Skip to content

Was Robinson Cano’s homer a case of fan interference?

Oct 20, 2010, 8:25 AM EDT

Texas Rangers fielder Nelson Cruz (lower) tries to catch a Yankees Robinson Cano hit into the stands which was ruled a home run in the second inning during Game 4 of their Major League League Baseball ALCS playoff series in New York

I’m going to admit up front that I’m flummoxed. I’ve gone back and forth on this thing two or three times now.

In real time, Robinson Cano’s homer to right in the second appeared to be a case of fan interference, with those awesome, awesome fans in the front row slapping Nelson Cruz’s glove. When it happened I stood up in my living room, outraged, and took Jeffrey Maier’s name in vain.

Then I saw the replays. At least the TBS replays. All of them made it seem like it wasn’t interference. It appeared — looking squarely at the wall from the infield — that Cruz reached beyond the wall. And when you do that you’re doing so at your own risk pursuat to the rules of baseball.  Yeah, part of me wishes that fans would stay away from a fielder even when he’s doing that, but I wish a lot of things that aren’t likely or, oftentimes, even reasonable. Fine, I thought. Homer.

But then I saw this picture:

Sure looks like fans smacking Cruz’s glove on the field of play to me. Wouldn’t you agree? And it’s not like it’s really incidental. That white looking stuff behind the yellow of the wall is a couple feet of concrete that, theoretically anyway, separates fans from the field of play. Regardless of where the ball would have come down — it appeared on that concrete — our friends in the front row there had to make an extra special effort to hit Cruz’s glove right there. If someone has better video or photographic evidence I would like to see it, but barring that I’m now inclined to say that the call was wrong, Cruz was interfered with and Cano’s homer shouldn’t have stood.

Of course the elephant in the room here is why this play wasn’t reviewed in the first place. Right field umpire Jim Reynolds was pretty far from this play. How could he see it clearly? Even if you think I’m wrong and this wasn’t a case of fan interference, Reynolds’ call to that effect was just a guess. Just a couple of batters later he got the call wrong on Lance Berkman’s non-homer. Thankfully replay was utilized to overturn that one.  Why was it not utilized to review Cano’s blast? Reynolds was far from the action on both occasions.

The official answer is that some calls are boundary calls and some are judgment calls and blah, blah blah. I won’t have it. There are two kinds of calls. Correct calls and blown calls. And there is no excuse for baseball not allow and encourage the umpires to utilize the technology that is easily at their disposal to get the calls right. It may not have made a difference in the outcome of last night’s game. But someday soon it will.  And when it does, all hell is going to break loose.

  1. Richard In Big D - Oct 20, 2010 at 8:48 AM

    This is EXACTLY the kind of situation that makes it essential that managers have challenge(s) that would force the bumbling blues to have a second look-see at plays like this when the arrogant a**holes in blue don’t think they might possibly have made a mistake.

    • Richard In Big D - Oct 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM

      Once Bud Light is gone, and a commissioner that acually DOES stuff expands replay…

  2. hasbeen5 - Oct 20, 2010 at 8:52 AM

    I just linked to this pic in the other thread before reading this one. It’s clearly interference. And it doesn’t look like innocent trying-to-catch-the-ball interference. The fat dude’s hand is turned down like he’s trying to smack Cruz’s glove out of the way.

    • megary - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:12 AM

      Agreed. The “fat dude” had only one thought in his mind and it wasn’t to catch the ball. He was only trying to separate Cruz’s glove and the ball just in case Larry and Moe failed to catch it.

      The absolute definition of fan interference.

    • lowrider144 - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM

      From all replays this dude clearly slapped nelsons glove with the intent to force a missed catch. Im a ranger fan and i would have done the same exact thing if it were a ranger hitter at home, but i probably wouldnt have extended my arm way over the fence, for fear of being called for fan interference and getting booed out of the stadium.

      Im dissapointed in the umpires for being stuck up and not reviewing it even if ron didnt ask for a replay. Also, i applaud that fan, he did what he should and it worked out.

      What i am shocked by is the fact that these stupid yankees fans in the 1st row on the foul territory took away two outs from the yankees players. What idiots. Two times, there were very catchable balls that fans hindered the yankees from catching, one woulda been a sure out, the other very likely woulda been caught. What idiots. If i sit in the first row i remind myself not to get excited by a foul ball and to let my team catch it, even if this takes pushing people next to me the hell out of the way to give more room. If a yankee came my way and it was in foul territory i would do everything in my power to force a miss, including slapping his glove out of the way.

      a guy was forced to move in chicago because of a play like this, yet yankees fans didnt seem to care. That was 2 outs given away. It is a baseball, who cares, let your team catch it, what are you going to do with a sovenoier ball anyway, you arent a toddler, your grown men ruining your teams chances and i love it. bravo to the homerun block squad, but we will get you tonight.

      • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

        this Yankee fan certainly cared. You are talking about Teixeira’s play down first base and Gardner’s play in short left.

        Tex’s was a much tougher play, but should have been caught.

        That fat idiot completely stopped Gardner from making the play.

    • texasanni - Oct 20, 2010 at 4:44 PM

      Their CATCHER can’t even turn his glove the right way to keep from getting a passed ball.

      So…as much as I’d like to think these guys had the smarts to think that fast…I don’t think these guys in the stands know how to catch a ball…let alone how to bat a ball away while pulling off the-oh-so-credible innocent look of a gang of goofy game-disrespecting fans. ….just sayin….

  3. edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:11 AM

    It amazes me how stupid you people can be, where is the ball?

    Answer, nowhere near there. That interference that occurs is after the ball crosses the wall. It doesn’t matter if they hit his glove, he wasn’t making a play.

    All the concrete the author is referring to is in the stands! If a ball hit that concrete, it would be a home run. Once the glove goes one millimeter beyond the wall, it is not interference. That concrete is all in “fan” territory.

    The picture shows contact, yes, but it doesn’t show the ball anywhere near that glove. It doesn’t show how the contact allowed the HR.

    The fact is once his glove went beyond the lip of the wall, those idiots in the front row can knock the ball out of his hands. The rule says the fielder can enter the stands, “at his own risk.”

    By your brilliant logic, a HR should be overruled if a fan hits a fielder’s glove when the ball is hit to the upper deck.

    Yes this was close. yes all those pretty pictures show contact. But NONE show how the contact on the field allowed the HR. This is totally different than Jeffrey Maier. That was clearly interference. This wasn’t.

    • professorperry - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM

      It amazes me how arrogant and rude people can be when sheltered by the anonymity of the internet.

      That said, the question is valid. If this contact occurred after the ball, and Cruz’s glove, had been into the stands, then the call was correct.

    • hasbeen5 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:33 AM

      The ball is on it’s way down, it hasn’t yet arrived at the wall. Until the ball crosses the wall, it’s Cruz’s territory. His glove could be above the top of the wall and not yet be in the stands. His glove could be above the top of the wall to intercept the ball before it gets to the wall. If the picture isn’t enough, go watch the replay. The ball doesn’t make it to the concrete, it hits on top of the fence first. Cruz clearly had a legitimate chance to make a play until he had 5 hands in his face.

    • mschempp - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM

      I was going to be much more polite. But rude and fast is better than tactful and slow on the Internet.

      From the Official Rules on Mlb.com:

      “(d) Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and touches a live ball.”

      It doesn’t mention the fielder, his glove, or anything like that. It matters very much where the ball lands. Reynolds said from his angle, the ball was clearly in the stands. That means there can be no interference, and therefore no review. Cruz had no chance of catching the ball even if he wasn’t interfered with.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM

        I think he had a real shot at catching it. It barely landed on top of the fence. Reynolds was looking for something to justify his making the call too quickly and not getting help.

      • kirchh - Oct 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM

        @mschempp –

        Glad to see that you’re a stickler for the rules. You have to accept them and what they dictate in situations like this, even if you don’t like the outcome.

        Right?

        But you have a problem: Your research is sloppy. Here is the actual rule now in effect (from the 2010 MLB rules).

        Rule 2.00 (Interference):

        “(d) Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or
        goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and
        hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball.”

        As you respect the rules, and as this situation clearly qualifies as one in which a spectator reached out of the stands and touched a player and hindered an attempt to make a play on a live ball, you must agree that interferece occurred.

        So, tactful and slow or rude and fast, you were wrong.

    • lowrider144 - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:16 AM

      I disagree. The slap did occur slightly after the ball crossing, but the other fans had their arms over the fence which caused nelsons glove to not be extended. As nelson went up 2 sets of arms are extended over and nelsons glove colides into their wrists and hands keeping his glove from going any higher and further back which ive seen him do countless times this year. Nelly is a home run robbing mad man, and these fans did hinder his ability to make the catch while his glove was inside the fence line.

      I am just mad they dont review calls more often. Rangers got burned on two home runs in the season because the umps wouldnt look at a replay which clearly showed one was fair, and one was over the fence(these were in the regular season).

      Again, bravo to the fans, boo to the umpires.

