we’re ever going to know for sure whether the right call was made. As such, it’s the sort of thing that’s going to linger, at least if the Astros fail to advance. Immediately, this has turned into a great What If?, and a target of Astros fan rage. Yet having reviewed all the evidence, I’ve come to the conclusion the call was good. And by that I mean, I think it was more good than bad. In the absence of anything conclusive, some amount of mystery is everlasting. But if you are to render judgment, you go whichever way you’re leaning. I’m leaning toward fan interference.
Let’s bring everybody up to the same place. In the bottom of the first inning, with a runner on base, Jose Altuve lifted a fly ball deep to right field. Mookie Betts gave chase, and as he got to the track, he leaped in an effort to bring the ball down. The ball, though, didn’t end up within Betts’ glove. Here’s the whole thing happening at full speed:
Clearly, the ball was going to be a home run. It had the height, and it had the distance. But it was a potentially robbable home run. Betts came close, but he couldn’t make the grab, crashing into a swarm of outstretched arms and hands. It looked as if Altuve had gone yard, but Joe West immediately signaled fan interference. West had to signal something, and from where he stood, it looked as if Betts had a really good shot. And he couldn’t tell whether arms were in front of the fence or behind it. He made his decision, knowing it was going to be reviewed anyway.
It was reviewed, and the review took a few minutes. The call on the field was upheld — there wasn’t enough to confirm or overturn. Had West initially ruled it a homer, it probably would’ve stayed a homer, for the same reason. But you can understand why he thought what he did at first. He leaned toward interference. It stayed as interference.
This is the part where I show you all the slow-motion angles. Here’s one of them:
Here’s another one of them:
Here’s still another one of them:
You can see why there’s so much disagreement. You can understand why Red Sox fans see one thing, while Astros fans see another. Those replays don’t give you the angle you’d want, and although there was an available replay from a better angle along the wall, that camera just happened to have a security guard in front of it:
Because of the security guard, the preferred camera feed was worthless. Interpretation had and has to be based on the other angles. Screenshots hardly seem very helpful.
You know?
You can see almost whatever you want to in there. It took me a while to settle on meaningful clues. Here’s the core of the whole thing. Here’s a section of the comment from the spectator-interference section of the rule book. We’re talking about Rule 6.01(e).
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.
Based on the replays, it’s plainly evident that the fans prevented Betts from making a clean catch attempt. The question is where the fans were. Or, where Betts was. If Betts was somewhere beyond the wall, then there couldn’t be interference. Not according to the rule. But if the fans were reaching over the wall, then interference would be correct. Somewhat importantly, the rule doesn’t address the area directly above the wall, but I assume that counts as in-play territory, since a ball that hits the top of the wall and comes back is in play, and isn’t a homer. It’s a small area, but in a case such as this one, inches matter.
So are we looking at interference behind the wall, or not behind the wall? I’ll remind you, nothing can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I want to show you a couple more clips. Each clip is just a pair of alternating screenshots.
The camera shifts a little between the two pictures, but something that barely changes is the location of Betts’ left wrist. In the second photo, it looks like Betts is reaching almost straight up, and his body hasn’t yet impacted the wall. If his body hasn’t impacted the wall, and if his arm is almost straight up, then it sure doesn’t seem like the glove is on the other side. Here’s the other pair of screenshots, showing the same general thing.
Betts’ left wrist barely moves. But while the wrist is temporarily stable and steady, Betts’ body keeps moving underneath. Again, in the second photo, it looks like Betts’ arm is almost straight up, and he still hasn’t impacted the wall. He’s some number of inches away from the wall, and the front of the wall is some number of inches away from the back. Based on these images, it seems more likely that Betts’ glove was still somewhere in or over the field of play upon colliding with the spectators. One more screenshot to focus on:
The point of reference here is the guy in white in the front row. This was taken moments after the ball first came down, but Betts’ left hand has barely moved. Betts’ left arm is almost straight up. He hasn’t yet crashed into the wall. The guy in white is holding the wall with his own left hand. And he’s leaning forward with his upper body, such that his shoulders are over the wall’s top. And now look at the guy’s right arm, outstretched. Even though the wall itself fades away to the left, because of the angle, the guy in white’s arm is reaching toward the camera. It’s reaching to the front and the side of his right shoulder. His hips are almost against the wall. His shoulders appear to be above the wall. His right hand appears to be in front of his shoulder. It’s nothing easy, it’s nothing obvious, and it’s nothing conclusive, but it’s enough for me to lean. It’s enough for me to think the chances Betts was still in play are greater than 50%.
By the way the rule is written, that’s enough. But as long as we’re here, we might as well also consider the spirit of the rule itself. I don’t think baseball has ever wanted to encourage fans to try to prevent players from making defensive plays. Fans aren’t supposed to be direct actors in a game, and I imagine the idea is that players should be given a reasonable chance to make catches. If those fans in Houston weren’t there in right field, or if there were a seatless buffer between the fans and the wall, Mookie Betts presumably makes that catch. Not only is he the best defensive right fielder in the game — he’d already done all the hard work. He got himself into position, and he timed his jump right. His glove was where it was supposed to be. Even if that had been ruled a home run, it would feel a little like a home run by technicality. I can’t think of a compelling reason why baseball would want fans to get in the way. The fans are there to watch. The players are there to play.
If you think about what baseball has probably intended, Betts should’ve been able to make that catch. And if you just go by the letter of the law, it seems to be more likely that, when Betts’ glove collided with arms, it was either in front of the wall or above it. I can’t say that with 100% certainty. There will never be any 100% certainty, unless some fan nearby just happened to have a camera out. More important to me is just getting past 50%. I’ve gotten past 50%. I think the interference call was more right than wrong. That’s all you can ask for in a situation like this, and I’m glad it’s not a complete and utter coin flip. Then no one would be able to make peace.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
This take is so bad I had to re-activate my account. Jeff, you’re the best writer on FG and have enjoyed 99.9% of the things you write. But just look at the photos and GIFs you posted in the article! Your article literally has visual evidence it was not interference.
And something for the league to consider- worst case there should be an option for ump’s discretion. I *think* Betts does catch it, but you can’t assume it. Maybe he hits the wall and opens the glove and the ball rolls out. So 1) it is not interference 2) even if you think it was, you can’t assume the catch so ump should be able to place Altuve at 2b with a double. That changed the game, the series, and potentially the World Series.
Hello friend,
This was umpire’s discretion. Joe West called it interference on the field, and replay review needed to find conclusive evidence to overturn that call
That conclusive evidence doesn’t exist.
The call on the field was ‘fan interference, batter out’.
If the call is ‘double’, yeah, maybe its hard to find conclusive evidence to call interference.
There is not really a conclusive camera angle because of the security guard.
Huh, are you as blind as Joe West? There was not fan interference. It was crystal clear. Read the rule book.
Rule 6.01(e) states: 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.
A quick Google search of the definition of the word “over” yields the below result:
preposition
1. extending directly upward from.
So the rule doesn’t specify that the player needs to pass the threshold into the actual stands, he just needs to break the plane extending directly upward from the fence.
In this case, it seems pretty clear, if not completely conclusive, that, without contact from any fans or Betts, the ball may have, in the best-case for the Red Sox, hit the top of the wall and bounced back into play if not cleared the fence outright.
Therefore, Betts has, at least, extended directly upward from the top of the fence in order to attempt to make the catch, rendering an interference call not to be allowed.
https://sports.yahoo.com/joe-west-explains-fan-interference-114728385.html?fbclid=iwar0hyapc-5iv-brrczr2pk6e2zbnosjfobs3wszdsiuhgbobv3tpohp45sy
This is a wall, not a fence, railing, or rope. You should be googling the definition of the word “into” instead of the word “over” since the phrase “into a stand” applies.
The distinction between the conjunctions “and” and “or” is relevant here. A quick Google search of the definition of the word “or” yields the below result:
conjunction
1. used to link alternatives.
The rule does not state “No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope AND into a stand to catch a ball.” It states “OR into a stand”, or an alternative to reaching OVER a fence (wall).
Which Betts did pretty conclusively.
Nah you’re reading it wrong. Go back to school.
The sheer volume of downvotes suggests this was anything but crystal clear, and maybe (based on the poll so far) even leaning toward the opposite of your argument…
According to the current rules, as I understand it, if the ump called an out on interference, it has to stay an out if replay confirms (or lack of evidence to overturn) interference. What should be allowed going forward, is that middle ground. While it was not interference, if it’s called that way and “confirmed”, the ump should at least be able to use his discretion after watching the replay and award a double to Altuve, opposed to having to keep the original out call. It’s not 1996 with the Orioles fielder camped under the Jeter ball. Betts was crashing into a wall, there is no way you can call that a catch/out even with interference.
But I really am astounded people don’t think Betts was past the field of play. Even the still of the guy in the white shirt that convinced Jeff it was interference- Bett’s arm is in the crowd! I can’t believe I have to defend a guy who was wearing a Reagan/Bush hat…
“Betts was crashing into a wall, there is no way you can call that a catch/out even with interference.”
It has 0 to do with whether Betts was going to make that catch. And I think the majority of people would agree that he would have considering his glove was right in line with the ball and only closed because of the fans touching his glove.
He started to close the glove before making any contact with the fan. Watch it frame by frame
Well obviously. You need to anticipate the arrival of the ball so that the glove is closed when the ball hits the back of the glove. Otherwise the ball could bounce out.
Yes, the ball in these shots actually misses the glove, but it’s not clear that the glove’s path isn’t deflected by the fans.
If Joe West had called that a homerun, there probably isn’t sufficient video evidence to overturn that. If Joe West had called it a double, there probably isn’t sufficient video evidence to overturn that, either.
The lack of conclusive video evidence means that the right call is whatever call Joe West makes on the field.
“The lack of conclusive video evidence means that the right call is whatever call Joe West makes on the field.”
And who ever thought THAT would be a reasonable sentence? But there it is.
Personally, I come down on having a tough time really figuring out if it was interference or not from these videos.
This claim looks simply to be incorrect based on the wording of the rule, however: “It has 0 to do with whether Betts was going to make that catch.”
Read the rule in the middle of Jeff’s post: “and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball” is a component of what’s required for a fan interference call.
If MLB’s intent is that fan interference can be called when a fan reaches over into the field of play and simply disrupts a player’s chance of catching a ball that might be catchable, then the rule ought to be re-worded to say something like “and hinders or impedes the fielder’s attempt to catch the ball”. We also, by the way, see exactly such wording in some of the MLB rules about batters or runners interfering with fielders. For example, part of rule 6.01(a) is that it’s batter or runner interference when “Any batter or runner who has just been putout, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner.”
Yes. I’ve been arguing this point all day in another forum, but you put it particularly well.
If Betts and his glove are both in the field of play i.e. he made the catch at or before the wall without reaching into the stands, isn’t having a bunch of people’s hands between your glove or your line of sight and the ball considered “plainly interfering”?
People believe what they want. Anyone who tells you they know anything is a liar. We need to be able to deal with uncertainty and move on.
I have no idea how you intended that last sentence to read – either “I can’t believe I have to defend someone who is clearly beyond reproach” or “I can’t believe that I find myself defending someone whose politics I disagree with”… but either way, that is a decidedly weird thing to bring up in this context.
I’m downvoting you for basic incoherence and non-sequiturial negligence. Also because you appear to be wrong about your baseball argument.
Joe West also has the dubious distinction of taking away a perfect game. Not his first bad call rodeo.
Are you thinking of Jim Joyce, or did Joe West do this too and I missed it? If so, shame on me.
Joe West – Armando Galarraga on what should have been the final play of the perfect game.
That was Jim Joyce unless Galarraga had two perfect games taken away on a bad call in the final out, which I find prohibitively unlikely given that I’ve never heard of a second such game.
Yeah, that was Jim Joyce, not Joe West.
I stand corrected…apologies
That was Jim Joyce, dolt
Well, if there’s not conclusive evidence I guess we can’t know whether Joe West got it right – just that the decision to uphold was (just as a decision to uphold a call the other way would have been).
Dude, you didn’t bother to read the rule.
