Rule 3.16

[Auggie]

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.

Rule 3.16 Comment: 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 3.15. 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. Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/game_preliminaries_3.jsp

Instant fucking replay, and they STILL GET IT WRONG!

[Upton]

1. The replay was inconclusive

just as the image is, so the ruling on the field stands..

It's 8-4 now..doesn't matter anyway..

[Auggie]

2. The fan leaned OVER the fence, INTO the field of play

Inconclusive my ass

[Upton]

3. Look at the image..

and forget about the gloves, player and fan alike, that ball is definitely headed over the yellow line..

[Auggie]

4. Not if Reddick catches the ball

Martinez is on second due to fan interference

[Upton]

8. I was just watching Bob Melvin..

and when asked about the disputed HR, he explained the umpires told him it was going to be over the yellow line anyway.. so it didn't matter that the fan reached out. Makes sense to me. Good call.

[trumad]

5. There aint no way in hell he catches that.

[Auggie]

6. There's no way of knowing for sure

[trumad]

7. by looking at it Auggie.

[Auggie]

9. No one can say for sure ... Reddick may have tipped the ball back into play even

[JonLP24]

12. Not if the player is still on his way up

[El Supremo]

10. Another view

I don't know. But I would hang any fan that interferes with my team!

[madinmaryland]

11. Tebow 3:16 interfered with this play?

The evidence as described during the game was not definitive (yes, I saw the play and the call on tv).

[joeybee12]

14. I assumed this was a Timmeh thread before I clicked on it!

[joeybee12]

13. I think it was the right call...close, but the right one...nt

[Auggie]

15. I'm not hearing much otherwise from the Oakland A's,

except for Josh Reddick (he's insisting he could have caught it), or from local media / assorted pundits besides the A's broadcasters, who think it should be a double.

I'm glad the "fan" lost the baseball.

[joeybee12]

16. Didn't affect the outcome which is good...

Hate to see games decided on controversial calls.

[Auggie]

17. I think it did, or rather, played a huge role in the outcome ...

but that's another discussion.

We'll get them Thursday!

[joeybee12]

18. I hope so...I want Sherzer out! nt