  4. edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:24 AM

    Nothing anonymous about this. Saying it all night and day on FB. This whole argument is about the arrogance of Yankee hatred.

    I am furious at the incomplete nature of all this analysis. If we are going to take “frames” which is all a picture is with respect to video, let’s have someone break it down frame by frame.

    The only way this is interference is if the ball is right there and it isn’t.

    • professorperry - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:29 AM

      Actually, no. If this was BEFORE the ball was coming down, that too would be interference. This is only not interference if this is after the play is over.

      Also – you root for the Yankees, people are going to dislike you. It’s the price you pay for rooting for the team that wins most often. Get over it.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:35 AM

        I don’t hate the Yankees at all, but it was interference. I didn’t say anything about the fanbase as a whole, but those 3 clowns were in the wrong.

    • ThatGuy - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:37 AM

      Well if you look at the frame, its quite obvious where the ball is. Still falling towards them, it has not landed anywhere. They are reaching out into the field of play and interfering with the player. Everyone in that picture is looking up and reaching for a falling ball.

    • cusoman - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM

      Get over yourself. You want to talk arrogance? Arrogance is leaving in the 7th inning over a 4 run game. Best fans in baseball my arse.

      • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM

        The only people who left were the “fans” in the $3000 seats who aren’t there to watch a game, they are there to say they were at the game.

  5. ribender - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    My thought was the call ended up being correct, but there was no good reason not to review it. Yes, the fans hit Cruz’s glove, which kept him from reaching into the stands to try and make the catch. But the fact that he would have to reach beyond the wall makes the interference moot. The only problem with this is that fans may feel justified in simply swatting a fielder’s glove any time he reaches into the stands.

    So the umpires claimed it was a judgment call and not reviewable. By that logic, the foul home run was a judgment call, too. They shouldn’t have reviewed that. Absolutely idiotic reasoning not to review it.

    • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM

      Just to point out, there was a play later in the game where a rich idiot in the first row stopped Gardner from catching a foul ball.

      • hasbeen5 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM

        And that guy was wrong too. Why bring class warfare into this?

  6. professorperry - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:44 AM

    These fans are quality people – http://30fps.mocksession.com/2010%20October%2019%2020%2038%200.jpeg

    • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM

      there is no doubt that those guys were douches. What kind of jackass gives a fielder the finger? In fact the dude was a spaz and misplayed the ball. Had he been coordinated he would have caught the ball not had it hit off his chest/arm.

    • fordman84 - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM

      Is there an “after” shot of either their empty seats in the 8th inning, or their dumb face reactions to the events happening later in the game?

      • texasanni - Oct 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM

        :-) that WOULD be a great set of before and after pics to put on my game room wall!
        Gotta LOVE this game! …and the fire it lights within us all!!!

  7. edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:46 AM

    cause it makes me sick that the best seats go to, for the most part, fake fans. The Yankees charge $3000 for the Legends seats and they are the first to empty out when the game was 5-3 which is not close to being over.

  8. jdmcmill - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:46 AM

    How about you just put up the glass (like the glass on the front seats of the upper decks) around the outfield wall and the foul lines….

    • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM

      then you change what is a HR. It’s like saying make the fence higher.

    • 013hip - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM

      Glass??? this isn’t hockey! It would make more sense to eliminate the first 2 or 3 rows of seats around the perimeter of the field. Of coarse, one would rather hope that any fan would not interfere with any play that may be made, but that is not going to happen!
      I am a Tiger’s fan (please don’t ask me why)……… but, I have also been a Yankee’s fan since I was in little league…….and what kid didn’t dream of wearing the pinstripes?
      That being said, I have no respect for any fan that interferes with any play that can or may be made……Home team or not!!! But on the other hand, some fans would do anything(and again Home team or not) for that souvenir baseball from an ALCS game.

  9. edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM

    You mean the World Champion Yankees and their fans?

  10. Richard In Big D - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM

    This is all really a moot point. 10-4 is just as much a W as 10-3. My son and I are going to meet the plane when it gets to Love Field tomorrow for the victory celebration.

  11. metalhead65 - Oct 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM

    my only hope is before the rangers beat the yankess their fans do the same thing and I want to hear all the yankee fans cry about how they were robbed!only in yankee stadium is that not interferance. and yea you can count me as proud yankee hater!would love to see that team sold to a billionaire like the one who used to own the reds,a guy who would not spend a dime of his own money on improving the team. let’s see how great you guys would be if your owner didn’t buy you championships every year!

    • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM

      who would say they were robbed? It was ruled a HR.

