Fan Interference AND HR? Blue Jays-Rays Replay Rewind

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:

MLB Ejection 132 - James Hoye (5; Mike Shildt)

HP Umpire James Hoye ejected Padres manager Mike Shildt (Replay Review decision that overturned Xander Bogaert's HR to fan interference/out; QOCN) in the bottom of the 2nd inning of the #Giants-#Padres game. With none out and none on, Padres batter Xander Bogaerts hit a 3-1 fastball from Giants pitcher Robbie Ray on a fly ball to left field, whereupon outfield Heliot Ramos attempted to catch the fly ball as a fan did as well, ruled a home run by 2B Umpire DJ Reyburn and overturned to fan interference/out upon Replay Review as the result of a Crew Chief Review. Replays do not clearly and convincingly suggest whether or not the spectator reached out of the stands and over the playing field (and in doing so hindered the fielder), the call was incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the Giants were leading, 4-0. The Giants ultimately won the contest, 4-3.

This is James Hoye (92)'s 5th ejection of 2025.

*The initial call's QOC may very well be Correct; however, the decision to overturn the original ruling was incorrect, for lack of clear and convincing evidence with which to overturn or confirm it.

Official Baseball Rules Definition: "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."

This is the 132nd ejection of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 71st manager ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 71 Managers, 23 Coaches, 38 Players.

This is San Diego's 8th ejection of 2025, 1st in the NL West (SD 8; ARI 5; SF 4; LAD 3; COL 2).

This is Mike Shildt's 2nd ejection of 2025, 1st since July 8 (Brian Walsh; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

This is James Hoye's 5th ejection of 2025, 1st since July 20 (Tom Mansolino; QOC = U-c [Check Swing]).

Wrap: San Francisco Giants vs San Diego Padres, 8/18/25 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 093 - Quinn Wolcott (1; Bob Melvin)

HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott ejected Giants manager Bob Melvin (strike three call to Heliot Ramos; QOCN, following a Replay Review decision that overturned 2B Umpire Paul Clemons' fan interference/out call to fan int/double) in the 8th inning of the #Giants-#Diamondbacks game. With one out and none on, Giants batter Christian Koss hit a 2-0 fastball from Diamondbacks pitcher John Curtiss on a fly ball to deep left field whereupon left fielder Tim Tawa leapt in an attempt to catch the batted ball, ruled fan interference and an out by 2B Umpire Clemons and overturned to a fan interference two-base award (double) upon Replay Review as the result of a Crew Chief Review by 1B Umpire Adrian Johnson. Later, with two out and one on, Giants batter Ramos took a 1-2 fastball from Diamondbacks pitcher Shelby Miller for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located off the outer edge of home plate and thigh high (px 0.94, pz 2.62), the call was incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the Diamondbacks were leading, 4-2. The Diamondbacks ultimately won the contest, 4-2.

  

This is Quinn Wolcott (81)'s 1st ejection of 2025.

This is the 93rd ejection report of the 2025 MLB regular season.

This is the 49th manager ejection of 2025. Ejection Tally: 49 Managers, 14 Coaches, 30 Players.

This is San Francisco's 3rd ejection of 2025, 2nd in the NL West (ARI 4; LAD, SF 3; COL 1).

This is Bob Melvin's 3rd ejection of 2025, 1st since May 27 (Tony Randazzo; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Quinn Wolcott's 1st ejection since April 24, 2023 (Alex Cora; QOC = Y-c [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: San Francisco Giants vs Arizona Diamondbacks, 6/30/25 | Video as follows:

Shohei Ohtani's Home Run or Fan Interference in Tokyo?

Dodgers DH Shohei Ohtani hit a home run in Game 2 of LA's Tokyo Series sweep over Chicago, but not after umpires reviewed the play for spectator interference. Let's take another look at this call stands decision, made due to lack of clear and convincing evidence.

With one out and none on in the top of the 5th inning, Ohtani hit a 2-2 fastball from Cubs pitcher Nate Pearson to deep right-center field, whereupon a fan reached for and touched the baseball, ruled a home run by 2B Umpire John Libka.