It’s not about assuming a catch, it’s about whether or not the fan(s) reach out into the playing field (over the wall in this case).
As Jeff states, it’s not 100%, but the screenshots (especially the last one in my opinion) do seem to show that it was interference.
Yeah, the rule is clear and the fan did not reach out into the field of play. It was clear. No no no fan interference.
There’s no camera angle that’s clear. The questions “Would he have caught it?” And “was his glove closed? ” Have no bearing on the call.
Can we get this clown of this site?
Anybody who thinks this is “clear” reveals themselves to be, well, kind of ignorant. There is nothing “clear” about this, as evidenced by the gazillion arguments all over the media. You may have an opinion, but to call it clear reveals your bias and ignorance of so, so many things.
The rule may be clear, but your interpretation of it is not.
Fan reaching out into the field doesn’t matter. If a part of Betts’s glove reaches over the wall (it strikes guy in blue on his wrist), interference can’t be called. If “over” means “above”, I have a hard time believing it is clear cut. Joe West making the call determined the ruling.
“Fan reaching out into the field doesn’t matter” – that’s literally the thing that matters
Fan reaching into the field only matters if Betts isn’t reaching over a fence. If both a part of the fan is over the fence and a part of Betts is over the fence, it should be a home run. If “above” is included in part of the area “over” a fence, I would say there is greater than a 50% chance Betts was reaching over the fence. If “above” the fence is not included as part of reaching over the fence, there is less than a 50% chance Betts is reaching over the fence.
I’d like to hear Sheryl Ring’s take on what she thinks the rule means in regards to the area above the fence.
I’m not so sure this is true. Per the rule the spectator has to “plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball.” If Mookie wasn’t going to make the catch, then he can’t be prevented from making the call by a spectator. Therefore, no interference can be called. For example, if a fan reaches over the railing in LF while the play is being made, it certainly wouldn’t (shouldn’t) be an interference call, which is the extension of your point.
Rule 6.01(e) states: 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. The entire cruz here is whether the ball crossed the plane or not…if it did, the fans could rip off his glove and there would be no interference.
But that’s not the rule in question. What matters here is whether inconclusive video evidence can overturn the call on the field. And it can’t.
You’re describing the rule Joe West used to make the call in the first place. Overturning that call requires that we can demonstrate the opposite hypothesis conclusively, and we can’t.
We’re saying the same thing. I think the ball crossed the plane, I see him over the fence with a bent back glove, others don’t.
I completely agree with you. This take is terrible and Jeff should be embarrassed. I though he knew something about baseball. Read the rule book and look at the video, it is simple. I do disagree with you that Betts does not catch it. His glove was closed already. He definitely would not have caught it.
His glove was closed because the fans hands pushed it closed
This doesn’t matter in the least. Only thing that matters is whether the ball crossed the plane of the fence or not before the fans touched it or him.
Agreed.
Joe West said it did not break that imaginary plane so it is interference and there is no irrefutable evidence that it did. There is absolutely no way for Joe West, with a fore-shortened view, to see if it did or not and he properly made a judgment call. That call was upheld. Betts was clearly interfered with but if the ball had crossed the plane it wouldn’t make any difference.
Betts’ glove was forced closed by the collision with the hands and arms of the fans. There is no certainty that he would have caught it had there not been interference (either legal or illegal by the rule book), but I think it’s fair to say given Betts’ glove proximity to the ball that he had a legitimate chance of catching it had the fans not been there.
I voted home run because in my view the fans were not in-play, but I agree with Jeff and probably the replay review room that there is no conclusive evidence to overturn the call. Ultimately I think the call was fair.
“I thought [Jeff] knew something about baseball.”
Congrats, you’re now in the conversation for worst comment in FG history.
It seems extremely unlikely that he 1) mistimed the glove-closing that badly (I’ve never seen any player do that) and then 2) had the presence of mind to complain to JBJ about having his glove forced shut, so he could sell his theory.
Also it looks fairly clear from one angle that his glove hand is moving to his left and then the left side (from his perspective) of the glove stops moving as soon as it hits the guys hand. The right side of the glove keeps moving though. You would expect to see both sides move inward if it was Mookie closing the glove (I’m assuming that the glove-closing velocity is greater than that of Mookie flying in the air, which I think is fair?).
Hi glove was closed because it hit a fan that was in the field of play.
“I though he knew something about baseball”
mikecav19-you don’t help with this statement. It so happens I agree with your conclusion, which is that it should have been a dinger. But, Jeff made a cogent, solid argument for his opinion, and clearly he based it on the rules. Ridiculing a very, very highly knowledgable writer about his knowledge because you disagree with his opinion is disqualifying from considering yours. Pure tribalist tactics. Right or wrong, Jeff has nothing to be “embarassed” about. If anything, your conclsuion that this is “simple” reveals only your narrowmindedness.
You add nothing to any discussion. It’s you who should be embarrassed by your ridiculous, unfounded self confidence masking idiot ness.
Can you just go ahead and deactivate that account again?
Thanks for reactivating your account.
Sincerely,
No one
dang, i remember you from WAY back. was it the Scout board?
I don’t think I’ve seen a comment with this many downvotes so quickly. All deserved.
Can we get it to 1,000?!
Assist, Jeff is a thoughtful, entertaining, and knowledgeable writer that I try to read every article of. Cherry on the top for being a good man/having awesome chats.
We’re at -600! Creeping closer to 1000!
Is this the most thumbs-down’d comment in recent FG history
wow. -330, that’s impressive.
Yeah, not in a good way tho.
The Astros are cheaters, and what goes around comes around.
This is the most downvoted comment I think I’ve ever seen. Honestly, I think the comment basically saying it was good that Dave Cameroon had cancer had fewer downvotes than this.
I went back and looked. I was a bit off. Someone commented that they would pray for Dave, and the first response to that was “I will do nothing for you, but act like I am.” (quotes in post). It has 322 downvotes: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/when-probability-is-not-helpful/
This comment is far past the comment of a person being an ass about cancer.
It takes a really special comment to more than double the dislikes of an asshole.
Congrats, Mike.
I read that quote as a dig at people who pray as being self-righteous and virtue signalling without offering any actual help.
Paging Dave Appelman:
Is there a record for largest number of downvotes on a comment? This one has to be in the running.
Has this set a FanGraphs record for downvotes?
How does this question have a downvote? That is the real question IMO.
Negative 580 for you! Bad day to be first!
You’re an idiot so hard that I had to create an account. It’s very obvious the fans were at the very least directly OVER the wall, and I’d even say into the playing field. Mookie would have made that catch had his glove not collided with their hands. Sorry don’t be salty.
You sir, are the very definition of salty.
I raised you a point, but you were already minus more than 700. Clearly a huge number of Red Sox fans on this site. I thought it was a terrible call by the umpire and I could have cared less who won. Jeff fails to notice the curve in the wall and the obvious fact it all happened above the wall in the stands. His glove hit the hands of people a row back. How someone could reach into the field from a row back is not possible to me.
For me, the biggest issue I have with this argument is that the guy in the white shirt, while clearly attempting to catch the ball, was not the one who made contact with the ball (orange shirt) or Betts (blue shirt). Additionally, it appears that his hand is in front of the two people who actually affected the play. I think it’s pretty clear that he was over the fence and in the field of play, but since he ultimately didn’t actually do anything, should that matter?
Very fair, however the man in the white shirt is at least providing a better reference point in comparison to the fan(s) who interfered. His hands do not appears to be far out as the other fans who touched the ball. Again, the images are not clear, but I agree with Jeff, more than 50% certainty.
Right–he is a reference point even though he didn’t interfere.
The other fans hands are right above the hands of the man in white. So I’m not sure how this proves anything different
Well, just because White Shirt didn’t touch the ball doesn’t mean he didn’t interfere. We’re all familiar with seeing football DBs wave their hands in front of receivers when they’ve been beat. Just putting a hand in the way throws off the receiver (in this case, Betts).
Oddly enough, if i were forced to make a decision, i would say that betts reached over the fence *and* the fan reached onto the field. It looks to me like one of his hands is in front of betts’ glove. I don’t know how the rule would be applied in such a case, but intuitively that certainly seems like it should be interference.
But Betts is allowed to reach over the wall. The fans are not. It doesn’t matter that after the contact with Betts’ glove was made his glove may have continued over the wall (assuming this happened, which I think it did based on the video). Interference had already occurred.
To take an extreme example, imagine a player jumps up on the wall (like Ichiro did at least a couple of times. His arm is over the wall as he waits for it to come down. Then, a fan jumps over him onto the field while catching the ball. Would any sane person say that because the fielder had his arm over the boundary line, that now meant the person jumping over him to catch the ball were not interfering? No.
He’s allowed to reach over the wall but the rule states that ‘No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball.’ So by that reasoning it shouldn’t have been interference–for that matter, the case you mentioned also shouldn’t be interference. It seems to me that in the case as I saw it (I see it as Betts’ fence being partially over the wall as he touches the ball, not after, but I wouldn’t change my opinion about what the call should be because of that), as in the case you described, both the fielder and the fan have crossed over, and in such cases it should be interference. The rule as written assumes only one of the two crosses over, and this isn’t true.
I know it doesn’t exactly say this, but I have to read the rule as saying only that the fielder-reaching-over part of a play is not subject to interference.
If reaching over erased interference on the whole play, consider the extreme: fielder reaches over, gloves the ball, fan reaches onto the field with a katana and lops his arm off before he pulls the glove back.
I agree. That’s what i assumed too
Exactly. Generally you want to take pains to interpret a rule in a way that would not have objectively stupid results.
Question: if Betts reached over and blocked the ball from going out, so that it bounces back into play, is it still a home run?
Nope, but probably a triple if the batter is running out of the gate.
I’m pretty sure a fan got a finger on it.
This rule is so dumb–if you are going to say that once it’s over the fence it’s a HR no matter what, fine (though we’d lose a bunch of HR robberies, so still bad)–but to have this gray area where fans of the batting team should try to either touch the ball to render it a HR or grab the player’s glove to prevent a catch?
Yeah I was surprised that this was the rule too! To me it makes more sense to define “field of play” as anything the player can reach (probably without literally climbing into the stands). Obviously this rule has an unfortunate element of discretion to it (was the player going to catch it) but at least then there’d be no need to determine where the ball was, and fans just wouldn’t be allowed to interfere, period.
I have no doubt that Mookie would have caught that ball without the fans being there. I have no doubt that the ball would have been a home run if not for Mookie.
Forget the call.
The issue here is that every fan would have grasped towards that ball. It’s coming right at them. I can’t fault them at all. It’s not like they reached below the top of the wall. So either the rule needs to be changed or there should be a new rule about stadium design and how close seats are allowed to be to the field of play.
I disagree. If it were the home team’s right fielder and the visitors about to hit a homer, the fans usually would try to stay out of the way.
I do agree about stadium design — I grew up going to the old Oakland Coliseum (pre Mt Davis). It had a sizeable gap between the bleachers and the wall (a yard perhaps?). I now understand one reason for this gap.
The fans would try to stay out of the way? Wow, you really assign a lot of baseball intelligence to an entire group of random fans. There may be some that smart, and with that much presence of mind, AND the ability to have given the matter thought before it happened. But an entire group?
How many fans were NOT trying to catch the ball Bartman got blamed for?
I actually think these fans did a pretty good job of not reaching way out into the field. White shirt guy excepted, they are all kind of T-rex-armed.
Though I do still think they were in the field of play.
This was definitely NOT fan interference and if you can’t read the rule book and see the video and tell that, you don’t know anything about baseball. That call was a travesty and destroys any credibility baseball had. That was the easiest call and it was definitely a home run and not even close.
Did you even read the article? Come on now… don’t let your bias get in the way of your judgement. That was probably one of the hardest calls that replay officials had to make in the replay era given that the best view was blocked. Jeff gives a fair analysis of the play. Your comment is a travesty and destroys any credibility you had.
Must be nice knowing so much more than everyone else.
Yes. We get it. You can stop repeating yourself. You’re gonna get carpal tunnel.