      • metalhead65 - Oct 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM

        so your telling me if the rangers fans do the same thing the yankees and their fans would be ok with it and not cry about it?doesn’t matter that the rangers came back to punish the yankees they were still jobbed on that call.they were robbed by the fact the yankess were given a run when they shouldn’t have gotten because the ump blew the call.

  12. Jonny 5 - Oct 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

    Replay is not a bad thing. So why does baseball act as if it is? Ohh, just like they pretend what Rose did was worse than ignoring widespread use of steroids. Hey as long as it helps ratings, who cares right?

  13. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Oct 20, 2010 at 2:39 PM

    If Bartman is the devil to so many for doing what he did, these Yankee douchebags deserve even worse.

  14. IdahoMariner - Oct 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM

    What I like is that the Rangers didn’t fall apart after the possible fan interference. They just kept playing. Not trying to slam the Cubs here, but more the sportswriters — because the ongoing narrative of that event (even on HBT last week) is that by interfering, Bartman “caused” the team (especially the pitcher) to just fall to pieces after that, costing them that game and, by implication, that series. Admittedly, Bartman’s interference was later in a close game — but this is the second inning, Yanks go up by one, everyone is thinking this is going to be a tight game all the way through, nerves are tight for everyone, they are in Yankee Stadium…but no implosion. I like that. That’s all I’m saying. Defy the way-too-easy storyline.

  15. 12cmac12 - Oct 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM

    (d) Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or
    goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and
    hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball. How can you see this rule and say it was anything other than interference? Did they reach out of the stands? YES! Did they touch Cruz? YES! Did they touch him before he crossed into the stands? YES! Did they hinder his chance to make a play on a live ball? YES! Sounds like interference to me. Of course its ok though cause they got their punishment later. Who was upset at the end of that game, Cruz or the three stooges?

    • edogg23 - Oct 22, 2010 at 9:51 PM

      hey loud mouth who likes to answer his own questions, he didn’t have a play on the ball while THE BALL was on the field of play. Kind of a big difference.

  16. edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM

    You people all quote the rules oh so well. But let’s learn to connect the dots here. The ball was in the stands. Had they hit his glove and ball in on the field of play, then your rule would count.

    Please my earlier point. That according to your assertions and how you are applying the rule, a ball hit in the upper deck where the outfielder jumps to catch it for the heck of it and has his glove touched while on the field of play, should be ruled an out as a fan is making contact with a player or glove while they are on the field of play.

    The ball crossed the wall folks. Had the ball hit the padding, you would have an argument that the interference mattered. It landed well beyond that.

    Sorry. You can hate on all you want. The Rangers didn’t fold (albeit it was 1 run not 4) which showed poise, but folks the contact was irrelevant.

    Sorry.

    • kirchh - Oct 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM

      You are obviously unfamiliar with the meaning and application of the rules of baseball. The hypothetical you pose and the actual situation critically differ, and your example even highlights this difference. It is beyond dispute that Cruz was attempting to make a play on the ball. It is also beyond dispute that in your example, where the fielder jumps “for the heck of it” as a ball is going into the upper deck, the fielder is not attempting to make a play on the ball. The distinction is obvious, and essential for the purposes of interpreting the applicability of the rule in question.

      It is irrelevant where the ball made contact when it fell. The ball started in play, and ended up out of play. On the way, a fielder may have an opportunity to make a play on it. it should be obvious to even the most geometry-challenged observer that a ball that could otherwise be caught within the field of play may otherwise touch down beyond the plane of the wall, as when the fielder’s hand extends above the top of the wall to make a catch.

      However, even this is not important for the purposes of applying 2.00 (Interference (d)). All that is required is that a fan made contact with the fielder in the field of play, which indisputably happened, as the fielder was attempting to make a play on the ball — no matter where that play would have actually taken place — which also indisputably happened. Therefore, the rule applies.

      • edogg23 - Oct 20, 2010 at 6:53 PM

        I find your attempt to use condescension and other big words to prove your own point false to be particularly comical.

        “It is irrelevant where the ball made contact when it fell. The ball started in play, and ended up out of play.” – All balls start this way.

        ” All that is required is that a fan made contact with the fielder in the field of play, which indisputably happened, as the fielder was attempting to make a play on the ball — no matter where that play would have actually taken place” – (exactly the upper deck point)

        So the argument you attack is succinctly described in your point. It most certainly matters where that ball is landing when contact is made. The absurdity of the upper deck simply demonstrates the point and is integral to showing how you may want your argument to work, but it doesn’t.