Crew Chief Bill Miller initiated a review for spectator interference, defined by the Official Baseball Rules as occurring "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."

OBR 6.01(e) specifies what to do when spectator interference occurs: "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."

Replay determined that available camera angles (which themselves suffered from varying degrees of parallax) did not provide clear/convincing evidence to confirm or overturn the call, and thus ruled the original on-field ruling of home run should stand.

Video as follows:

Fan Interference in the World Series (Plus a C&C)

We review a first-inning spectator interference play in New York during Game 4 of #Dodgers-#Yankees World Series when a fan was ejected for prying open Mookie Betts' glove during a catch and Alex Verdugo's catch and carry play during Game 1 in Los Angeles.

First, in the 10th inning of Game 1, with one out and runners on first and second base, Yankees outfielder Verdugo ran to catch Dodgers batter Shohei Ohtani's fly ball in foul territory along the left field warning track, catching the baseball before falling into the stands and attempting to throw the ball back to the field to hold the runners.

LF Umpire Chad Fairchild ruled Ohtani out on the catch and awarded runners R1 and R2 one base each pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 5.06(b)(3)(C) pertaining to catch-and-carry situations, which states, "If a fielder, after having made a legal catch, should step or fall into any out-of-play area, the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base, without liability to be put out, from their last legally touched base at the time the fielder entered such out-of-play area."

Finally, in Game 4 in New York, RF Umpire Mark Carlson called spectator interference when a front-row fan reached over the foul fence as Dodgers outfielder Betts was attempting to catch Gleyber Torres' fly ball. 

For this play, the relevant rules are found in the definitions: "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," and OBR 6.01(e): "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."

Thus, to nullify the act, Torres was declared out and the fans ultimately ejected not by the umpires, but by Yankee Stadium security.

Video as follows:

Did Brewers Fan Interfere with Alonso by Pushing Net?

Did a Brewers fan commit interference by pushing the protective netting as Mets first baseman Pete Alonso attempted to catch William Contreras' fly ball along the fence-line?

With two out and two in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Mets-Brewers Wild Card deciding Game 3, the spectator displaced the protective netting MLB mandated be installed along the infield at all stadiums for fan safety by pushing it toward the playing field, on and over the warning track.

Alonso, tracking the foul fly, failed to catch it as it landed near the fan in question, on the warning track, as 1B Umpire Alan Porter signaled "safe": no catch and no interference.

Does this constitute interference?

The definition of spectator interference states, "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."

Even though the rule does not specifically address the case of a fan pushing a loose infield net over the field but not themself reaching out of the stands, yes, this play is eligible for spectator interference, which is also a reviewable play (it wasn't challenged). Furthermore, pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(e), the batter may be called out for the actions of the interfering fan.

With that in mind, what's your call? Video as follows:

Laz Diaz Ejects Fan Who Threw Ball Toward Umpire

2B Umpire and Crew Chief Laz Diaz 'ejected' a fan for throwing a baseball onto the playing field, which landed near the umpire, during Saturday's Rockies-Giants game in San Francisco. Although technically an order for stadium personnel to remove the fan rather than a direct ejection, Diaz's ruling involves both the Official Baseball Rules and, locally, the Oracle Park Guest Code of Conduct.

All MLB stadiums have rules for spectators similar to Oracle Park's, which states, "guests entering, or attempting to enter, the playing field, or other areas which they are unauthorized to enter, or who throw (or attempt to throw) objects, with the exception of home run balls, in the stands or onto the field, are subject to ejection and prosecution. Fans interfering while a ball is in play are subject to ejection."

Although umpires are not specifically empowered with the authority to 'eject' fans, Official Baseball Rule 8.01(b) makes clear that umpires can order stadium personnel remove the fan: "Each umpire has authority to order a player, coach, manager or Club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything which affects the administering of these rules, and to enforce the prescribed penalties."

Spectators are #1—the most permissive spot—on the tolerance hierarchy for officiating, but getting physically involved with the game crosses that line. 