Really easy to spot the piss-drunk Astros fans in here. Dude, it’s still morning in Texas. You may want to slow down on the Colt 45s.
Dude’s definitely not old enough to get drunk …
Preface: I’m a Red Sox fan. In my opinion, Betts was reaching into the stands, so that would mean it is fan interference. However, I do agree with the person who said the rule needs to be changed. I’m sure the intent of the rule is to allow Betts, in this particular situation, to make a great play. I think the rule should have different interpretations for a possible home run, versus what happens in foul territory. The main reason is the impact: if a foul ball is not caught, the defending team loses an out — at least momentarily. But the implications of catching/not catching a possible home run is huge–just look at last night!
I’m not sure HOW exactly to write the rule, but it should allow for a possible great catch like Mookie almost made last night: I think if the rule said something like “if, in the opinion of the umpires, the fielder would have caught the ball, then it is an out, even if the fielder’s arm/glove is out of the field of play.”
If that was the rule, then maybe the umpires decide Betts would not have caught the ball, and it is a home run: or maybe the opposite.
“In my opinion, Betts was reaching into the stands, so that would mean it is fan interference.” No. That’s the opposite of correct. If Betts was reaching *into* the stands, then by rule, interference can’t be called. This is clearly explained in the article. As to your second point about changing the rule, I’d suggest that rewriting any rule to add *more* umpire discretion is only going to make things worse.
“In my opinion, Betts was reaching into the stands, so that would mean it is fan interference.”
Errrr, wrong. Try again
He meant to say “I’m a Red Sox fan, so I support whatever helps them.”
I’m not a fan (or hater) of either team, but I see Betts’ glove closing before he makes any contact with a fan.
Here’s the problem with your conclusion: the guy in white never made contact with Betts. The guy behind and to his left did, and Bett’s left arm is very clearly past guy in white’s arm when the contact was made. I don’t really have a horse in this race, but this very much looks like both West and the replay booth fucked the dog here.
And by dog, I mean the Astros.
I think the point of mentioning the guy in white is that he seems to be pretty clearly leaning above/past the wall, so he is a point of reference, and his right hand is near where all of the other hands are. It’s harder to tell where the hands that hit the glove are, relative to the wall, so that’s where having the rest of guy in white’s body as a reference is helpful.
great post, correct conclusion
Jeff: you nailed it noting that his body had yet to hit the wall at the moment his glove was making contact with fan hands. He didn’t have his arm back at an extreme angle and at best there’s a shadow indicating his wrist may be directly over the top of the wall as the play happens.
I don’t like the call, and I’m disappointed that you are only considering the two binary options. Those are’t the only options. I think the correct call would have been to score it a double.
Fan interference definitely occurred, per the rules, and as you explained. However, just because fan interference occurred, doesn’t mean you can assume the out. In the quoted text you posted:
“plainly prevent the fielder…”
Note the first word, PLAINLY. The rule is intended for routine catches, for predictable and expectable catches. When a fielder leaves their feet the way Betts did, the catch is no longer routine. There are MANY failed HR robbing attempts every year, where a fielder goes up, and misses a ball that could have been caught… ie: he was high enough, just in the wrong spot. There are also a lot of failed HR robbing attempts where the ball hits the glove and then bounces out, either over the fence or back onto play.
Based on what we know about the catch, and about the difficulty of comparable catches that were not interfered with, I think it is impossible, and unfair, to say that the spectators definitely prevented a catch from being made. Because that would imply the catch would definitely be made without the spectators. It was WAY too difficult of a catch for MLB to make that assumption.
I think the correct ruling would have been no out but no HR: both the baserunner and Altuve get 2 bases. Because the reasonable assumption is that if Betts doesn’t catch it, he at least gets it in quickly enough.
So you’re going to say the best right fielder in the game should be judged on the expected probability of the catch of all right fielders? That doesn’t seem right. But it is a waste of time to argue that anyway, because the rule has nothing to do with whether the catch would’ve been made or not. It IS binary, interference or not, safe or out. Sorry Charlie
That’s not actually true. Please see my response to Tony below.
Depends what you mean by the correct call. There’s the morally (for lack of a better word) correct call and then there’s the call that best aligns with the rules as they currently are. You can argue that giving a double is the fairest ruling, but the actual rules don’t have any provision for awarding a double.
The actual rules DO have exactly that provision. Note the following excerpt:
“When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball,
the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire
shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of
interference.”
Please see my response to Tony below.
The rulebook doesn’t give the umpire that discretion. From the rulebook: “If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out”. There’s no gradient here – either the fan interfered with Betts’s ability to catch the ball, making the batter out, or the fan did not interfere, and it’s a home run.
Maybe splitting the difference is more “fair” but it’s not in the rulebook.
All three of you are incorrect. The rulebook specifically grants umpires the discretion to correct the play. Jeff Sullivan simply excluded that part of the quote.
The following quote comes immediately before the quote Jeff posted, directly from the MLB rulebook.
“When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball,
the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire
shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of
interference.”
— Note the word “opinion”. It’s pretty clear the rules allow and encourage an outcome such as awarding a double.
The quote, and rulebook, can be viewed here:
http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/8/0/268272080/2018_Official_Baseball_Rules.pdf
Then Joe still likely ruled correctly on the out call, once he assumed fan interference. Betts would have caught that ball without the fan touching his glove.
Yep. It is absolute on no interference out of play and says should be out in play, meaning the umpire had discretion there.
While a double would have been a compromise that could be viewed as more fair in the absence of conclusive evidence, that simply was not possible once the ball hit both Mookie’s glove and a fan in the stands. Ruling that play a double would be akin to ruling the play a mulligan and putting Altuve back in the batters box as they are both equally not allowable in the rulebook.
Red Sox fan here: I think the premise of the article is correct: it was probably the right call because it was too close to call in real time. Had West called HR, it would have been a HR and I wouldn’t have felt robbed.
I think Betts clearly is into the stands as he’s trying to make the catch. I actually think from replays (particularly from the first slow-motion replay in the article), you can see Betts closes his glove a tad too early and the ball hits off the red, which is the outside, not the black, which is the inside. I don’t see any fans interfering with his glove at that point. It’s not until a second later that all the hands hit his glove.
So, I think it probably should have been a home run and I understand why Astros fans are upset. That said, there wasn’t enough clear evidence to overturn the call, either. Again, if West had called HR, I think it would have stood as a HR, too.
I thought it was clear interference the entire time, but your comment made me reconsider, especially in the context of the rule:
“should a spectator reach out on the playing field… and PLAINLY PREVENT the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference”
It seems to me that if they are beyond the wall, interference is not possible. If they are in front (or perhaps also above) the wall, its not just whether there is interference, but whether the interference PLAINLY PREVENTS a catch from being made. An element of “catchability” seems explicit and crucial, and thus this is what the analysis should really focus on.
I thought that he would have clearly made the catch if not for interference, but in light of this comment above, I now agree that Betts started to close his glove well before the ball arrived and any contact was made., so he probably would have missed the catch. You might even say that he *did* miss the catch.
The 2nd video is particularly instructive. If you pause it at 3.10s, you can see his glove wide open, no contact yet with any hands and the ball on the way down.
By about 3.25, his glove has clearly started closing, yet still no contact.
By 3.40, the glove is very much almost closed and it seems like there is still no contact.
By 3.50, its far too closed to make a catch, and still it doesn’t seem like any appreciable contact has been made.
Its only around 3.90, when the ball is already past, where you start to see evidence of interference – his wrist breaking and arm folding back. Before that, its clear he was closing his glove by his own volition – you can see the quickness of it and the folding of his hand.
He timed the run and the jump perfectly, but he closed his glove too soon. You might make the argument that the presence of the fan made him jittery, but he never even really looked at them as his eye was on the ball – its more likely that the impending collision with the wall is what made him mis-time it.
Whether or not this is enough to overturn the ruling, I don’t know. I don’t even care either way really. But I have changed my mind and think it was a blown call.
Betts was not closing his glove on his own volition. The fan in orange hit his glove with both hands, and the ball falls immediately to the left (from fan’s perspective) of the closed glove. The lighter-looking hand is his right arm, and the darker-looking arm his left. First, consider the fact that his hands are not aligned in going to catch the ball; watch as when the ball reaches Mookie/the fans, his left hand goes over the top of his right hand. This is because his right hand hits Mookie’s glove and prevents it from coming into contact with his left hand in order to make the catch. Notice how after they make contact, Mookie’s glove/wrist, which are clearly moving toward right field in the process of his play, stop moving in concert with his body; in fact, they are pushed/angled toward center field (the third-to-last graphic shows this plainly – the direction of his glove and his body are made out of sync). This could not have been done unless there was contact made.
I think it’s pretty clear in the other direction, actually, that the fan pushed the glove closed.
From what I see in the second video, a combination of the fan in orange’s right hand, the fan in gray’s both (?) hands (and possibly the fan in red on the far left’s left-hand, although picking out individual hands is really hard) start to impact the outside edge of the pinky-side of the glove at 3.28. I think it’s pretty definitive that there’s contact with the outside of the edge of the glove and a fan’s hand by 3.32, and it seems like the mass of hands prevents the edge of the glove moving any further (which makes sense, as multiple hands are more rigid than the glove-hand combo).
Now, where that glove-fan’s-hand collision is made is, to me, where all the uncertainty lies. From all of the angles and reference points, I think it was still in the field of play, but I think reasonable people can disagree on that.
Maybe we’re just literally seeing different things? I don’t know…
Replying to a_teenage_smog and chiprickers here. Is this what analysis of the Zapruder film was like? I think reasonable people can disagree here. Let’s all blame the security guard watching the game, blocking the angle, and not doing his job…
Nothing is definitive here, but if you pause the second video at 3:42, which is the moment Betts’ head turns slightly to his left as he’s in the air, you can see the guy in the blue shirt with his hands mangled with the guy in the orange shirt’s hands right near the glove.
In the third video (angle behind Betts), if you pause at 2:40, I think that’s the same exact moment (based on the head turning). That angle shows that the blue shirt guy’s arm/hand are right on Mookie’s glove.
Going back to video #2: at about 3:47, you can see the glove is beginning to close. 4-5 seconds later in the third video, I don’t see anything showing me someone is pushing the glove closed.
I think it’s at least feasible he felt contact with an arm/hand and instinctively began clenching the glove. I still don’t see anything that shows the glove was BEING closed by a fan. But, again, I’m not saying I could be wrong. As we know, this was all happening in real time, which from video 1 shows it was extremely fast.
I don’t really care about either of these teams. But how 32% of people are seeing no interference is beyond me. I appreciate the breakdown. To me, however, it was clearly interference and Jeff just spent many words trying to be objective for the sake of the 32% who are opining with their hearts rather than their brains. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It was very clearly interference IMO though.
I do not care about the Astros or Red Sox either. But I think he was closing his glove before anyone touched him. Looking at it frame by frame, I do not think he made contact with the fans until the ball was clearly passed him. I’m not saying it’s definitive, but I still think it was a HR.
Good point. Makes me reconsider. I agree that he almost certainly would not have made the catch. But the interference still occurred – in this case it bought him a call. I was looking at it differently – was it interference or not.. Not – would he have caught it or not. I don’t think the interference call has anything to do with if he would have caught it or not.
I guess I’m saying I think both are true. I think it was interference. But I also don’t think, absent the interference, he makes the catch.
BTW, I could be wrong about the catch. He might’ve seen hands and arms out of his peripheral which caused him to close his glove before impact. That’s possible. Just like someone going for a layup expecting contact – often the follow through isn’t the same. I just don’t *think* that’s what happened. And, like basketball, whether the ball goes in or not has no bearing on the foul call. In this case, the foul call is the interference.
“But I also don’t think, absent the interference, he makes the catch. ”
In that case it’s not interference, per the rule.
It’s very simple, if Betts’ glove was in the stands rather than the field of play, there’s no interference.
Country Joe giveth and Country Joe taketh away. As someone who for a long time has thought sometimes West’s gut is somehow determined by the narrative of the game or how he is feeling at any given moment, I actually think he got this right and that he did a great job last game behind the plate.
In a couple angles you can see the shadows of the fans arms over the yellow. They should have known better than put their arms out like that. If anyone cost the Astros two runs, it’s their own fans.
Joe West knows the rules, and mostly is accurate in applying them, as was done here. The major problem is his personal interactions with players — he always seems to try to actively engage with players who are otherwise trying to ignore him, aggressively trying to bait the players into doing something that gives him any excuse to put on a show and eject them. (He’s been known to deliberately misapply the rules as well to rile up a player, even though he otherwise tends to get calls correct.)
I didn’t see the play live, but when I saw the highlights, I thought, “Joe West finds a way to make headlines, even when he’s stuck down the right field line.” But it looks to me like he made the right call.
This is really bad. This is the third or fourth review in the last 30 days that basically came back with “well we can’t tell so we go with the initial call”. BS. It took football umps years to learn to err on the side of the safe call (in this case, a HR) and they still get it wrong. It will be years before MLB gets this sort of call right too. West obviously could not tell if it was actually interference from where he was and he should NEVER have called it. Review would have revealed it if it had happened.
Interference in this case ending with an out is just utter nonsense. In no other situation in baseball is the out assumed.
This interference call should be on the owners of the home ballpark. If you want a low fence with people sitting right on top of it then that fence should not be eligible for fan interference.
Football referees err on the side of giving a fumble because then the play can continue. Here the play is dead either way. There’s no reason to think calling a HR is “safer” than calling it out, unless you have some argument as to why umpires should by default favor the offense as a tiebreaker.
I can understand the argument as basically “innocent until proven guilty.” So in this case, the fan is innocent of interference unless if it was proven guilty that they reached over the fence to interfere.
Jeff,
Great article and better stills than tv had. I would have hated the call less if only Joe West wasn’t the umpire making the call.
At Yankee Stadium that is not fan interference. Just ask Jeffrey Maier.
It appears the guy in the orange shirt directly to the right of the asshat in white leaning has his hand hit and effectively close Mookie’s glove preventing him from catching the ball. It also looks like he doesn’t make a real stretch like the guy in white and the contact is made above the wall but almost parallel. It looks like Joe West got the call wrong (but it’s not that egregious based on the totality of the circumstances) replay coupled with the way the rule is written were correct.
In the angles from left field it sure looks like guy in blue and orange’s hands are at least extended as far out as guy in white’s hand when Betts’ glove makes contact with them. And guy in white’s hand is almost certainly in front of the wall, not over, or behind the wall. Guy in orange isn’t making a stretch because the ball is coming right at him, so he’s just reaching directly out in front of him instead of leaning over like guy in white.
This article actually convinced me to change my view from HR to interference. Well done.
I didn’t vote, since I think at best, it’s a double. I can’t say that I understand the application of interference perfectly, but the ball does *not* land in the stands. It landed back in play.
Took about 30,000 views but I can now see the ball definitively hits a fans hand before bouncing back into play. I’m still not clear on how it’s interference though, so HR.
Jeff, you provided us with a 1500 word example of obfuscation through clarification. Watching the game in real time, I actually thought Betts made the catch until the ball came out. Then I thought for certain it was a HR as it appeared Betts’ glove was on the other side of the fence.
I watched the replays last night and looked at the angles you provided. In sum, they support my initial observation-no catch, HR. It’s easy to see how the call could’ve gone either way and I won’t fault others for seeing things differently. It’s that kind of a play.
The problem I have is Joe West was unable to position his largeness for a better view since, well, he’s physically unable to do so. He was also unable to move out of the path of a Vazquez line drive the other night which also lends support to questioning his ability to handle the physical portion of his job.
MLB NY tells us they had no view to support overturning the West call and we’ll have to take their word for it. As such it’s too bad such an exciting game will be remembered more for an umpire call than anything else.
In the end, it will probably be remembered for fan interference taking away a HR. Joe West is already famous (err. infamous) in his own right, but, for instance, who was the umpire that called the Steve Bartman interference?
Mike Everitt.
I really wanted it to be Angel Hernandez though.
no interference called on Bartman play
You are going to have things like this when fans are in the front rows, and there is no way to exclude human error, if there is one in this case. But it does leave an interesting question…let’s say this was Fenway, and the same thing occurred. Should a Red Sox fan, reaching for a ball that’s clearly over the fence, ensure an out for the Red Sox?
For that matter, what if the guy in orange had been wearing red instead? Or what if he had a Yankees hat on? I think interference needs to be interference no matter who is home/away and who the fan may appear to support.
The way to prevent the hypothetical Red Sox fan from intentionally interfering is to eject the fan for entering the field of play like we do if someone tries too hard for a foul ball and ends up on the field.
You lost me with the last couple paragraphs. Your “spirit of the rule” goes totally against the letter of the rule. If baseball didn’t want fans interfering with defenders making plays, full stop, there wouldn’t be an explicit exception for when the fielder reaches out of the field of play. The writers of the rule clearly considered that situation and decided that in that circumstance it’s OK for fans to affect the outcome of the game.
Great point by WinOneForBobKipper, and I’m very disappointed that it has been downvoted.
I think that Jeff on the whole wrote a good post, but that “spirit of the rule” part was a very weak argument. We more commonly see these reaching into the stands plays on foul balls, including sometimes seeing plays that would be pretty routine catches but for a player’s arm colliding with a fan a foot or two into the stands. It’s crystal clear under the rule as written that this latter situation is not fan interference.
fwiw, here’s why i downvoted:
Jeff outlines, based on the rules, why he leans towards interference.
Then Jeff offers an entirely different argument not based on the rules, while admitting it’s not based on the rules.
It’s hardly a fair or smart criticism to whine about Jeff’s second argument because it isn’t the first.
Either explain why the second (spirit) argument is flawed or don’t. But dismissing it because it isn’t a different argument is downvote-worthy to me.
My point is that a “spirit of the rule” argument only makes sense when you are addressing a situation where the application of the rule is ambiguous or a situation that doesn’t seem to have been contemplated by the rule. A “spirit of the rule” argument absolutely is “based on the rules” — that’s where the “of the rule” part of the phrase comes from. It’s just based on an inference about the intention of the rule rather than the direct application of the text. And I just don’t see how Jeff can infer that the “spirit of the rule” is that fans should never be allowed to affect the outcome of the game when the rule makes explicit provision for a circumstance where fans are allowed to affect the outcome of the game. The rule is very clear that if the Betts was reaching over the boundary, the fans were perfectly within their rights to prevent him from making the catch.
Saying that the spirit of the rule contradicts the letter of the rule IS an argument that the “spirit of the rule” argument is flawed. If what you are claiming is the spirit of the rule is contradicted by the letter of the rule, you are mistaken in what you think the spirit of the rule is.
“since a ball that hits the top of the wall and comes back is in play, and isn’t a homer.”
… What in the? I didn’t know this? If a ball literally lands o top of the yellow and bounces back it’s playable? Wow.
It happened in a game earlier this year. I can’t remember which one. I recall being equally shocked but the announcers agreed that the ball is still in play.
Can we get the hit probability of that? And also, just for giggles, the catch probability?
The last picture describing the arm to be straight is after the ball had already ricocheted off the fan. His arm was angled when contact was made
Angled in more than one direction. You can’t assume the outstretched arm goes from Betts shoulder to the closest possible point of the fence and go from there.
The rule says the batter is out should a spectator (a) reach out on the playing field and (b) plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball. Both criteria must be met for the call.
Dr. Sullivan indicates he thinks the second criterion is obvious by saying “it’s plainly evident that the fans prevented Betts from making a clean catch attempt”.
But it seems to me that plainly preventing someone from catching a ball, and plainly inhibiting a catch attempt are different things.
The rule book wording suggests that the aim of the rule is to restore things to where they would be if the spectator not reached onto the field. In other words, in order to find fan interference, we would need to be able to conclude that (a) the fan reached into the field of play, and (b) plainly, were it not for the fan reaching out, Betts would have caught the ball.
But that’s just the wording. I don’t know if that’s consistent with the standard application of the rule.
It’s really too bad we don’t have some sort of system that could estimate the catch probability of this ball.
The Statcast catch probability on this ball would be false precision because (1) the data set is based on hang time and distance from the fielder without adjusting for whether or not the outfielder has a wall impeding his ability to make the catch and (2) it’s a data set of all outfielders (not just Mookie Betts). In short, if you started trying to bring Statcast catch probability into deciding anything about plays like this one, you’d sometimes end up with absurd results for particular stadiums and particular outfielders.
It’s too bad we don’t have some sort of prolific baseball writer with a lot of experience in sorting out absurd results from particular stadiums and players, especially one with a distinctive and humorous style.
This is a good point.
When I read the rule I thought “how does the NBA define goaltending ?”
The NBA says to satisfy goaltending, there must be a chance that the ball would go in. I think language similar ( perhaps more like probable than possible ) to that makes sense here.
Besides, it’s impossible for an ump to be 100% sure that any ball would be caught, so the reasonable assumption is that “catching the ball” means “probably” as opposed to “definitely”.
We all need to just accept the fact that even with instant replay and super slo-mo, hi-def images there are some plays that are so close, there simply is no definitive right-or-wrong call. This is true in all sports, and it’s not a problem with the rules or the referees or the fans or the players, it’s a property of human perception. (Is the dress blue or brown?)
This is one of those plays. Astros fans can be salty — they *should* be salty, that’s what being a fan is all about– but it’s like being mad about losing a coin flip. Neither side has a legit gripe if this call didn’t go their way.
I find it hard to understand how so many of you can have such certainty.
I am inclined to believe Jeff is right, and I think the most telling shot is the second of the slow motion angles above, right below where Jeff says “Here’s another one of them:”. There are two points I’d like to make.
Someone above says Betts closes his glove before the ball gets there. I think this shot makes it clear that the glove was closed because of the contact with the fan in dark grey. You can see the glove opening as Betts prepares to catch the ball and then the jar as it impacts the guy’s hand, causing the pinky side of the glove to move toward the camera as it gets impacted.
So the question is whether this happened over the stands or over the field. As Jeff points out, the guy in white is a good reference because he is clearly reaching out over the field. But I want you to watch the guy in dark grey as the ball comes down. His arms are initially close to his body, but as the balls nears he reaches out toward the field. When the collison happens, it appears to me that he is actually reaching *past* the guy in white’s hand. If so, he’s over the field of play, isn’t he?
Based on this look, I think the guy in grey interfered with Betts over the field of play. I can understand that people disagree. I cannot understand how some of you can be so certain — it makes me think that your judgement is clouded.
I sympathize with Astro fans. I’m not rooting for either team here, and it’s frustrating to have a homer taken away. But it looks to me like Betts would have made that catch if the fan hadn’t reached out over the field and hit his glove. It seems to me that we got the right result here, both from a “what would have happened if the fans had let him make the play” point of view and a “what does the rulebook say” point of view.
What’s nice from a judgement perspective is the opinion Betts would or wouldn’t make the catch has zero relevance to whether it is fan interference. That takes half the issue of judgement away from the call. All that matters is did a fan interfere, on the field of play, while Betts attempted a catch? If so, it’s an out. If not, home run.
@tb.25: maybe that’s how the rule is typically interpreted, but MLB should rewrite the rule if that’s the intended interpretation.
The rule as written: “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.”
First, the “plainly prevent…” clause follows “and”. So it’s one of two conditions that both need to be met for the batter to be called out for fan interference.
Second, the word used is “prevent”. That’s a high bar. Alternate wording can and should be used if MLB’s intent is to set a lower bar: for example, replace “plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball,” with “impede the player’s ability to catch the ball”.
Why is it so hard to hear two arguments at the same time.
Argument 1: Based on the rules, I think ______
Argument 2: Regardless of the rules, here is what I think is fair.
While the rules are the only thing that matter for argument 1, and are the only thing that matter in reality…
It is not a convincing counter-argument to argument 2 to simply say: Well, that’s not what the rules say. Here’s a short play explaining why:
person 1: I think this rule is unfair, and should be changed.
person 2: Well, I think it shouldn’t be changed because that is the rule.
the security guard being in the way of the best angle is what doomed the whole thing. what struck me while watching this live was that it was called interference on the field, you usually never see that get called initially and the fact that Joe West is involved puts a certain stank on it just because it is Joe West. i dont know if its the right call or not, but the real issue is what is happening to the astros pitching?
also some of the comments here are really, really bad and some of the worst i have seen on this site
Can I interest you in my views on how John Middleton is guilty of fraud?
If the security guard hadn’t been in the way there still would have been about 30 other fans in the way.
Yeah, the security guard is getting lots of blame for doing exactly what he should have been doing. He can’t be invisible and there were dozens of fans in the way anyway.
c) Double
c) making up random rules on the fly
ftfy
He is making up random rules on the fly, but I don’t necessarily think that it’s a bad one. Replays seem to be all or nothing. Maybe in some cases where the evidence isn’t clear one way or the other, there should be a middle ground. Instead of a home run or an out, maybe put him on second. Or on second with an out, or give them then run, but also charge an out.
If there is a non clear view of a tag at the plate, maybe put the guy back on third. I don’t see why this has to be all or nothing.
I was mostly just trying to highlight how much this stinks.
If I learned anything from the Conflict Resolution episode of The Office, it’s that one way or another, the umpires were going to mediate a Win / Lose result for the impacted parties. Ruling it a double might be considered a Compromise, or maybe just Lose / Lose.
Can’t find a slow-mo replay but I really thought this also happened to Piscotty on Voit’s double in the Wild-Card game.
https://youtu.be/GDEWWicck94?t=949
Piscotty’s glove touches a fan reaching over the stands. Both of them are a good solid foot away from the ball. Piscotty wasn’t catching that ball.
I saw a completely different perspective if you watch the ball when it hits all the hands it seemingly stops in its place and where does it go straight down in the field of play so I agree with fan interference
It looks clear to me that the fans are reaching out above the wall, and above the wall is still in play. I have no dog in this fight, and rarely agree with Joe West questionable calls, but I agree he got it right.
Either way, those fans either cost their team a game tying home run, or cost al? baseball fans an amazing home run robbery since it looks like Betts had it. Instead we get this.
If you watch Mookie’s glove, it almost hits the fan in the chest. That guy is NOT leaning forward. The wall there is several inches thick. There is no way he was in the field of play without leaning forward. And if you watch the video with the security guard in the way, Mookie is leaping toward the wall, not jumping straight up. Fan interference should only be called when a fan clearly reaches into the field of play. If you can’t be sure, don’t call it.
And for all the people saying it was interference, you do realize you’re saying the worst umpire in MLB made a correct call.
Even the worst MLB umps are right 95% of the time.
I love as good ad hominem fallacy that isn’t straight up name calling.
If Joe West said gravity was real, would you disagree with him?
Hypotheticals are nearly as bad as ad hominems. Maybe Joe West would never say that! 😉
I think the call was probably correct. If you disagree, that’s fine. But if you’re going to tell me that the video provides conclusive proof one way or the other then please, shut up.
Lol this. Nothing about the video is conclusive unless you were wearing a BOS or HOU hat last night.
As a neutral party in this, I feel like Jeff has a pretty reasonable take.
The thing that’s sad to me as I’m learning about this whole fiasco is that if the fans hadn’t tried to reach for the ball (and potentially into the field of play) this wouldn’t be an issue. If I’m an Astros fan sitting there, I would want nothing to do with that ball because I wouldn’t want anything that I did to be even remotely construed as fan interference.
Hopefully MLB requires teams to install like a 3ft buffer in between the edge of the wall and where seating is allowed. The league can’t afford to have another situation like this
It’s a lot to ask of fans to correctly judge whether the person running towards them is going to be able to leap and get his glove on the hard object that is flying towards them at a high rate of speed, or whether they should be trying to protect themselves. “Don’t reach over the railing” is a reasonable restriction to place on fans. “Don’t try to catch the ball that’s flying towards you if there’s a fielder who has a chance at it” isn’t.
I think that they basically are reaching over the railing to the extent they can, though. I’m on Jeff’s side. I’m like 60% sure this is fan interference, 40% sure it’s not. My natural inclination is to lean toward fan interference on plays like this because I think it’s important to encourage people not to interfere with something that’s even close to the field of play.
And sure, but it’s not a lot to ask fans to not potentially interfere with crucial plays. You can attempt to catch a ball/protect yourself without standing and leaning over.
Knowing the stakes and that it’s a playoff game, I’d clear away from the ball as best I could. Let someone else catch it at the risk of becoming the person against whom fan interference is called.
whoops – meant to comment on another post, not my own.
Agree with both of your points 100%
Also, can we make two rule changes to make this simpler going forward?
1) Define “field of play” as anything the fielder can reach without literally climbing over the wall and having one or two feet in the stands. It seems obvious to me that if the fielder can play it, it’s in play. Also eliminates part of the discretion of the call, as there’s no need to judge where the ball was.
2) Require that stadiums have their walls a couple feet out from the front row seats so fans actually can’t reach a playable ball. The best possible outcome last night would’ve been for us to all see Mookie make an absolutely incredible catch playoff-game swinging catch, or not make it and then see Altuve coming up huge for his team with a 2-run bomb.
1) seems way too complicated and adds even more grey area. The wall is an easy, clear marker.
2) No thanks. Money from the best seats in the house is better than the once-a-year tough call.
A 3 or 4 ft buffer is not diminishing anything
Here’s the left field at Petco
Solves the problem without ruining the “best seat in the house”.
Remove one row of seats. In Houston, that’s not a lot of seats. 3 sections. 60-70 seats.
And since they averaged about 37,000 tickets a game in a 41,000 seat stadium (the year after winning the WS), it seems they could spare those 70 seats pretty easily.
The most bizarre thing is the umpire who wasn’t anywhere close to the play decides that a ball that wasn’t caught is clearly fan interference. The fact that everyone’s slowing down video and doing freeze frame photos to argue one way or the other shows nothing was clear. The easy call for Joe West to make would have been HR, and then they review to see if there is clear evidence. He rules the other way, because he’s somehow convinced with no clear view that there was interference. Umpshow
Never thought I’d hear someone complain about an umpire getting what is most likely the correct call.
Thanks, internet!
Downvotes for this reasonable comment reinforce its reasonableness.
If those fans didn’t raise their hands, the ball could have drilled them in the chest. There was no reaching over a barrier. This sets an unsustainable standard for interference, that fans can’t even lift their hands when a ball is flying at them. Are they supposed to stand there with arms at their sides? – Astros fan
Dude in the blue is LEANING FORWARD.
If you want to avoid the ball, you move to the left or right, not forward.
Also, Joe West clearly has no sympathy for the “I was going to get hit with the ball” rationale.
I ain’t got no dog in this fight, but man this is just horrible. The very first slow-motion gif clearly shows his glove closing (closed) as the ball arrives, without any contact with a fan – the glove isn’t closing from the left side, it’s closing from -both sides- he’s actively closing the glove. And, he’s reaching over the wall. Again – look at the first slow-motion gif. At the top of his jump as the ball hits the outside of his glove, his armpit is at the top of the wall, and he’s reaching back, above and behind him.
That’s a home run every day all day. If you want to argue that it should be a ground-rule double, I can maybe possibly see ‘no conclusive evidence’ against that ruling. But to rule that as an out is insanity. There are three possible rulings – home run, ground rule double, out – and West picked the only ruling that was clearly, undeniably wrong.
I don’t know. Looks like the right hand/arm of the dude in blue probably caused the glove to close.
Have you ever played baseball? Your glove doesn’t immediately snap shut when it brushes against something. If you had your hand out to catch something, you’re flexing muscles in your hand and arm while waiting to catch the object.
His glove is closing because Betts is closing his glove. But that’s still irrelevant – his arm is above and behind him, while is armpit is right at the top of the wall.
And the really really ugly – we disagree on this, and that’s while we’re looking at slow-motion frame-by-frame video of the play. How the hell could West make that ruling from hundreds of feet away in real time? Of the three possible rulings (home run, ground-rule double, out) he made the one ruling that there’s literally no chance he could have actually seen to make the call with any certainty.
Watch Betts’ thumb on a replay, and think about whether he was trying to close his glove. Or if someone closed it for him.
If necessary pay attention to yourself while catching something. Do you hold your thumb still and only move your fingers? Or do you close fingers and thumb at the same time?
i don’t much care for the parsing of still-frames and rule-book verbiage. maybe this is the correct call as the rule is currently understood. maybe not.
I think it’s pretty much inarguable, though, that this is not what we as baseball fans want the rule to be. controversy for controversy’s sake. putting the onus on fans to act with inhuman restraint. giving credit to a fielder for making what would have needed to be a spectacular catch when he did not make a spectacular catch. If this call is correct, this rule is incorrect.
Your “who cares” rule will only encourage more fans to create situations like this. Now at least they are discouraged from interfering. but they still do. What do you think happens when that discouragement goes away. Hint: it’s not less controversy.
a) I didn’t posit an alternative
b) i certainly didn’t posit the abolition of the rule and fan anarchy.
I have the solution. In the future, all fans in the first two rows will be required to wear one of these to discourage reaching across the plane of the fence.
Yeah no Jeff.
His glove clearly closes and then the ball smacks into it. Mookie fcked up and fans had no impact and were not in the field of play anyhow.
I feel like the only 100% wrong opinion is the on that starts, “clearly…”
I find it hard to catch thing by only closing my fingers, but not closing my thumb too. Watch Betts thumb…it doesn’t appear that he was closing his thumb at the same time you’re saying he “clearly” closed his glove.
Pains me to say it, but Cowboy Joe West deserves credit for making an extremely difficult call correctly under the most pressurized of circumstances. Credit where credit is due.
I’ve taken to reassuring myself that he made the correct call…but probably for the wrong reasons (umpshow). All order is restored in my brain.
It’s pretty clear that “Cowboy” Joe West is going to be against the team from Houston named after a bunch of nerds.
I dislike both teams equally.
It was very clearly a home run. First, Betts just missed the catch. He closed his glove too soon. There is no evidence that a fan closed his glove. Betts just missed it. It happens. It was a very tough play.
Second, even if a fan did touch Betts before the ball arrived, Betts was clearly over the wall at that time and the fan has every right to try to catch it as well. Betts was in the stands so there is no possibility of fan interference.
…I’m not really sure what Jeff is looking at.
Why is it a HR (much less “clearly”) when the ball bounced onto the field? If the argument is that it’s not interference, then it has to be a live ball. If that’s the case, then it ends up being a double most likely… triple possibly. But it’s not a HR.
If you argue that it’s not interference bc the fielder reaches into the stands ‘at his own risk’ then it has to a ball that remains in play. And even if there is a ruling of interference that would be overturned on a review, you would place a runner at 2B. I don’t see any interpretation which ends up with that as a HR.
I didn’t even read past the part where he goes out of his way to say he’s unbiased. You know what follows is going to be really biased. Like the people who start in with “I’m actually a lifelong Democrat, but … “
The ball bounced off a fan who was in the stands back into the field of play. That makes it a home run. The ball cannot be a live ball because it is touched by a fan. It can only be a home run.
Proof and evidence are different. There is TONS of evidence that Betts glove was closed. For example, watch Betts’ thumb during the play…he sure doesn’t seem to be closing his thumb at the same time his fingers close. (Now try catching something without moving your thumb.) People don’t catch things by holding their thumb still and only moving their fingers. Both thumb and fingers move in concert to wrap around the object.
Also, nothing is clear about this. To say he was “clearly” in that stands is insane. And I find it interesting that most people who hold the “he was in the stands” argument provide neither proof nor evidence that Betts was in the stands. Just the cocksure declaration: he was clearly in the stands.
I feel like if it were clear, it would be really easy to explain.
There is no evidence that the fan closed his glove other than several video angles that clearly show that his hand comes into direct contact with Betts’ glove. Other than that, no evidence at all. Oh, and Betts telling Bradley right afterwards that the fan closed his glove (which would likely be admissible hearsay). Other than that, no evidence at all.
Betts’ glove was already closed when Betts made contact with the fan. He simply missed the catch.
