Jeffrey Maier

[hoosiers]

The ball bounced off the fans glove into the stands. I don't see how you can be absolutely certain about where it will end up. And to my mind it is irrelevant. The fan absolutely interferred.

Avery's entire arm below the sleeve was above the wall. He was reaching 2-3 feet above the wall.

I am not absolutely certain where the ball would have ended up, but it certainly appeared the ball was going to clear the fence by a comfortable margin and there was no way this was going to be called interference.

[El Gordo]

But the ump has the option to rule out or not, interference or not.

3.16

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.

APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

He clearly interferred with X catching the ball. Whether or not he would have held on to it is irrelevant. If the ball had landed 10 rows back, there would be nothing to talk about. He could not have caught that. You can't say he could not have caught the ball in this situation. You can say he had a good chance to catch the ball and he was in the filed of play when he was interferred with.

[hoosiers]

But the ump has the option to rule out or not, interference or not.

3.16

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.

APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

If you want the ball to be ruled dead 2-3 feet above the fence and six inches into the field of play, an umpire is going to call that a home run.

The spectator did not clearly prevent Avery from catching the fly ball, IMO. It certainly looks like Avery had a chance to make a catch without any fans there, but IMO it is not "clear" interference - you do not know if the ball was already past Avery or if he mis-timed his jump. We see OFers jump all the time at the fence with what appears to be a good chance to catch the ball and miss it.

[El Gordo]

Avery's entire arm below the sleeve was above the wall. He was reaching 2-3 feet above the wall.

I am not absolutely certain where the ball would have ended up, but it certainly appeared the ball was going to clear the fence by a comfortable margin and there was no way this was going to be called interference.

We have no definite idea of the angle of the ball coming down. Given where it hit, it looked to be coming fairly straight down, as it would have done, having achieved the apogee of it's trajectory.

[HowBoutDemOsHon]

If I remember 1997 correctly, doesn't the interference rule only apply to a ball in the field of play? If the ball goes in the seats a player can catch it but the fans are not required to allow him to do so. I think it's pretty clear that the ball was going over the fence.

[ledzepp8]

If you want the ball to be ruled dead 2-3 feet above the fence and six inches into the field of play, an umpire is going to call that a home run.

The spectator did not clearly prevent Avery from catching the fly ball, IMO. It certainly looks like Avery had a chance to make a catch without any fans there, but IMO it is not "clear" interference - you do not know if the ball was already past Avery or if he mis-timed his jump. We see OFers jump all the time at the fence with what appears to be a good chance to catch the ball and miss it.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. It's pretty clear from the GIF in the other thread that Avery has his arm extended straight up to catch the ball and the fan sticks his glove over the fence, knocking the ball out of the way before Avery can attempt his catch. Whether or not he was going to catch the ball is irrelevant. But clearly, a fan touching the ball before it can get to Avery's glove is the definition of preventing the catch.

[hoosiers]

We have no definite idea of the angle of the ball coming down. Given where it hit, it looked to be coming fairly straight down, as it would have done, having achieved the apogee of it's trajectory.

Ha ha. Above you tell me, "I don't see how you can be absolutely certain about where it will end up" (which I conceded), but apparently you do know it's trajectory.

I give up.

[ledzepp8]

If I remember 1997 correctly, doesn't the interference rule only apply to a ball in the field of play? If the ball goes in the seats a player can catch it but the fans are not required to allow him to do so. I think it's pretty clear that the ball was going over the fence.

But that's irrelevant because that's not where the fan touched the ball.

[OFFNY]

Listen, I know the Orioles won. I know it turned out to be inconsequential. I just

finished viewing the 'home run ball" hit by Granderson last night for the 20th

time( I know..I need a life). This ball was definitely worth a challenge by Buck and it

is likely to have been interfered with. Ive seen it from three different angles and I

have stop framed it too. The ball was touched BEFORE Avery had a chance to

catch it, AND it was touched on the playing side of the fence.

I just hate"injustice", and had the Orioles somehow blown that game, that play would

have loomed larger. Im glad they won. But "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice

anywhere".-MLK

I agree completely, and I don't think that it is crying over spilled milk. When a blown call and/or a blown opportunity for our manager to challenge a blown call occurs, I think that it needs as much attention possible so that it won't happen again in the future (not so much the umpires blowing calls, but our manager failing to ask for a review of a call that was clearly questionable.)

[Brendan25]

Still doesn't bother me that it wasn't challenged. Let Chen continue working and get out of the inning.

Wouldn't have had a problem if Buck got kicked out of the game for arguing it either, but I'm not as heated as most of you guys are about it.

[VeveJones007]

I understand what you're saying, but I would have been more upset with the O's for not getting a couple key hits to blow the game open. They let chance after chance go by. Luckily, they squeezed over a couple key runs and the pitching was in control.

[whatagame]

What made it even more irritating for me is I was watching the YES broadcast and also Girardi arguing Jones' stolen base in the next inning. The YES broadcasters then pointed out if the umps hadn't blown that call the O's would not have scored.

[The B&G]

I'm unaware of the rule and Bordick was as well last night. Does the coach actually have to challenge it (like the NFL) or do the umpires just make the decision to challenge it (like the NBA)?

[NewMarketSean]

I understand the reasoning behind Buck not challenging it if he didn't want Chen to get caught up in it. It ended up working out and we won all the same.

However, I do believe at the very least Buck should have come out and talked to the umps about it. And that can be anywhere from calmly asking about it, to kicking dirt on the umpires shoes and yelling at him for a good ten minutes before getting ejected.

I am just glad that this didn't turn into the beginning of a loss for the O's and those d-bag Yankee fans who interfered went home disappointed.

[clapdiddy]

I understand the reasoning behind Buck not challenging it if he didn't want Chen to get caught up in it. It ended up working out and we won all the same.

However, I do believe at the very least Buck should have come out and talked to the umps about it. And that can be anywhere from calmly asking about it, to kicking dirt on the umpires shoes and yelling at him for a good ten minutes before getting ejected.

I am just glad that this didn't turn into the beginning of a loss for the O's and those d-bag Yankee fans who interfered went home disappointed.

Highlighted for truth!