Interference of Red Sox and Astros fans: all you need to know about the controversial call in the game 4 ALCS

Depending on your partisanship, you have probably already given thanks, gritted your teeth or questioned mute, you wonder why. fan interference call this helped to decide ALCS match 4 between the Boston Red Sox and the Houston Astros. The scrambled details of this crucial moment mean that an orderly summary can be in order. The following – in a nice and user-friendly FAQ format for the browser – is such a business. Let's start.

What happened?

In the bottom of the first goal and with George Springer at first with a withdrawal, Houston's Jose Altuve led the ball to the wall in the right field. On the right, Boston 's Mookie Betts – perhaps the best defensive corner player of today' s match – timed him on the warning lane and jumped for the shot. At the naked eye, Betts seemed ready to carry the ball just above the wall. At the same time, several fans got caught in the hand and one of the supporters almost certainly inadvertently bumped into Betts' open glove and closed down the glove just as the balloon had to reach it. Crew chief Joe West judged the interference from the fans, which meant that Altuve was second in the heat and Springer came back to first base. West's call was confirmed after a replay of 3 minutes and 13 seconds.

TL; DR. Is there a video of the play that I can watch?

But of course.

So what is the official rule in question?

Here is this taken from MLB Rule 3.16 (it's me who points out, but you can borrow it).

In all cases of spectator interfering with a struck or thrown ball, the ball must be declared dead and the base pitchers may be placed at the position of the referee who would have determined that they would have been without interference. When a spectator clearly prevents a field player from catching a flying ball by reaching the playing field, the batter is excluded.. But no interference is called if a spectator comes into contact with a ball struck or thrown without reaching the playing field – even if a defensive player could have taken the ball if the spectator was not there.

In addition, interference must occur in front of the wall plane and not, for example, when the fan hand hovers over the top of the wall. So the question is whether or the fans who hit the Betts glove, making a catch impossible, did so by crossing the yellow line on the fence and on the playing field. Time for the screengrab seed

This is not definitive, thanks to the angle, which means that we are in Rorschach territory. This means that your interpretation of what you see above will probably match your rooted interests. For these eyes, it looks like the Betts glove and the fan hand that comes in contact are on the professional side of the yellow line (the white blur between the Betts glove and the palm of the vent is the ball ). Again, the angle does not allow us to make firm judgments.

Did the crew Joe West explain the reasons he made the call for interference?

Yes. Via Pete Abraham on TwitterHere is what West said about his call on the ground:

Q. What did you see that caused the initial call of fans interference?
JOE WEST: Well, when he jumped to catch the ball, the spectator came out of the stands, hit him over the playground and closed his glove.

Q. So the balloon had not crossed the ramp yet?
JOE WEST: No.

Q. And Betts' glove had not crossed the railing yet, do you believe?
JOE WEST: No.

Q. Will the fan –
JOE WEST: Here is the entirety of the piece. He hit the ball in the right field. He jumped to try to make a catch. The fan interfered on the playground. That's why I called the audience interference.

Q. So, it's a clear call in your mind?
JOE WEST: Yes.

Q. Was there ever a single call that you saw that the broadcast managers saw on the retransmission and confirmed –
JOE WEST: I do not know what he saw. He just – the head of the retransmission said that I was right.

Q. OK
JOE WEST: That's all. He said that I have nothing that can change it.

So, in West's words, he perceived contact with the Betts glove as occurring on the playing field. Thus, he judged the interference of the fans in accordance with the rule quoted above.

So, the replay revealed that West's call was correct?

That's what West says above, but it's not quite true. The replay came back as a "pending" call, meaning in plain language that there was not enough video evidence to confirm the call or the call. cancel. In other words, if West had called the turn of events instead of interference, that would have also been the case. Again, there was simply no angle that provided definitive evidence.

So why is there not a better angle of view on the game?

Well, it looks a bit like this:

It also would not have been a perfect angle – perfect would have been a camera placed throughout the fence – but it was better than what we currently have. Unfortunately, the security officer from Minute Maid Park was (understandably enough) out of control to better see the room.

Did the final play a role in the final result of the fourth match?

Very probably. the Red Sox wins by 8-6 following a tense bottom of the ninth. During this first run, Marwin Gonzalez joined HBP after Altuve's call, then Yuli Gurriel went to Betts to end the inning. If Altuve was dominated by a homerun, then you can say that we are talking about a draw after the Astros have escaped on a point in the eighth of Craig Kimbrel. On the other hand, specific events in a baseball game reverberate in other specific events, and an Altuve home run in the first may have altered tactical decisions, large and small, during the rest of the part. Nevertheless, the wider reality is that the Astros lost by two and Altuve may have been deprived of a two-point homer in a round in which the Astros failed to score after the loss. d & # 39; Altuve.

As for the fact that it's a home run, well, it's complicated. The work of an arbitrator when he decides to interfere is to "cancel the act of interference", according to the terms of rule 6.01 (e). If, in the judgment of the referee, a ball goes out of the park when the support touches it, he can then direct it towards a goal. As this interference was triggered by the touching and closing of the Betts glove just as the ball arrived, West "invalidated" the act by canceling Altuve. If a fan had caught the ball instead of catching the glove, a set of different considerations would have been at stake (although that did not change West's decision). Alternatively, if the ball simply strikes Betts's glove without any interference and returns to the field, it is called a live ball.

What did Kate Upton think?

With the warning that she is a fan of her husband's team, Justin Verlander, here it is:

Duly noted. Again, however, it all boils down to whether you think the fan in question has reached the back of the outer wall of the outfield, and we have no compelling evidence of that in any way or in any way. other.

Are there any other calls / non-calls of famous fan interference?

Sure. You have probably heard the name of Steve Bartman invoked since Wednesday night and we all know this story. There is also Jeffrey Maier, who played a leading role in Derek Jeter's home race in the 1996 ALCS. There was then another Yankees scraper, Jared Macchirole, who might or might not have get in touch with Nelson Cruz's glove during a Robinson Cano race against the wall during the ALCS 2010. This particular incident spawned one of the most important and varied GIFs of the vast expanse of the history of humanity:

In addition, let 's not forget Victor Martinez' s run – in against track and field in the 2013 ALDS:

The best of these, however, lies at the intersection of fan interference and heavyweight parenting decisions. Come back with us to Wrigley Field the year of our Lord 2015:

Whatever it is, let's now come back to screaming about Joe West.