Other Chicago & General Sports Thread LXI: Bulls Talk

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

If the ball hits the top of the fence and comes back into play, it's a HR, no? So if that's the case, then it's technically in the stands, I would say.

The bigger thing, for me, is the look on all those people's faces. Priceless.

Nope. If it hits the top of the wall and comes back into play, it is not a HR. It has to clear the yellow line.

But you’re definitely right about the look on their faces. And it was unfortunate that happened, because I think Betts was going to come down with that. And man oh man would that have been a play to see.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

This is a better picture. They were definitely straddling the line ... eyes on the ball. There was no intent to slap at Betts' glove ... or reach over into the field of play. I acknowledge the rules are fuzzy ... but common sense says this should be a home run.

Intent doesn’t matter, first of all. And neither does the trajectory of the ball. It was clearly on a path over the fence, but that doesn’t matter.

& Why does common sense say that? Common sense tells me Mookie Betts had a play on that ball and a fan got in his way, so it’s up to the rules to determine if it was “in the stands” or “in play.” The problem is, if the ball is directly above the wall, I don’t think the rules necessarily cover that.

The call was fine. The failure here is that the MLB does not proper replay systems to account for a play like this. It’s 2018. How do you not at least have cameras down the fence?

At the end of the day, though, the Astros had their chance to win this game and blew it. The rule on that play certainly needs to be cleaned up, but at least it wasn’t like the Astros lost 2-0.

 

[piteus]

Intent doesn’t matter, first of all. And neither does the trajectory of the ball. It was clearly on a path over the fence, but that doesn’t matter.

& Why does common sense say that? Common sense tells me Mookie Betts had a play on that ball and a fan got in his way, so it’s up to the rules to determine if it was “in the stands” or “in play.” The problem is, if the ball is directly above the wall, I don’t think the rules necessarily cover that.

The call was fine. The failure here is that the MLB does not proper replay systems to account for a play like this. It’s 2018. How do you not at least have cameras down the fence?

At the end of the day, though, the Astros had their chance to win this game and blew it. The rule on that play certainly needs to be cleaned up, but at least it wasn’t like the Astros lost 2-0.

Intent does matter. If the fan tried to slap Betts' glove, that's interference.

If a ball is flying at your head and body, what would you do? Just sit quietly and hope Mookie reaches over and catches the ball? If he misses, you get hit in the head. Every fan has a right to defend themselves from a flying projectile.

Common sense also says ... if the fan interfered, he should be kicked out. Those are the rules. They were NOT kicked out.

Like you said, the trajectory or clear path does not matter. In the same breath, the fact the Astros still had a chance to win it does NOT matter.

Common sense says that was a home run. The fans made no attempt to cross the field of play. There was no intent to slap Bett's glove. Those were natural circumstances in a course of trying to catch a foul ball or home run from the stands.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Intent does matter. If the fan tried to slap Betts' glove, that's interference.

If a ball is flying at your head and body, what would you do? Just sit quietly and hope Mookie reaches over and catches the ball? If he misses, you get hit in the head. Every fan has a right to defend themselves from a flying projectile.

Common sense also says ... if the fan interfered, he should be kicked out. Those are the rules. They were NOT kicked out.

Like you said, the trajectory or clear path does not matter. In the same breath, the fact the Astros still had a chance to win it does NOT matter.

Common sense that was a home run. The fans made no attempt to cross the field of play. There was no intent to slap Bett's glove. Those were natural circumstances in a course of trying to catch a foul ball or home run from the stands.

Again, intent does not matter. Saying it does is simply not true.

Interference is not whether the fan tries to interfere with the play, but rather if they interfered with a player making a play on a ball that’s considered “in play.”

And like I said, I don’t disagree with you about their reactions. It’s not their fault. This was a crazy scenario, and I’m assuming that’s why the Astros let the fans stay.

But that does not mean, by the very rule, it’s not interference. If you look at the rule, the only “gray” area here was whether or not the ball was touched in play or in the stands. Intent by the fans does not play into that.

 

[piteus]

Let me be clear. I am no Astros fan. I believe Luhnow is shady. Somehow they found the secret sauce to "spin rate?"

That said, I do not like my Boston friends when their sports teams win. They are nauseating. I refuse to watch the Pats / Bears game with them.

If an asteroid hit Minute Maid Park tonight ... well, I'd feel bad for the families.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Let me be clear. I am no Astros fan. I believe Luhnow is shady. Somehow they found the secret sauce to "spin rate?"

That said, I do not like my Boston friends when their sports teams win. They are nauseating. I refuse to watch the Pats / Bears game with them.

If an asteroid hit Minute Maid Park tonight ... well, I'd feel bad for the families.

Ha.. fair! I have no rooting interest in that series, and I very much dislike the ump who made the original call, too.

