Rays batter Brandon Lowe's home run stood on review as umpires called both fan interference
and a home run on the same play. Blue Jays manager John Schneider met with 3B Umpire Laz Diaz afterward to discuss the unusual ruling, which we now analyze.
With one out and two on in the bottom of the 3rd inning, Rays batter Lowe hit a 2-2 changeup from Blue Jays pitcher José Berríos on a fly ball to deep right-center field. Blue Jays right fielder Nathan Lukes jumped in an attempt to catch the ball, but a fan reached out of the stands and caught the descending fly ball, ruled a home run by 1B Umpire Brian O'Nora.
Upon Replay Review as the result of a Crew Chief initiated-second look (potential home runs are chief reviews), Replay determined that while the fan did definitively commit spectator interference, the home run would ultimately stand because, absent the fan's interference, the ball would have left the yard anyway.
In crafting this ruling, the Replay Official relied on two different rules concerning spectator interference. The analysis thus relies on two different parts.
First, the Official Baseball Rules definition of terms delineates what spectator interference actually is: "Spectator interference occurs when a spectator (or an object thrown by the spectator) hinders a player’s attempt to make a play on a live ball, by going onto the playing field, or reaching out of the stands and over the playing field."
Upon review, Replay HQ in New York determined clear and convincing evidence did exist to declare that spectator interference did occur. To that end, the call on the field of no interference was overturned.
Second, OBR 6.01(e) is triggered only if the spectator interference definition's criteria are satisfied. OBR 6.01(e) states, "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 their opinion will nullify the act of interference." An approved ruling allows the umpire to award an out if the fielder would have caught the ball if not for the interference.
This second part of the equation is where Replay Review encountered more difficulty. Because the video angles available were all from press box/behind the home plate area, and no side angle (e.g., parallel to the fence-line) existed, Replay HQ could not definitely determine what would have happened had interference not occurred. In other words, Replay had trouble with the "nullify the act" portion of the rule.
With a lack of clear and convincing evidence to determine how to nullify the act of interference, that leaves with a peculiar ruling of overturn for the interference part of the equation, but call stands for the nullification portion.
Accordingly, the technically correct language and outcome for this play is that the call on the field of no interference was overturned. It was spectator interference, but because of a lack of clear and convincing evidence to suggest what would have occurred absent the fan's illegal involvement, the home run ultimately stands as called.
Video as follows:
