CHW-LAA game 5: Ground rule double/fan interference

BB73 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-16-2005, 10:50 PM

In the bottom of the 5th inning, the Angels had a runner on first. He was running on the pitch when Figgins hit a ball that bounced on the warning track and was grabbed by a fan reaching over the wall to grasp the ball cleanly, while holding a bottle of beer in his other hand. The right fielder was not close enough to play the ball before it got to the wall.

Initially, the runner stayed on 3rd, with a ground rule double. Scioscia came out and asked for a ruling that the runner would have scored on the play. I thought the announcers did a bad job of explaining the ruling, so I'll take a shot at it, based on my unprofessional understanding of the rules.
Then I'll ask JXC to rule on my explanation.

If the ball would have gone into the stands without the fan's involvement, it would have strictly a ground rule double, and since the runner was between second and third when the ball entered the stands, he would have had to stay at third base. Umpires aren't allowed to make a judgment call in that situation as to whether a runner would have scored. Is that correct, JXC?

Thus, the umpires had to first determine that fan interference was involved in the ground rule double. Once they ruled that the ball would have stayed in the field of play without the fan's grabbing the ball (which was a correct ruling, the ball was going to hit the wall on first bounce), they have a ruling of a ground rule double with fan interference. With the fan interference involved, the umpires then are expected to judge whether the runner who started on first base would have obviously (there's probably a different word in the rulebook) scored; and if so, award him home plate. Which is what they did, and once again they were correct.

I'm only going into the detailed explanation since the announcers seemed to avoid the distinction between a ground rule double and the added factor of fan interference, and I've had discussions on the rule in the past.

LAA was lucky they got the ruling, since it was a home fan that messed up the play. The announcers speculated that Figgins may have had a triple (which wasn't obvious to me, but it was possible), but the umpires can't award the hitter a triple. Figgins ended up going to third and later scored on a sacrifice fly, so it will all be forgotten as far as the outcome of the game.

But the Angels fan with the beer wasn't any smarter than Chicago's Bartman in 2003. Putting his hands on the ball was only going to hurt the home team, but he did it anyway.

MililaniBuckeye · #2 (**permalink**) 10-16-2005, 11:02 PM

I believe umpires are indeed allowed to make determinations whether or not (a) runner(s) would've scored...

BB73 · #3 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MililaniBuckeye

I believe umpires are indeed allowed to make determinations whether or not (a) runner(s) would've scored...

That's the specific clarification I'm waiting for JXC to weigh in on.

Are they only allowed to do that in cases of fan interference, or can they also do it on 'regular' ground rule doubles, where no fans are involved?

JonathanXC · #4 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BB73

In the bottom of the 5th inning, the Angels had a runner on first. He was running on the pitch when Figgins hit a ball that bounced on the warning track and was grabbed by a fan reaching over the wall to grasp the ball cleanly, while holding a bottle of beer in his other hand. The right fielder was not close enough to play the ball before it got to the wall.

Initially, the runner stayed on 3rd, with a ground rule double. Scioscia came out and asked for a ruling that the runner would have scored on the play. I thought the announcers did a bad job of explaining the ruling, so I'll take a shot at it, based on my unprofessional understanding of the rules.
Then I'll ask JXC to rule on my explanation.

If the ball would have gone into the stands without the fan's involvement, it would have strictly a ground rule double, and since the runner was between second and third when the ball entered the stands, he would have had to stay at third base. Umpires aren't allowed to make a judgment call in that situation as to whether a runner would have scored. Is that correct, JXC?

Thus, the umpires had to first determine that fan interference was involved in the ground rule double. Once they ruled that the ball would have stayed in the field of play without the fan's grabbing the ball (which was a correct ruling, the ball was going to hit the wall on first bounce), they have a ruling of a ground rule double with fan interference. With the fan interference involved, the umpires then are expected to judge whether the runner who started on first base would have obviously (there's probably a different word in the rulebook) scored; and if so, award him home plate. Which is what they did, and once again they were correct.

I'm only going into the detailed explanation since the announcers seemed to avoid the distinction between a ground rule double and the added factor of fan interference, and I've had discussions on the rule in the past.

LAA was lucky they got the ruling, since it was a home fan that messed up the play. The announcers speculated that Figgins may have had a triple (which wasn't obvious to me, but it was possible), but the umpires can't award the hitter a triple. Figgins ended up going to third and later scored on a sacrifice fly, so it will all be forgotten as far as the outcome of the game.

But the Angels fan with the beer wasn't any smarter than Chicago's Bartman in 2003. Putting his hands on the ball was only going to hurt the home team, but he did it anyway.

Never EVER listen to announcers. Especially with fan interference. They have no idea what they are talking about.

When there is fan interference, which is when a fan reaches over the stands into the field of play and touches the ball...then it is NOT a ground rule double. Instead the ball is dead RIGHT AWAY, and the runners are awarded the bases that, in the umpires judgment, they would have reached had there not been interference. So, on the play that you were talking about, it was definitely right to score the runner, because if the ball had not been touched, the run would have scored easily. It was also questionable as to whether the batter would have gotten 2nd or 3rd. It's up to the umpires. I think 2nd was the right award. It would have been a close play at 3rd, and also it was the angels fans who touched it...so putting him at second seems to be fair. So the announcers are wrong when saying the batter got 2nd automatically. He gets whatever the umpires think he should get. Usually it's 2nd, but sometimes it can be more (or less).

If the ball goes out of play on its own, without fan interference...then it's a dead ball, and the runners get 2 bases from where they were at the time the pitcher pitched the ball. So if the ball had gone out on it's own, they would have had 2nd and 3rd. This is what fans call a ground rule double...umpires look at it as a two base award from the time of the pitch. It's not a ground rule...it's a real rule.

Interesting situation i've never seen happen, but could:

Let's say a fan reaches over the fence, and prevents a player from catching the ball. If the fielder would have likely caught the ball, then you call the batter out. BUT ALSO, lets say there was a runner at 3rd and there were less than two outs. You would likely also allow the runner from 3rd to score, because if the ball was hit to the fence, he likely would have scored on the sac fly. That's something that i've talked about with a couple other professional umpires. It would be a tough call to make, but it would be the right one. Also...if this happened in foul territory, but still deep enough to score the run, would you score the run? Or would you call it a foul ball, assuming that the fielder wouldn't have wanted to catch it, because he'd rather it drop foul instead of trading an out for a run.

If this isn't clear, please ask more quesitons. I can never tell if i'm making sense or not, because baseball rules ARE NOT very easy. The rulebook is confusing. I usually am talking rules with other umpires, and sometimes i'm not sure how to go about explaining things to people who aren't umpires. I recommend to any baseball fan to go online, mlb.com, and look up the rules and read them. It takes awhile, and it's boring, but my gosh will you learn a lot about the game of baseball.

BB73 · #5 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MililaniBuckeye

I believe umpires are indeed allowed to make determinations whether or not (a) runner(s) would've scored...

Thanks again for another clarification, JXC.

Just to double-check something, though. This scenario is different than what happened in the game. If the umpires would have ruled that the ball would have gone into the stands without the fan reaching into the field of play, does fan interference come into play? Or since the fan in that situation doesn't affect the ball going into the stands, is it the dead ball/two base award, with no discretion by the umpires about where the runners would have ended up?