        “n the way, a fielder may have an opportunity to make a play on it. it should be obvious to even the most geometry-challenged observer that a ball that could otherwise be caught within the field of play may otherwise touch down beyond the plane of the wall, as when the fielder’s hand extends above the top of the wall to make a catch.”

        See your point here makes no sense, since it doesn’t apply.

        1. Assuming there were no fans
        2. Cruz jumped straight up and down.
        3. HE WOULD NOT HAVE CAUGHT THE BALL.

        Even to the most geometry-sophisticated individual, it is plain to see that the ball was hit above and beyond the wall causing (AND REQUIRING) that Cruz’s glove go into (not simply up within the plane of the OF wall). Therefore what you assert matters very little.

        The interference on the field was inconsequential to what happened as he HAD to get INTO the stands to make that catch, not just simply jump straight up and down which is the ONLY way what you attempted to prove is applicable.

        Thank you for your eloquence to nowhere.

  17. kirchh - Oct 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM

    Again, you fail to understand the rule, though it is quite clearly written. You also fail to understand the geometry of the situation, as this statement proves:

    ” it is plain to see that the ball was hit above and beyond the wall causing (AND REQUIRING) that Cruz’s glove go into (not simply up within the plane of the OF wall).”

    This statement is mathematically false. A ball that crosses the plane of the wall above the wall does not per se require that the fielder’s glove also cross the plane of the wall in order to intercept the flight of the ball.

    However, as I clearly stated, this is irrelevant; where the fielder’s glove would have been when making a play on the ball had he not been interfered with is immaterial for the purposes of the interference rule. All that is required is that the fan made contact with the fielder in the field of play, which indisputably happened, as the fielder was attempting to make a play on the ball, which he indisputably was. In your contrived example, the fielder was not attempting to make a play on the ball — he is jumping, as you state, “for the heck of it”. Therefore, the rule would not apply in that circumstance.

    Furthermore, your analysis fails in other respects. You write, “HE WOULD NOT HAVE CAUGHT THE BALL.” It is widely recognized that capital letters do not produce truth. Cruz may or may not have caught the ball had he not been interfered with, but the rule places no requirement on the umpires to make a judgment that the fielder would have caught the ball had the interference not occurred, as is plain from the text of the rule. It is beyond dispute that Cruz was attempting to make a play on the ball. Even you have not contested that point, nor have you contested that the fan made contact with Cruz on the field side of the plane of the wall. Those are the two requirements for interference under 2.00 (Interference (d)).

    Beyond that, replays and photos show that Cruz had a good chance to intercept the ball before it touched down (note again it is irrelevant where this interception would have occurred). For example, see this photo. Cruz’s glove is about a foot above the wall, and the ball hits merely inches behind the front plane of the wall.

    So, to summarize: Both conditions for interference under the rule were met, and even you do not dispute that. Where Cruz might have intercepted the ball is irrelevant, as the rule makes no distinction in this regard; the only requirement is that the interference occur within the field of play, which it indisputably did. Therefore, your claim that “the interference on the field was inconsequential to what happened as he HAD to get INTO the stands to make that catch” is flatly incorrect. It also happens that, based on the photographic and video evidence, Cruz may indeed have been able to intercept the ball before it crossed the plane of the wall, though it matters not for the purposes of the interference rule.

    • edogg23 - Oct 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM

      Wow, big words back in the same circle to nowhere. It most certainly matters that he could make a play on the ball. I use my argument for the “heck of it” to 100% refute your foolishness. According to the words you are blessing us with, you keep saying all he has to do is make a play towards the ball. As is the case with my PERFECTLY (gotta use caps cause you are kind of dense) apt analogy, just trying to grab an upper deck ball should be ruled an out according to you.

      Because as you so naively interpret the rules so narrowly, it is most entertaining, but confounding nonetheless.

      “Cruz may or may not have caught the ball had he not been interfered with, but the rule places no requirement on the umpires to make a judgment that the fielder would have caught the ball had the interference not occurred,”

      Read this slowly, if you accept that what you just typed is true, then my upper deck analogy is 100% true. According to you and your misinterpretation of the rules, a fielder simply needs to be trying to catch the ball. That’s it. It doesn’t matter where the ball is. (your point, not mine)

      As for your photographic proof, loving the humor you provide. What you assert is going on in that picture most certainly is not what has happened.

      Perhaps you need some lessons in photography and videography. What you have there is one tiny fraction of a second without any real perspective. Without have to teach you a lesson on geometry, angles, perception and the such, you are basically assuming that the ball you see has gone from the air and landed right there.

      However, if you actually watched you would see that at the point in the photo it has already hit off the arm of a fan and rolled to where that photo was taken. See, without perspective and full knowledge, that picture sure helps your flawed argument.