The biggest issue here is that the MLB didn’t have a camera angle so we could see exactly where the ball was. I’m sure it wouldn’t be all that difficult to have some kind of camera system or even technology to assist in that situation.

 

[TLEH]

I think in terms of “justice” I think the right call was made because I do think Mookie is catching that. But by the rules, there’s no way that ball wasn’t already over the wall and in the stands so it should be a home run.

 

[piteus]

Again, intent does not matter. Saying it does is simply not true.

Interference is not whether the fan tries to interfere with the play, but rather if they interfered with a player making a play on a ball that’s considered “in play.”

And like I said, I don’t disagree with you about their reactions. It’s not their fault. This was a crazy scenario, and I’m assuming that’s why the Astros let the fans stay.

But that does not mean, by the very rule, it’s not interference. If you look at the rule, the only “gray” area here was whether or not the ball was touched in play or in the stands. Intent by the fans does not play into that.

Intent does matter. IF Mookie could have caught the ball and the fan purposely got in the way, that's fan interference.

I think we're actually arguing the same thing ... with different semantics. If the umpire views that the player could have caught the ball and the intent of the fan was to block the fielder ... then it's fan interference (no man's land).

Here's what wiki says (I know ... they are not always right):

"Such interference often occurs when a spectator in the first row of seats reaches onto the field to attempt to grab a fair or foul fly ball. If the umpire judges that the fielder could have caught the ball over the field (i.e., the ball would have not crossed over the plane of the wall), he will rule the batter out on spectator interference. Also, the spectator who commits interference is usually ejected from the stadium. Note that spectators are allowed to catch a ball that is in play when the ball has broken the plane of the spectators' side of the wall. The area where both fielders and spectators are legally allowed to catch the ball is colloquially called no man's land."

If the yellow line is "no man's land," the fan has every right to that ball as well as the fielder. If no rules were broken, then it should have been a home run. If the fan wasn't ejected, MLB implied no rules were broken.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Intent does matter. IF Mookie could have caught the ball and the fan purposely got in the way, that's fan interference.

I think we're actually arguing the same thing ... with different semantics. If the umpire views that the player could have caught the ball and the intent of the fan was to block the fielder ... then it's fan interference (no man's land).

Here's what wiki says (I know ... they are not always right):

"Such interference often occurs when a spectator in the first row of seats reaches onto the field to attempt to grab a fair or foul fly ball. If the umpire judges that the fielder could have caught the ball over the field (i.e., the ball would have not crossed over the plane of the wall), he will rule the batter out on spectator interference. Also, the spectator who commits interference is usually ejected from the stadium. Note that spectators are allowed to catch a ball that is in play when the ball has broken the plane of the spectators' side of the wall. The area where both fielders and spectators are legally allowed to catch the ball is colloquially called no man's land."

If the yellow line is "no man's land," the fan has every right to that ball as well as the fielder. If no rules were broken, then it should have been a home run. If the fan wasn't ejected, MLB implied no rules were broken.

Or maybe they realized the fan did nothing wrong... but that doesn’t mean interference didn’t occur. It’s not about right / wrong. It’s about whether or not Mookie Betts was interfered with while making a play on a ball in the field.

You’re going to have to show me where the rule states anything about intent of the fan.

 

[piteus]

Or maybe they realized the fan did nothing wrong... but that doesn’t mean interference didn’t occur. It’s not about right / wrong. It’s about whether or not Mookie Betts was interfered with while making a play on a ball in the field.

You’re going to have to show me where the rule states anything about intent of the fan.

Remember ... the hitter wasn't ruled out in Bartman's play because Alou reached into the stands.

The reason I bring intent is the so called, "no man's land." I was wondering why baseball analysts were talking about intent too. Because both the fielder and fan had right to the ball (on the yellow line), the umpire has to JUDGE if the fielder could have caught the ball. If both the fielder and fan were sincerely trying to catch the ball ... they both had the right of way.

If you believe the fan reached over the boundary, then it doesn't matter. It's fan interference. If the player reached over in the stands, then it's not fan interference. If it's over "no mans' land," then both the player and fan had the right to the ball. That's when I believe intent matters because the umpire has to make a judgement if the player could have caught the ball ... but has to understand the fan has the right to the ball too. As long as fan is looking at the ball, he has the right to it. There is no intent to interfere with the player.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Nope. If it hits the top of the wall and comes back into play, it is not a HR. It has to clear the yellow line.

But you’re definitely right about the look on their faces. And it was unfortunate that happened, because I think Betts was going to come down with that. And man oh man would that have been a play to see.

Good point. I'm thinking in terms of it hitting walls and tops of fences that are above the yellow line and bouncing back in, so yeah.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Remember ... the hitter wasn't ruled out in Bartman's play because Alou reached into the stands.

