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.
No interference shall be allowed is really vague.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.
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.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.
Had to look at the replay. Missed it real time. Yes looked "catchable."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.
Yeah.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.
Down to their last two outs. Well make that one more out.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.
Done. Nice catchFat Lady's gettin' ready to sing...
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?