To me, it seems difficult to assume Betts would make that catch- he certainly may have made the catch, but this is, IMO, no certainty- he would still have to be at full extension, catch the ball, crash into the wall without being able to brace himself, etc. So, in my mind, there was no “plainly preventing” as required in the rules. So, I voted for home run.
Of course, nothing is definitive in the replay or screenshots, so I respect others will honestly interpret this the other way.
That’s about where I am. Similar to how you can’t assume a double play, you can’t assume a circus catch. As a Dodger fan I hate the Astros and think they deserve all the bad that can befell an organization, but if I were the manager I would’ve been tossed out voicing my displeasure. Guy hits a ball over the wall that isn’t caught and he’s somehow out. I won’t say the call was egregious but it struck me as unfair. This article is excellent and illuminating but I can’t fault the fan for protecting his personal space and not noticeably reaching onto the field of play. For the record, the single worst “judgment” call I can remember is the famous Infield Fly call on a ball that landed well into the outfield. They would’ve had to put me in a straightjacket to get me off the field.
Regarding your infield fly point: I remember the play that I’m almost certain that you’re referencing (Cardinals-Braves Wild Card game in 2012), and I can understand frustration based on how that play looked after the SS moved away from the fly ball and it dropped. I’ll note that the “Infield Fly Rule” is explicitly NOT based just on where the ball lands, however. Quoting the MLB Rulebook:
“An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. ”
Then the rulebook includes an additional comment on this rule:
“On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder – not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder.”
Saying that catch required “ordinary effort” is HUGE stretch.
“Ordinary effort” was not a huge stretch by any means. Watch the video if you haven’t for a few years – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ujbLknUc . SS is under where the ball lands, without running hard, and then moves away right before it lands, presumably because he mistakenly thought that he was being called off by the LF’er.
I absolutely agree that it’s an ugly play. And, if we go back to the original reason for having an infield fly rule, it’s not a play where letting it drop on purpose to get a double play looks like something that could happen. To that point, though, the infield fly rule says what it says and is also applied to lots of high pop-ups where, if the only baserunner is on first, there’s no real chance that letting it drop would result in a double play (because the batter would easily reach first).
I interpret “ordinary effort” to be in the context of a typical infield fly ball – which involves very little movement on the part of the fielder. I agree that we can interpret that differently, but to me, the fact that the shortstop needs to travel as far as he did (80 to 100 feet?) automatically disqualifies it from “ordinary effort” for me.
After the fan closes Betts’ glove, you can see exactly where the ball hits his glove. It’s not hard to imagine where the ball would have gone if the glove was still open.
After that the only way to say he wouldn’t have caught it is to assume the ball would have bounce out of his glove. I’m not saying he would have 100% caught. But Betts it’s a much harder sell for me to imagine Betts having the ball right in the pocket of his glove and dropping it than to assume it would have gone right into the pocket and popped out.
The rule is poorly written, but “plainly” here does not serve to place a grade on how likely the catch was to be made. Even if there is a small chance that a catch could be made, if you do something to prevent that, and it is over the field of play, you are in violation of the rule. So, for example, if you pour beer on the outfielder as the ball sails deep into the seats, that is not interference. But if the catch could have been made, and illegal contact interferes with that ability, the rule is violated. That applies here. Basically, anything that could reasonably be viewed, plainly, as interfering, or preventing, the catch, runs against the rule.
I don’t know. But I do know I am now waffling about getting rid of replay versus getting rid of the DH. Both are stank. I am somewhere at about 50% on that. Waffle-supreme. Get them both out of the game. Make the call, move on. I dread the effects of “we must get everything right”. Clearly we can’t – we’re humans.
Now get off my lawn!!!!!!!!!!!
If you watch the replays frame by frame, Betts is already starting to close his glove before he makes contact with anyone’s hand. Maybe he sensed the people there or whatever, but he could not have caught that ball.
Now, if you want to say that the interfering fan isn’t reliant on whether or not it was going to be caught, that’s one thing. I agree that the fan was leaning over into the area of play. But if you argue that catchability doesn’t matter to the call of interference, then you open up a whole new can of worms.
Looks to me like the right hand of the dude in the blue shirt causes his glove to close.
Ballparks should be designed to prevent fan interference. For example, the Wrigley basket is not pretty, but it works.
Just have a 4 ft. buffer btw the fans and the field and this never comes up.
I really want a 99% invisible podcast about this play and design elements like Wrigley’s baskets and other things done to avoid this.
I thought the Wrigley basket was there to discourage players from running into the wall, as it is made of brick?
It seems to me that there is a scenario that is not covered by the rulebook, and it is the scenario that happened here. The first line of the rule says “No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball.” I think it’s clear that Betts reached over the fence, thereby fulfilling the conditional that clearly says he does so at his own risk and no interference shall be allowed (which I read as called). The last sentence says that if a spectator reaches out on the playing field and prevents a fielder from catching the ball, that is interference. This also happened! So the rule does not appear to cover what happens when the fielder reaches into the stands AND a spectator reaches on to the field. There has to be a priority set between these two clauses – one has to trump the other, otherwise there is no right answer.
As written, I’d say the second phrase is meant as an exception to the first. That’s usually how “However” is used.
Also, if you don’t read it that way, you can come up with ridiculous scenarios that would result in no interference.
Good call on all this stuff. Great to have these great pictures. I just spent hours on Facebook arguing the same way, based just on the video, screenshots, and what Tim Wakefield said about Betts being far enough away from the wall, and the angle obscuring thatvfact.
I don’t buy the “Well, West made the call on the field, so…” qualification. We don’t have a transcript of the umpires phone call and never will ( by MLB rules.) But New York isn’t going to say, “ Geez, we can’t decide, so we’ll let Joe take the heat.” ( The “not enough evidence to overturn” is a presumption by broadcasters in this case. I don’t think New York saw that or said that) I would bet my house that they saw what I can clearly see: fans reaching, maybe only slightly, but clearly far enough over the fence to knock the ball out of Mookie’s glove. I think they would have seen it the same way if West had called it the other way and Cora had appealed. Though Joe must have been very relieved when they said he was correct
From the same evidence provided here, I see a home run. The fan who was about to take the ball off his chest had his arms about as far back as he could. I do not see interference when the only other option was for the fan to duck and cover.
That dude is leaning forward and his hands are in the field of play.
Not only does intent not matter if he interferes with Betts and his hands are past the fence line, his arms being as far back as possible means nothing considering his torso is leaning forward.
Well, yes, fans tend to lean forward when they are trying to catch a ball heading at their person. This is a natural reaction. Leaning backwards risks losing balance and falling into or over the chair, which is not recommended. My point is the fan was pretty much exactly where you would expect a fan to be in that situation. The fan was in the fan space. There were other people involved that were not in their fan spaces, but they were not involved with the play.
I could certainly be convinced that Minute Maid Park should be renamed Interference Park if they have managed to make the front seats pretty much in the field of play. That would be an unfortunate design decision.
Again. Intent doesn’t matter. If he interfered, it doesn’t matter that he wasn’t trying to.
If you are arguing that the rule should be changed, that’s one thing. But the rule 1) actually says “no, over the field is NOT fan space” 2) the only thing that matters is did the fan interfere over the field of play.
MLB deserves this controversy frankly. This is what they get for continuing to allow stadiums to be built with seats hanging right on top of walls where critical plays occur. The obvious solution is to have some gap between OF walls and the first row of seats.
As to the play itself, HR should not even be an option here. Betts got a glove on it and so at worst it was likely to have clanged off his glove onto the field and been a double. I mean, sure it’s possible that it grazes off his glove (if he doesn’t catch it) and it ends up in the seats for a HR, but you can’t assume that.
So the notion that Darling kept spinning that ‘you can’t assume the greatest catch ever’ is nonsense. First, it wouldn’t have been that, and second, as I said, one doesn’t even have to conclude that he catches it for it to not be a HR. Without the interference, it’s most likely (which is all we can do) a double.
If it hits a fan and then bounces off of his glove, it’s a HR. That seems like an extremely likely scenario if the catch isn’t made.
There is a gap. You cant see it but there is a ledge for drinks about a foot wide. So while the fans hips look to be against the fence in fact he is about a foot away from the fences edge
Rule 6.01(e) states: 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.
I think he clearly reached over the fence. Two other issues, why was the foul pole camera mounted in such a crappy position where a security guard in the isle could block the replay shot? Shouldn’t that be mounted a little higher? Also, why are those seats in the OF so close to the fence? The ball is a projectile coming at them at speed. I would put my hands up to protect myself too! Bad situation all around.
If he “clearly” reached into the stands, why is there a controversy?
If it’s so clear, why not offer even a nugget of evidence.
“The guy in blue is the one to boo”
– Johnnie Cochran
I don’t think I agree. White shirt’s left hand is holding the wall, and his right seems to be parallel to it, with his body behind the left. That right arm is in front of Orange shirt, who is mostly in front (sans a few fingers) of blue shirt.
It may not matter for this play, but I don’t agree with Jeff’s conclusion that the space directly above a wall with a yellow line belongs to the fielder (i.e., that there can be fan interference solely for contact directly above the wall).
I’d ideally like to know if there’s ever been a detailed rules clarification by MLB on that point. The language of the rule admittedly has some ambiguity to it, but I think that the better reading of the language is that contact directly over the wall isn’t fan interference (and therefore disagree with Jeff on this point).
“No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball.”
There could be ambiguity here because of two definitions of “over”. One of them (quoting from Merriam-Webster’s) is “on the other side of an intervening space”. That supports Jeff’s interpretation. Another definition of “over” (again from Merriam-Webster’s) is “above”, however, which would indicate that there’s no interference directly above a fence or railing. To head off one possible counterargument: “into the stand” is a condition after “or”, so a fielder reaching “over a fence/railing” is by itself a enough to say that there can’t be interference.
“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”
This helps clarify the ambiguity from the two definitions of “over”. The fan needs to reach onto the playing field side of a fence or railing. This would seem to clarify that contact solely in the area directly above a fence or railing can’t result in fan interference. The waters are muddied a bit, however, by the rule that Jeff correctly references (an MLB universal ground rule) stating that “all yellow lines are in play”. That’s the entirety of the universal ground rule, however, so I come down on the side that it doesn’t change the treatment of the area directly over the fence/railing unless there’s additional clarification stating that should be the case.
Good analysis. See this blog post discussing that specific area, which it refers to as the “neutral zone”: https://www.closecallsports.com/2018/08/fan-inter-beer-ence-baseballs-neutral.html. The conclusion is that the “neutral zone” is fair play for fans. But that isn’t explicit in the rule book.
I am not for either team, but find your analysis spot on. The 3 fans in question are all with their bellies against the wall and clearly have their hands out towards the playing field. I noted the same thing that as Betts came down, his body moved under the glove towards the wall. Claims by people that they were behind the line are clearly based on the result they wanted, not the video evidence.
Most obvious is the man in white in your last photo with his hand on the top of the wall, leaning over the wall with his hand out even further and the ball and the glove next to his hand. No controversy here.
I think the only question that matters and that is mostly ignored is not “WOULD Betts have caught the ball?” It is, “Did the fan prevent Betts from having a CHANCE to catch it?” You don’t have to assume a catch, just have to judge that the fan prevented the possibility of it occurring. That’s it.
@jtrichey:
I had thought that was the rule for fan interference before this play (and Jeff’s post) caused to me read the rule. The rule, however, is very clearly NOT “Did the fan prevent Betts from having a CHANCE to catch it?” by reaching into the field of play.
One of the two requirements of fan interference is “and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball”. That wording does apply a standard of ““WOULD Betts have caught the ball?”, at least with a very high probability.
Personally, I think that the rule is poorly worded because “plainly prevent” is a difficult judgement call in many cases where this rule comes into play (fly balls at the outfield wall and foul balls near the stands). I’d prefer wording more like “hinders or impedes the fielder’s ability to catch the ball”, which is similar to wording elsewhere in the rulebook such as certain types of runner’s interference.
too many lawyers trying to parse this thing.