The reason I bring intent is the so called, "no man's land." I was wondering why baseball analysts were talking about intent too. Because both the fielder and fan had right to the ball (on the yellow line), the umpire has to JUDGE if the fielder could have caught the ball. If both the fielder and fan were sincerely trying to catch the ball ... they both had the right of way.

If you believe the fan reached over the boundary, then it doesn't matter. It's fan interference. If the player reached over in the stands, then it's not fan interference. If it's over "no mans' land," then both the player and fan had the right to the ball. That's when I believe intent matters because the umpire has to make a judgement if the player could have caught the ball ... but has to understand the fan has the right to the ball too. As long as fan is looking at the ball, he has the right to it. There is no intent to interfere with the player.

But you can’t just add a dynamic to the rule like that. You’re right about the no-man’s land, but then you can’t just all of a sudden say.. well, since the area right above the wall isn’t clearly defined, we’ll add another dynamic of “intent” as well. Maybe that’d be the ideal thing to do, but that’s not how rules work.

 

[piteus]

But you can’t just add a dynamic to the rule like that. You’re right about the no-man’s land, but then you can’t just all of a sudden say.. well, since the area right above the wall isn’t clearly defined, we’ll add another dynamic of “intent” as well. Maybe that’d be the ideal thing to do, but that’s not how rules work.

That's why I made sure to note that the umpire had to JUDGE if the player would have caught the ball or not. IF both the fan and player's INTENT was the ball in "no man's land," then they both have the right to the ball. It brings the call back to umpire judgement.

It also matters the ball cleared the fence. The umpire has to JUDGE it as a homer or fan interference. There's only two options: homer or out.

Ultimately, MLB sided with Joe West and said the fans reached over the boundary. That's why the hitter was out. The fans should have been ejected.

Do you think the fans reached over the boundary? Or do you think they were in no man's land?

 

[piteus]

I understand why people might think it was fan interference. It wasn't as clear as I first thought. However, I'm pretty sure the ball was in "no man's land." However, Joe West is adamant that the fan reached over the boundary and impeded Mookie Betts' glove.

That's my issue. I don't think Joe West saw what most of America witnessed. He's either lying or incompetent on that play.

https://deadspin.com/joe-west-tries-to-explain-that-fan-interference-call-1829835433

Here's exactly what Joe West saw without a high powered lens.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

I understand why people might think it was fan interference. It wasn't as clear as I first thought. However, I'm pretty sure the ball was in "no man's land." However, Joe West is adamant that the fan reached over the boundary and impeded Mookie Betts' glove.

That's my issue. I don't think Joe West saw what most of America witnessed. He's either lying or incompetent on that play.

https://deadspin.com/joe-west-tries-to-explain-that-fan-interference-call-1829835433

Here's exactly what Joe West saw without a high powered lens.

In his defense... and don’t get me wrong, I hate the dude... but of course he’s going to be adamant about it. I wouldn’t expect an umpire to do anything else, and that’s fine. And that’s coming from someone who is not a huge fan of those guys most of the time.

 

[piteus]

In his defense... and don’t get me wrong, I hate the dude... but of course he’s going to be adamant about it. I wouldn’t expect an umpire to do anything else, and that’s fine. And that’s coming from someone who is not a huge fan of those guys most of the time.

I agree. However, it's also so Joe West. His reputation doesn't help him.

Apparently, players and coaches think Joe West is a good ump WHEN he isn't on his high horse. Angel Hernandez is a different story.

 

[piteus]

This might make Illinois fans feel a bit better. Bill Self is screwed. I don't see how the NCAA can try to sweep this under the rug.

Attorney: Adidas OK'd payment at Self's request

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

This might make Illinois fans feel a bit better. Bill Self is screwed. I don't see how the NCAA can try to sweep this under the rug.

Attorney: Adidas OK'd payment at Self's request

Well then you don’t know the NCAA well.

 

[piteus]

Well then you don’t know the NCAA well.

True. All I ask is that the NCAA punish the coaches who are caught RED HANDED. Currently, it includes Self, Miller, and Pitino.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Self will get a slap on the wrist. Like hell the NCAA realistically severely punishes a money program.

And holy cow, LeBron looks weird in a Lakers jersey.

 

[clydesdale line]

Chris Sale is in the World Series!

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Chris Sale is in the World Series!

No need to laugh. I'm happy for Sale. No matter what happens with Moncada, Kopech and Basabe, trading Sale was the right move. Whether Hahn should have been allowed to make that trade is what is the burning question.

 

[clydesdale line]

No need to laugh.

I'm a White Sox fan...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Congrats to the 2018 World Series champion Boston Red Sox.

Just saving time from having to post that in a week or so from now.

 

[Easy E]

Where's "Built for a three peat" Mitch at?

No hangover for Astros like the Cubbies huh Dallas Keuchel?