      There is no way that rule was written or intended as you have chosen to apply it. If it was, then all outfielders should try for HRs in the upper deck because by YOUR logic, where the ball is has no bearing on whether interference has occurred.

      I love per se.

      “This statement is mathematically false. A ball that crosses the plane of the wall above the wall does not per se require that the fielder’s glove also cross the plane of the wall in order to intercept the flight of the ball.” – I don’t believe I said it was impossible, I said it didn’t happen here. Big difference. Kind of important actually.

      So please continue to say my upper deck analogy is fruitless but then demonstrate over and over again by your own words how it is completely applicable. I am very much enjoying it. I don’t have to dispute that he was making a play on the ball Mr. Short bus, I simply have to say that it need not matter as he couldn’t make this particular play in the EXACT same way that a ball hit to the upper deck would be uncatchable. Clearly this was closer, but still over the fence.

      You would be totally right had the actual events been different.

      loving this!

      • kirchh - Oct 21, 2010 at 2:01 PM

        Your repeated misquoting of what I have written in order to support your argument undermines your integrity and fatally undermines your position. For example, you write,

        “you keep saying all he has to do is make a play towards the ball.”

        Not only don’t I “keep” saying that, I’ve never said that. In fact, I’ve been very careful to use the language of the rule itself, which is quite clear: there needs to be “an attempt to make a play on a live ball.” It is beyond dispute that Cruz made an attempt to make a play on the ball. It is equally beyond dispute that a fielder who jumps “for the heck of it” as a ball goes into the upper deck is not making an attempt to make a play on the ball.

        Whether a fielder is attempting to make a play on a ball is left to the judgment of the umpires, as are many things in the rules which involve intent. But note that there is no requirement in the rule that the umpires must also conclude that the ball would actually have been caught. In the case of your hypothetical, the judgment is easy, as I’m sure you’ll agree. In the case of Cruz’s effort, the judgment is just as easy. There may be cases that are grayer – a fielder fakes an attempt at a nearby but clearly uncatchable ball to try to draw a call – but neither of these situations is in that category. As you have not stated otherwise, it is clear that you agree that Cruz was attempting to make a play on the ball; you even say, “I don’t have to dispute that he was making a play on the ball”.

        Since you agree that the fan reached out of the stands and hindered an attempt to make a play on the ball, you must therefore accept that interference occurred under the rules.

        Note the specificity of the language in the rule; it does not say, “a fielder attempts to make a play on a ball that, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have caught had it not been for the contact by the fan,” or any such qualifying verbiage. There is no requirement that the umpires must decide that the fielder would have caught the ball. You might wish it were otherwise, but wishing will not make it so.

        You write,

        “According to you and your misinterpretation of the rules, a fielder simply needs to be trying to catch the ball.”

        Exactly, though my interpretation is correct. And in your upper-deck example, the fielder is indisputably not trying to catch the ball, as even you admit. Therefore, there can be no interference.

        As can be plainly seen, in the Cano/Cruz situation, both requirements of the rule are met. In your counterexample, only one requirement is met, so the rule does not apply.

        Just to be clear, since you seem to have so much difficulty understanding this, the distinction between what happened in the game and your hypothetical is that in the game, Cruz was making an attempt to make a play on the ball, as you admit, and in your hypothetical, the fielder is not, as you admit.

        That is sufficient for the purposes of concluding that interference occurred. But I don’t mind also exploring your curious claims regarding the photographic evidence of the ball’s path and location. You write,

        “if you actually watched you would see that at the point in the photo it has already hit off the arm of a fan and rolled to where that photo was taken. See, without perspective and full knowledge, that picture sure helps your flawed argument.”

        Can you clarify your claim? Are you stating that the ball actually hit the top of the wall much farther back, and then rolled forward towards the front edge of the wall, at which point the photo I linked to was taken?

      • edogg23 - Oct 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM

        Formatting sucks almost as much as your repeated attempt to differentiate two things that are not different.

        You can write a lot and try and say it’s different, but that won’t make it true.

        Any ball that hasn’t gone over the fence is a live ball. Even one hit to the upper deck. So if all you are stating for interference to occur is that the fielder must be making a play (oh, I am sorry don’t want to split your overly sensitive poetic hairs), I mean make an attempt on a live ball, (which is exactly what someone jumping after an upper deck home run would be doing whether you like it or not) and then needs to be touched by a fan (again, your foolish attempt at applying the rule) on the field of play, it should be ruled an out. The outfielder is certainly trying to catch the ball in the upper deck. It is just physically impossible. Just like it was for Cruz.

