• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

10/17/2018 the Red Sox vs. Astros

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,363
7,214
61
✟176,857.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Anyone see the "play?" I'm not sure the call on the field was correct, the the review call was. Not enough evidence to confirm or reverse.

From this article -->Red Sox win marathon Game 4 to near World Series berth

Rule said:
There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 6.01(d). Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.


No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference.
No interference shall be allowed is really vague.
 

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anyone see the "play?" I'm not sure the call on the field was correct, the the review call was. Not enough evidence to confirm or reverse.

From this article -->Red Sox win marathon Game 4 to near World Series berth

No interference shall be allowed is really vague.
You are speaking of the Altuve HR take away? Yeah that was an interesting call. I guess the replay folks in NY considered the fly ball "catchable" and why they issued the interference call.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It looks to me like it would have gone into the glove, but the fan hit his glove enough just to close it and prevent the catch.
Had to look at the replay. Missed it real time. Yes looked "catchable."
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,363
7,214
61
✟176,857.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are speaking of the Altuve HR take away? Yeah that was an interesting call. I guess the replay folks in NY considered the fly ball "catchable" and why they issued the interference call.
Yeah.

Here's a slow motion clip. At 1:04 is a good shot. It looks like it was the guy in the slate blue shirt, not the guy in orange.

 
  • Informative
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,105
2,041
Texas
✟95,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
wow. I dunno, but it seems there is legitimate grounds for fan interference. It could have been any or all of THREE DIFFERENT fans whose hands could have hit Mookie's glove. He didn't jump up to make a catch and close his glove on his own.
Fans' hand(s) closed it. I have watched replays and replays, and still think it is close to a toss-up.
One way robs Altuve of a game-tying homer, the other way robs Betts of a game-saving catch.
The fans were definitely NOT scrambling to get out of the way as in Dodgers/Brewers game -- they were scrambling to touch the ball/glove -- in that one or more succeeded, and interfered.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,105
2,041
Texas
✟95,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Although I WANTED the Astros to return to World Series; I don't think they can come back down 3-1. Boston has been out-playing them all the way.
So I am resigned to Astros losing the American league series.
Not much consolation that Houston fans can whine that "Altuve got robbed of a 2-run homer".
I really feel that the call was correct.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Although I WANTED the Astros to return to World Series; I don't think they can come back down 3-1. Boston has been out-playing them all the way.
So I am resigned to Astros losing the American league series.
Not much consolation that Houston fans can whine that "Altuve got robbed of a 2-run homer".
I really feel that the call was correct.
Down to their last two outs. Well make that one more out.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,363
7,214
61
✟176,857.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Although I WANTED the Astros to return to World Series; I don't think they can come back down 3-1. Boston has been out-playing them all the way.
So I am resigned to Astros losing the American league series.
Not much consolation that Houston fans can whine that "Altuve got robbed of a 2-run homer".
I really feel that the call was correct.
The review call was definitely correct. There was not anything to support that the call was correct or not. Hence the call stands. If it was ruled a home run on the field, the review would(should) have come to the same conclusion.
 
Upvote 0