Bottom line is that MLB should not be putting fans in the crosshairs of deciding these important games. They should not have these stadiums designed with a row of seats right on top of a wall where it is bound to (and does) affect game action. They end up with a result that makes fans be the bad guys for merely exerting a natural reflex.
Move walls sufficiently away from seats!
If you read “plainly prevent” to require a 100% it would be caught, you would swallow the whole rule. The plainly part only requires it to be clear that the interference acted to prevent a catch. In other words, is it clear that it could have been caught if not for the interference. It is poorly written, but it has been applied that way for at least decades.
Videos of it straight on show the glove open and tracking the ball until it hits the hand of the guy in Orange. This closes the glove and the ball hits right at the middle of the glove and the hand. Had his hand not caused the glove to close there is a high probability it would be a catch. The fan definitely prevented this from occurring.
The sad part here is we have this discussion . Everyone wants the ball from the big home run .I know it is difficult not to,but I wish fans could stay out of the play.,I’m not here to blame,and if I was there,I may be one of them.The call,I feel is correct, based on the information available, and the human element, that makes this game great.Time for the Astros to move on,there is more baseball to be played.
The fan was in sort of a tough spot, I’m pretty sure that my natural reaction would have been to catch the ball before it hit me.
Can we get a post from Sheryl Ring ? Assessing the interpretation of the rule and its enforcement under the scrutiny of our legal system?
I looked at the frame by frame in https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WelllitOddballBaleenwhale-mobile.mp4 and its unclear to me what is the cause of Mookie’s glove closing, is it the right hand of the guy in the blue shirt or Mookie himself?
Mookie clearly knocks the ball out of the hands of the guy in the Orange shirt.
It would be fine if Cheryl Ring chimed in but how does this remotely relate to the legal system?
A lot of the comments are in regards to how the rule should be interpreted. Which is what our legal system does frequently, interpreting laws and whether people have broken them. I’m suggesting an article by Cheryl that dissects how the rule should be interpreted and then given that interpretation, how the rule should be enforced, if placed under the same scrutiny as the rule of law.
Jeff, the stated criteria in the rulebook doesn’t align with your conclusion. The rule says a fan must “plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball”, and you yourself admitted that it was not conclusive, which means it wasn’t plainly prevented. Logic 101. The word “plainly” is the key here. This means the burden of proof is on the notion that the fielder was interfered with, so the default position is, as stated by the rules, that there was not interference (unless plainly demonstrated otherwise). Your concluding remark that the fan “plainly prevented the fielder from making an attempt” is a red herring. I feel that you’ve parsed the most important words in the rule, whether intentionally done or not.
If you are an actual longtime baseball fan, you know this is simply not true. This call is in line with how this call has been made for at least the past 25 years. Precedent 101.
It’s especially dispiriting that a few turds dropped themselves into their own team’s punchbowl.
Regardless of the commentary about whether it was a dropped catch or fan interference, one would think that after Bartman fans would learn not to reach for those wallscrapers. Or that MLB/owners would have figured out that something like a 3′ tall barrier of Plexiglas between the wall and fans would give fans a perfectly clear view of the action while not impeding the outfielders and removing the need to worry about interference.
Not having crashed into the wall is a red herring of sorts. His arm was not straight up when the interference occurred, and isn’t all that straight just before it. At any rate, if you assume his arm length is average relative to his height, then you know that his arm will be something like two feet long, give or take a few inches, plus his glove adds several inches of length and width. So even at relatively slight angles, the glove would very likely be over the wall and past the inches-thick yellow line/plane (i.e. the wall padding). Of course you need to know the distance of his shoulder (no more than a foot, but I suspect less than that) and the angle and the length of his gloved and arm to be certain. But, given these considerations, no way is it more than 50-50 for the call.
As to the spirit of the rule, we should consider the fact that if the player goes into the stands the rule draws a bright line: no interference. The wording is absolute. Mind though the difference for when a fan interferes in the field of play . The batter “should” be called out. The language is not absolute. The spirit of the rule doesn’t care at all what happens on the fans’ side of the yellow line. The rule cannot be said to prevent fans from breaking up catches of balls that are out of play.
Also, the ball hitting the top and returning to the field would not be a ball in play in this scenario, so long as it doesn’t strike the padding. If it had hit the wall beyond the inches thick padding and bounced back in, under Minute Maid Park ground rules (see number 17 https://groundrules.mlb.com/astros/index.html) it would have been a home run. According to the rules, if Betts goes beyond that padding, no interference. So the analysis here doesn’t quite do.
I don’t know what happened, and as a fan of the loser, I don’t even credit this a cause in the loss. Still blew leads and gave up 8 runs. I have never been a fan of umpires erring on the side of interference, whether by a runner, fielder, or fan. It seems a more extraordinary measure designed to prevent egregious cases. I’d rather see these plays reviewed for interference after the fact.
This is a crazy play. I think:
1) Betts probably makes the catch if his glove doesn’t collide with the collection of fans’ hands trying to catch the ball.
2) By rule, they seem to have gotten the play right. The fans are right up to that wall so much so that if they stand up at their seats and reach their arms out, they are reaching over the top of wall. That’s what happens in the play — they break the plane of the wall and prevent a fielder from making a play on a catchable ball. It is, by rule, interference.
3) What the hell are fans supposed to do in that situation though? Not try to catch a projectile that is rapidly approaching them and let it potentially hit themselves or their friend (or child or grandma)? No. No one in their right mind doesn’t try to catch that ball. It’s so high above the wall that they are standing and catching it at their chests while not overtly leaning over the wall. This isn’t Bartman reaching to his side to grab a ball semi-over the wall. These people will be hit by the ball if someone doesn’t catch it (and they don’t know that Betts would have saved them).
4) Betts really gets up to get that ball. Most players wouldn’t make a close enough play on this ball — their timing would be off or they wouldn’t be able to jump high enough — to have interference come into play. If he doesn’t go after it, it’s a home run.
5) I’m torn on what the call *should* be regardless of how the rule is written. Altuve deserves a home run because that’s a homer at that ballpark 99% of the time. Betts deserves the out because he made one hell of an athletic play on that ball and would have caught it if not for his glove coming into contact with fans’ hands. But the fans also have to protect themselves, and should be able to try to shield themselves from projectiles without in-game consequences (especially those that are detrimental to your own team!).
6) Because of that last point (fan self-protection), I think this ball *should* be called a home run in the future.
Those seats are not right up on the wall like that, at least the part of it that is in play. Look at MMP groundrules on MLB site and you’ll see there is a gap of a couple feet, a section of fence between the padding and that area. This section of wall is not in play (see rule 17). You can see that the posture of these people, that they are not leaning straight out toward the field at all. Not only are they not bent far over, they are turned at an angle. Everything I’ve seen on this assumes the seats are closer to the area of play (for good reasons of course.)
Can anyone explain why everyone is talking about the two options as being a) home run or b) out? If there was no interference, why would it not be in play?
I see it as:
a) fans reached over the wall and interference is the right call; Altuve is out
b) fans did not reach over the wall; no interference. Betts swats the ball back into play so Altuve gets what he gets (i.e. a double).
I assume that those who say the two options are HR or out are saying that it touches a fan’s hands, and thus it becomes a HR (assuming no interference). But I don’t think that’s clear at all from all the replays. It seems that it hits Betts’ glove and (without the fans touching it) is deflected back into play. I agree that the ball seems to change direction, but I don’t see it ever touch a fan – only Betts’ glove.
Am I blind? Confused about something else ? How can it be a HR?
Watch the slow mo zoomed in angles above. The ball clearly hits the hands of the guy in the orange t-shirt.
I’m not sure why you would call this a double other than this is a gray area in the rule and a double is a compromise between an out and a homer.
I’ve watched a few times – I think I agree. I don’t think it *clearly* hits the hands of that guy, but it does seem to change direction and after watching over and over again I think it’s more likely than not that it hit his hand (I’m talking about the hand with the watch).
Definitely not calling it a double as a compromise – that would be silly. I was calling it double because I thought it only touched Mookie’s glove (and nothing else). In other words it would be as if there were no fans there at all. In that case I think we can all agree it would be a double – because that’s where Altuve ended up on the in-play ball, not as a compromise or as a ground-rule double of any sort.
In a September Padres-Giants game, left fielder Chris Shaw lept for a Franmel Reyes flyball in the 5th inning. A fan reaching for the ball not only made contact with Shaws glove, but knocked Shaws’ glove away while making the catch. Same play, perhaps a more overt reach into the playing field, and that was a HR. The umpire on the field called it a HR. Review saw nothing to reverse the call. So the rule is whatever the on-field umpire calls the play. There will not be any definitive way to change a call of this nature.
How the heck can an umpire (even an extra 2 for playoff games) see whether a fan has reached over an OF wall or not? It’s not possible or practical. Even cameras are having a difficult time discerning this. It’s an awful rule made impossible by stadium construction that has a row of seats practically hanging onto the field of play.
That was a crappy review – clearly an out
Pretty convincing case Jeff. To me this can’t be fan interference because the fan did nothing wrong. He stood straight up and protected himself from a flying baseball. He didn’t do any of the “bad” stuff that we all get furious at fans for doing when they interfere. All he did was NOT let the ball peg him in the nuts. So while I think your “more likely than not in play” analysis is probably right, I think your “spirit of the rule” discussion misses the point. Calling this interference is necessarily telling future fans that the precise behavior seen in this video by fans is “not allowed.” How can that possibly be?
“He stood straight up”
… and ya lost me
“And now look at the guy’s right arm, outstretched. Even though the wall itself fades away to the left, because of the angle, the guy in white’s arm is reaching toward the camera. It’s reaching to the front and the side of his right shoulder. His hips are almost against the wall. His shoulders appear to be above the wall. His right hand appears to be in front of his shoulder. ”
Is there someone who knows where the camera was positioned and can do the geometry to figure out how far white shirt guy’s hand was in front of the fence, assuming (as it appears) that (a) his right shoulder is at the fence line; (b) his arm is fully extended in the direction (angle) of the camera; and (c) his arm is of normal length?
Duh, it’s obvious it was a ground rule double.
The reason this is so contentious is that it is entirely possible both parts of the rule come into play. The play was right on the border between the field and the stands. It is quite likely that Betts went over the line in attempting the catch AND the fans reached into the field of play and interfered. There is overlap there.
Anyone who thinks this should have been an easy or obvious call is a fool.
Common sense seems to point to an umpire who’s standing hundreds of feet away maybe NOT jumping to conclusions on a play of this magnitude. How can Joe West tell from that distance that the fan’s hands were encroaching on the field of play? Why not just call it a HR (knowing it’ll definitely go to replay) and then let MLB look at the best available footage? Surely it could have been looked at without even burning either manager’s challenges. The on-field call is the most egregious issue here. If they’re going to call anything similar and as nuanced as that play (spoiler alert; they won’t) fan interference, they’re putting the burden of proof on the HR instead of the fan interference, where it should be placed. It’s just a problematic on-field call to make in the absence of anything extreme that could actually be confirmed by an umpires non-laser beam vision from a significant distance away. Especially since MLB simply sides with the on-field calls in the absence of clear and convincing evidence. (Maybe install some more cameras so security guards can’t block them as well.)
There’s NOTHING in the rules that says he should do anything but make the best call he can at the time. Replay can override an incorrect call, but why should he signal HR if he thinks it was more likely fan interferance? That would be deliberately not making the best possible call, when the default is for the umps call to stand. Why should he TRY to get the call wrong?
Even if there is no interference, it’s not a HR. The ball bounced off Betts’ glove into the field of play.
Aside from the obvious bias cats in this thread (I like both teams) – we all disagree on this, and that’s while we’re looking at numerous slow-motion frame-by-frame video of the play. How the hell could West make that ruling from hundreds of feet away in real time?
Of the three possible rulings (home run, ground-rule double, out) he made the one ruling that there’s literally no chance he could have actually seen with any certainty to make. That’s the biggest issue here.
He has to call it one way or another. There is no “if you’re not 100% sure then leave it as a homer” aspect to this rule. And he was right! I mean, I won’t say 100%, but I find it hard to believe there wasn’t contact with his glove over the field of play. Seems a large majority agree, too, despite presumably a large chunk of homers (yes, on both sides, but if 20% are Astros homers and 20% are Red Sox homers, that means a good ~90% of others see this as interference.