        Because all your big words lead to that conclusion, I say it is rather foolish.

        Whether they are written there are or not, the catchable ball is most certainly the heart of the argument for interference, otherwise my scenario would be worth doing every single time.

        He tried to get an uncatchable ball. The only way that he was catching that is with no one in the stands in an empty park, pretty much roughly 90% of the rest of MLB stadiums.

        As for what I am stating that picture shows, seemed pretty obvious from my comment, but perhaps I am wrong.

        I am saying the moment captured there shows simply a moment without reference. The perspective that needs to be applied is that the ball was already a home run. It had hit the fans in the upper chest/arm and rolled to where you see the ball in the photo. Therefore already a home run.

        I am asserting that the “fans” in the picture were spazs. They misjudged it totally. It had already bounced off them and rolled. What that picture shows is the same situation as catching a ball off the foul pole. Net result, home run. Once it touches something in the stands, it is gone.

        What you see in that photo does not show what you implied. Hell that everyone is implying: that his glove is being hit as the ball bounces down just to the side of it.

  18. skinsman1 - Oct 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM

    It was interference, but as usual, the umps give the Yanks their home field calls. Very classy fans, leaving in droves by the 7th. Front running, inbred losers who cheer on the Harlem Globetrotters of MLB, and can’t handle it when their all-star team chokes. I can’t wait to see them watch Texas celebrate.

    • edogg23 - Oct 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM

      hate on fool, but I do recall the Yankees not making the playoffs two years ago and still having the highest attendance of anyone.

      Without the Yankees and their fans virtually all the other teams would be in financial ruins. The Yankees always have the highest road attendance. The only times the small market teams sell out is when the Yankees are in town.

      So while they certainly have bought their share of free agents, the heart of this team is home grown. If you want your teams to get better players, go out and buy some tickets.

      • 12cmac12 - Oct 22, 2010 at 1:12 PM

        WOW! there is a lot of teams that dont even play the Yankees during the regular season. I just dont know how they are making it. I guess we owe MLB all to the Yankees for keeping it going. The Yankees are a team of Whores, hired guns or whatever else you want to call them. In most sports there are rules to keep this from happening so that all teams have an equal chance but here not the case. Best team money can buy. Do the Yankees even have any farm teams or do they just let other teams groom players and then steal them away? Let the Yankees lose for a little while and then see how the people stop showing up. The Yankee faithful dont even stay for a whole game if they dont see a win in sight.

  19. 12cmac12 - Oct 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

    kirchh, your not going to make a dent in edoggs hard head. Either he is a moron of just cant get out of the Yankees butt long enough to see what clearly happened. Either way, Rangers won the game so justice was done. All Yankees fans have fear in their eyes right now, although they try to say there is no panic. It was interference but its over and done. I wonder how big this would have been if it was the Rangers that hit that ball instead of a Yankee? I think Yankee fans would have been livid myself.

    • edogg23 - Oct 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM

      What I find funny in your hatred is that you have little clue about history.

      For example the Yankees won nothing between 81-95. And prior to that there were still a few years without a Ws win. Roughly 17 years without a WS win. Therefore any Yankee fan pretty much under the age of 40 grew up without seeing the Yankees win squat. Kind of a lot people.

      It’s not interference. It’s interference on an uncatchable ball. BFD.

    • edogg23 - Oct 22, 2010 at 8:44 PM

      Not sure what’s up with the formatting of this crappy site, couldn’t expect much based on the commentary I read, but whatever.

      Further more, um home grown talent like Jeter, Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, Posada and Robinson Cano to name a few?

      Hey, did the Ranger’s “grow” Hamilton, Vlad and Lee? I don’t think so.

  20. edogg23 - Oct 22, 2010 at 9:59 PM

    I am enjoying all you people who assert the Yankee fans are front runners need to choke on this fact:

    The Rangers drew 56% capacity in 2009 and only got 63% in 2010, yet I see 100% there during the playoffs…hmm

    • 12cmac12 - Oct 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM

      How many Yankee fans will be in Yankee stadium next week! Nice game dont you think. Just for your information, its not trades that make the yankees a team of whores. Its when they use there money to steal other teams best players. Hamilton, Vlad and Lee all came from trades. When steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 73 he could barely afford them, as a matter of fact he had to do some trading because he didnt have enough money. After a few years of making money in other places he was wealthy enough to start buying players thus the new winning streak of the Yankees. I say that to say this, The Yankees, when on an even playing field with money didnt win either. SO, i would say the only reason the Yankees are the Yankees is because of money which gave them an unfair advantage, also you failed to report the attendance of the Yankees during the years that they were not winning. Of course it doesnt matter now they are at HOME trying to figure out how to steal Cliff Lee right now. Maybe they can get Colby Lewis and Hamilton and Cruz. You know the old saying, If you can beat them, steal their players.