That’s stupid. Yes, he has to call it. There’s far more visual evidence in real time for a ruling of ground rule double or home run, when he’s hundreds of feet away, versus a ruling that generally, you know, requires the ball to be caught.
I did not read a word of the article as I will just give my perspective – that ball was not in the field of play = no interference. That is the end of the discussion for me. Does everyone need to get up out of their seats in the event of a potential out or HR? What if they are not paying attention? To go a bit further with baseball logic (oxymoron I know), you can’t assume miraculous defensive plays.
This is an interesting example of why I think instant replay is net bad. You take something which is ultimately 50/50 and you make it into a federal investigation as opposed to moving on. I don’t think it is 50/50, but I can see how somebody would. The idea that replay is supposed to right all the wrongs of the world just isn’t reality and it actually makes things hurt all that much worse. The bad calls are even worse as we examine them frame-by-frame and in the end it is usually just a judgement call anyways. In the end, I think the umpires do a worse job because they have a crutch to lean on.
How about that interference call when Puig stole 3rd? The home plate ump didn’t make the final call – I don’t know how any other ump would have a better view of interference… and then they go have their absurd little conversation and make something up. Personally, I tune in to watch world-class athletes play baseball, not a bunch of (pick your own adjective) waddle together and have a little chat or even worse pop on a pair of headphones while some anonymous character passes final judgement with 0 accountability – the opportunity for corruption is wide open if you have never thought about it. Oh, some guy in NY – well I am convinced of this process! Why would MLB not make things interesting if it benefited them? Something like point shaving is not out of the realm of possibility. I think there is a growing trend to “flop” as replay does a putrid job with the potential of a flop as the rule book becomes increasingly convoluted and disconnected from actual baseball plays. Want an example, watch Arcia turn a double play – he literally strides right into the runner and makes every effort to initiate contact – it has worked once already. What would stop a catcher from looking to contact a right-handed hitter on a throw to third base? Umpires have always done a good enough job with on-field calls, replay just makes things worse. Blown calls are now injustices and they still exist.
I think it’s hilarious that you assume that this call wouldn’t have been dissected a million ways if there wasn’t replay review of calls.
No one ever argued about the Denkinger call, nope.
You see what you want to see. You cant tell from these angles
The real issues is MLB is too cheap to require there are sufficient camera coverage to enable the review process to be conclusive
Failing that the integrity of the game suffers .
Well said. Stadiums need to retrofit for more cameras.
Amazed at the amount of discussion around the internet about whether this was fan interference. It wasn’t. Joe West couldn’t see the play accurately from where he was situated. If he had the camera angels we do he wouldn’t have called it fan interference either.
Honestly, if the umpire sees that the fan hits his glove, and sees that the ball hit right off said glove (two things West could see), but isn’t positive about whether this happened over the field or just barely into the stands, it makes sense from a policy standpoint to punish the dumbass hometeam that built a modern ballpark with basically no barrier.
That makes zero sense. Joe West (who I’m not a fan of) made a judgment call based on what he observed. There is no “punishment” required or needed.
Also, this type of thing could occur in numerous ballparks. The HOU stadium isn’t special in that regard.
My point was that going with a “call it a homer unless you’re 100% sure” standard is dumb. West should have called interference if he was more certain than not that interference occurred. Which he did. And evidence shows he was right.
Out of curiosity, I wonder what the most commented on Fangraphs posts of all time are, the most disliked and liked comments, etc. I feel like that would make for a good Instagraphs post. A Fangraphs article leaderboard.
Look, an opinion is an opinion. Jeff analyzed it to the best of his ability so that’s all that can be expected. I happen to agree that the call was terrible and that the evidence was clear from how far Betts’ arm extended in the direction of the stands.
I am not sure where @cheeknbut got the rule he stated, “plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball.” If plainly is in fact the wording then it becomes even more clear that the Astros should have had two runs.
Look, an opinion is an opinion. Jeff analyzed it to the best of his ability so that’s all that can be expected. I happen to agree that the call was terrible and that the evidence was clear from how far Betts’ arm extended in the direction of the stands. Also, clearly Jeff isnt stating he is right without reservation.
I have a sincere rules question: if no fan interference is called, and Mookie brings the ball back into play (as it landed in the outfield), is the ball live
As long as it touched nothing else out of play besides Mookie and his legally-wielded equipment, it would be in play.
I exhausted my opinions on other sites, but I want to praise Jeff for what I think is the most straightforward and reasoned analysis. That’s not because I agree with all his conclusions; I still can’t assign a probability over 50% to “in play or not?” I just think it was an incredibly tough call, and West nailed at least half of it (fans did prevent the catch) — which is much better than I could do, watching live on TV.
It’s natural that there are so many impassioned opinions on such a key play. (I’m rooting for Houston, btw.) But it’s also generating cockeyed ideas like “the default ruling should be safe” for any play. That simply does not flow from the fact that a batter or runner is safe until put out. Nothing in the MLB rules, nor any principle they express or encompass, directs an ump to a default position about a fielding play, nor demands any particular threshold of certainty before calling an out. They are to call what they see. West saw interference. I don’t have his angle; and try as I might, I can’t see it more clearly than 50-50. I can’t fault him.
I searched the rules for help on what’s meant by “plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball” — i.e., does it have to keep him from a SURE catch, a VERY LIKELY catch, just a POSSIBLE catch, or what, exactly?
“Plainly” appears nowhere else in the MLB rules, so we’re not getting any help on that word.
“Prevent” appears many times in different contexts, but I found only three that seem to shed light on its meaning in this debate. And they all point away from a certain or extremely likely outcome.
— First is the Rule 6.01(b) Comment: “Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or PREVENTS a batter from hitting a pitch.” The pairing of “hinders or prevents” is unfortunate for our purpose, but still: We’ve seen this rule enforced at times when we have no clue whether the batter WOULD have hit the ball, absent the interference. Indeed, you almost never could know that, so there would be no point in using “prevents” here if it meant stopping a very likely outcome.
— Next is in the balk rule, Rule 6.02(a ) Comment: “… the purpose of the balk rule is to PREVENT the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.” But when a balk is called, the ump is not saying that the prohibited act actually DID deceive the runner, nor even that the pitcher had deliberate intent to deceive. The rule mainly just outlaws certain movements. It aims to PREVENT deliberate deception, but it’s not about preventing an outcome that otherwise WILL occur, only one that MIGHT occur.
— The last and most clearly relevant use of “prevent” is in the official scorer’s guidance on deciding between a stolen base and defensive indifference. Rule 9.07(g) Comment says that, with runners on first and third, it’s still a stolen base even with no throw, as long as the non-throw was aimed at “PREVENTING the runner on third base from scoring.” There’s no presumption that he WOULD score if they threw to second. They PREVENT his merely POSSIBLE score by not throwing to second.
To me, this settles one half of this whole debate. The fan(s) did “plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball,” by whatever reasonable meaning of “prevent” can be drawn from the rest of the rules. So IF the contact occurred in play (which I still don’t know), then it was interference, and rightly called an out.
(Caps added to rules quotes for emphasis)
A lot more Sox fans than Astros fans on this site.
I think the call was bad. It seems pretty clear Bette’s had no chance to catch the ball because his glove is outside of play. I personally could careless who won that game. But once the call was made I am unsure their is clear enough evidence to overturn it. Damn shame cause home teams are supposed to get that call. Should have been a homerun. Those fans clearly unintentionally handed the game to the Red Sox.
What Jeff fails to notice is the curve in the wall. The guy in white reaches over the wall into the stands to his right. Also it’s not in play unless the fan reaches down. Over the wall is not in play. Terrible call by the umpire. Terrible call.
My take is that Umps should always err on the side of the more exciting play. I’d rather see a HR than fan interference, wouldn’t you? So when it’s 50/50 like this, lets give the fans the exciting play.
I know it would take some re-engineering in most stadiums, but I’ve never really understood the proximity of the stands to the playing area. The closest I can think of that permits this fan interference comes from long-distance races (marathon, road cycling and the like, where you cannot really fence all the playing area), not a fenced in sport. Fan proximity is appreciated, but a couple of yards distance would remove a lot of problems. Even basketball, with no fence, keeps the fans a few feet away.
In the clip above, nothing prevents ball-hungry fans from reaching above the wall. Mookie Betts is an amazing defender, but even that play is not easy for him and there is no guarantee he comes down with the ball. We can all blame Joe West for all sorts of things on the field, but the call was not easy here.
Nobody really talking about the security guard taking away what would have been the best angle. Given that he is an (at least an indirect) employee of the home team, I have no problem not giving the Astros the benefit of the doubt on what amounts to a ‘call on the field stands’ play. I think the extension of this for me is that if the call was reversed, I would have more difficulty making the call against the Sox because of the home field obstruction if that makes any sense.
I despise Joe West, but I think he got that call right.
My most distinct feeling at the time was that, while I felt it was interference, I also felt very clearly that this was no ‘Bartman’ or ‘Jeffrey Mayer’ situation where a fan had done something wrong. I was really hoping they’d have said something to that effect on the broadcast. I did not feel anyone was trying to interfere, they were pretty clearly going for a ball in a space I considered ‘reasonable’, and I felt none of their hands and arms were over. Some of that is likely due to the height of the ball, sure. Betts was there though. Just as they announced on TV, his open glove was closed by contact with the fan..
Some geometry to support Jeff’s conclusion: If it is 30 inches from Mookie’s shoulder to the point where glove collides with fan’s hand and his arm angle is 60 degrees (reasonable estimates), then the horizontal distance from his body to the glove contact point is about 15 inches. Watch the replays and notice how long and far he falls before his body hits the wall. It sure looks like he was farther than 15 inches from wall when contact was made. Not definitive, but if super slo-mo replays are inconclusive, you can’t say that Joe West made a bad call.
I can’t understand why everyone seems to be missing perhaps the most crucial component of this play: the ball hit Betts’ glove before it touched the fans (if it even touched any of their hands – not crystal clear) and returned to the field of play. An outfielder doesn’t need to catch the ball to prevent a home run – all he has to do is prevent it from entering the stands. It doesn’t matter whether there was interference or not. Mookie successfully deflected the ball back into fair territory. Therefore, not a home run.
If it bounces off of his glove, then deflects off of something (a wall, a fence, a person, etc.) on the other side of the fence, it doesn’t matter if it comes back into play. Once it makes contact with something on the other side of the fence (regardless of who touched what first), it is a HR.
If a fan in the front row had botched catching the Canseco header HR and it bounced back into play, it would have still been a HR (assuming said fan was not reaching into play).
Still think Betts glove touched the right arm/hand of the guy in blue before the ball reaches him
No. If its fan interference its out
If not fan interference, since the ball came back in play umps have to decide if its a HR (based on where the ball was if it hit his glove- if out of field of play its Hr) or XBH if it hit glove in field of play.
I am a Cardinals fan. I have no dog in this fight. When I read “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.” and see a fielder jumping up, traveling into the wall, and reaching up, I don’t know how that isn’t them reaching into the stand and them doing so at their own risk. I think we’re trying to draw lines that are inconsequential. It’s fairly simple to me and a massive miss on the umpires.
Yeah you forgot the exception to the rule in the next sentence.
My only criticism of this article is the headline. We can’t know conclusively that the FI call was good (or not). We CAN say that once the call was made it was correctly upheld given the burden of proof needed to overturn a call on the field.
It appeared to me (a fan of neither team watching on TV) to be just passed the wall on first watching and nothing I’ve seen has made me say that was definitely wrong.
What was Joe West likely seeing? Jeffrey Maier and Rich Garcia, and he didn’t want to be Rich Garcia.
I wonder if FanGraphs headlines are written by the authors of the articles.
Looks like an error on Betts to me
The irony of this discussion is, even with the multiple camera angles and freeze frames, beyond replay in New York or our armchair “authoritative” opinion based on what we saw on our TV, Joe West had the best viewpoint of them all.