  21. edogg23 - Oct 26, 2010 at 4:42 AM

    Cmac, you are an absolute fool.

    The numbers of inaccuracies in your comment is almost infinite, but let’s start with the most glaring.

    1. Your comment about Steinbrenner is just flat out wrong. He didn’t have to trade players to make payroll.
    2. All owners come into the league with money from elsewhere to pay for the team, so I don’t know what kind of idiocy you are spouting there.
    3. Vlad was a free agent acquisition

    The Yankee attendance used to be worse. So was everyone’s. The economy changed a lot over the last 20 years. The bottom line is this year. The Year the Texas Rangers won the crappy AL West, they sold out 60% of their total seats. That’s pathetic. There are no real Rangers fans. The Yankee attendance prior to the new stadium was #1 for years and now is at #2 because the Yankees can’t sell out their $1200-2700 seats to every game, otherwise every seat is sold. Your team probably couldn’t even sell 1 seat at those prices let alone over a 1200. Those are the empty seats you saw leaving the Stadium, not real fans, just rich ones who just wanted to say they were there. I would prefer that not be the case, but rich folks have rights too and they put Free Agents on the field.

    The more the Yankees spend and make, the more your pathetic team gets. The Yankees have to share revenues. You’re welcome. That brings me to the next point, reinvestment. The Yankee ownership chooses players over planes and cars. Your team’s owners rather line their pockets than put a good product on the field. The facts are Yankee fans show up to the ballpark and fill the seats. Millions and millions more than most teams and in fact have been #1 for years and years until the new stadium and now are number 2 but still well above pretty much everyone. They are also number one in road attendance year after year. Since you probably aren’t smart enough to figure out what that means, more people come to see them than anyone else making them the number one seen team in baseball. Number one is the best in case you couldn’t figure it out.
    That being said, I must once again point out that Jeter, Posada, Pettitte and Mo are all Yankee farm grown prospects, as are Hughes and Cano. That’s a lot of home grown HOF’ers buddy. Furthermore if not for a bad economy and bad knees Vlad would have been a high priced FA. If Hamilton wasn’t a crack addict, he wouldn’t be on your team either. Let’s not tout the Ranger’s horn too much. As for Cliff Lee, if not for a sprained ankle on a minor leaguer and a poor choice by the Mariners, he would’ve been a Yankee. They had a trade worked out for him, it just got STOLEN away at the last second.

    I am sorry your team can’t put fans in the seats. If you want better players you need to actually go to see your team play. That is a fact. And all the teams that sell out their ballparks have higher payrolls. Show some fan support and maybe you will get a better product on the field.

    So the Yankees lost. They are still the reigning World Champions and that was still a home run. You can hate the Yankees all you want but until your pathetic team shows it has some real support, it will always be a flash-in-the-pan joke of an organization.

    • 12cmac12 - Oct 26, 2010 at 4:32 PM

      I never said that big george had to trade players to make payroll. I said he traded some properties to help buy the team because at the time he did not have the money. As far as going to games, i have been to 21 so far this year and i have tickets the the world series and i live 2 hours from the stadium. All i know is that this joke of an organization with its 1/3 of the Yankee payroll and its pathetic fans sent your Yankees to the house. People dont like the Yankees organization because they steal players from teams that want to keep them but cant because of theYankee check book. They dont like the fans because they have some belief that they are superior to other people because the Yankees win. Just like you, you believe you are smarter than every person on this blog when i can tell you are a idiot who is mad cause you team got beat. You keep telling yourself that was a home run while i go watch the Rangers play in the World Series.

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Oct 26, 2010 at 4:33 PM

        Holy crap guys, all this is moot. Let it go.

  22. 12cmac12 - Oct 26, 2010 at 5:02 PM

    Just one final note. Jeter is a free agent soon, how would Yankee fans feel if another team outbid the Yankees and stole their HOF shortstop? Just wondering.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

When home-field advantage isn't so
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Lincecum (3208)
  2. M. Bumgarner (2985)
  3. J. Shields (2520)
  4. M. Morse (2444)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2098)
  1. T. Ishikawa (1797)
  2. U. Jimenez (1598)
  3. L. Cain (1584)
  4. B. Roberts (1536)
  5. H. Pence (1527)