In 2017, Joe West, umpiring first base, ordered a game temporarily halted after a fan threw a ball from the stands and hit West in the back of his head.

Video as follows:

Home Run Stands Even With Fan Interference Optics

Rockies batter Michael Toglia's home run survived Replay Review in Colorado despite video definitively indicating a fan's glove made contact with Royals left fielder Dairon Blanco's glove while the ball was still in flight. Why did umpires in New York return a "call stands"? It's baseball's parallax.

The Official Baseball Rules Definitions of Terms state, "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."

The definition of playing field is further explained with OBR 2.01 and the definition of fair territory, which state, "that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines, from home base to the bottom of the playing field" (foul is similar [yet different]). Thus, the vertical plane along the warning track side of the outfield wall/fence serves as the playing field's diving line.

This means the top of the fence is fair game for the fan to attempt a catch or even to interfere with the fielder—effectively, there is no interference to consider unless the fan reaches out over the warning track, not above the wall itself.

OBR 6.01(e) states that if fan interference occurs, "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," including the potential of awarding the defensive team an out.

Upon Crew Chief Larry Vanover shipping this to Replay HQ, the standard to confirm or overturn a call is "clear and convincing" video evidence, the absence of which results in a call stands outcome.

The issue with reviewing this play at Coors Field is a similar issue at other parks, too, in that the replay camera angles all suffer from a degree of parallax illusion, which creates uncertainty and fails to meet the clear and convincing standard.

Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, measured by angle of inclination between two lines. Parallax effect occurs when viewing from a certain angle creates an illusion that something has occurred (such as, in hockey, a puck crossing a goal line) that upon viewing the play from a more definitive angle—namely top-down—conclusively demonstrates the initial impression was incorrect.

Because the fan's hands were in the air, parallax effect made it difficult to judge the fan's position relative to the playing field boundary. Accordingly, even though it might look at first glance as if the fan definitively reached over the playing field and contacted the fielder and ball at that point, the Replay Official could not be certain that this view was free from parallax illusion, and returned a call stands verdict due to this uncertainty.

Thus, to Royals manager Matt Quatraro's statement, "I don't know what the explanation was, and whatever it was, it's going to be a bad explanation," there you are—through science.

Video as follows:

A Pesky Corner at Fenway Park & Fan Interference

Rays right fielder Randy Arozarena's apparent catch of Red Sox batter JD Martinez' fly ball at Fenway Park turned into a simple foul ball as umpires ruled a fan, without interfering, had touched the ball near Pesky's Pole before Arozarena was able to secure it.

Originally ruled an out by 1B Umpire Jeremie Rehak, Replay Review overturned the call based on video evidence suggesting that the fan had touched the ball, which descended along the fence-line in the right field corner.

Thus, when Red Sox Manager Alex Cora challenged the call, umpires at Replay Review HQ in New York looked at two elements: First, did the fan actually touch the ball, and, second, did this touching constitute spectator interference or not?

With replays suggesting the fan did touch the ball, Replay turned to the question of where the fan touched the ball. Pursuant to the Official Baseball Rules' definition, "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."

Thus, because replays showed the fan/ball interaction likely occurred above the top of the wall or fully within the stands, the spectator interference criteria were not fulfilled and Crew Chief Dan Iassogna conveyed the proper ruling upon review: foul ball, considered dead once it touched a spectator in dead ball territory.

As for the top of the wall—a neutral zone of sorts which we know can be considered as part of live ball territory or dead ball territory (see the case of a batted fair ball that strikes the top of the wall and bounds back onto the playing field = live ball vs. a similar batted fair ball striking the top of the wall and bounding into the stands = home run)—the Definition of Terms for Foul [and Fair] Territory helps us by delineating how far, exactly, the playing field reaches to: "extended to the fence and perpendicularly upwards."

Accordingly, the fan either remaining fully within the stands or touching the ball on top of the wall has not interfered and, by virtue of touching the ball before Arozarena caught it, has caused the ball to become dead, resulting in the proper call of a foul ball and legal play.

Video as follows:

M's Catch Both Foul Ball and Fan's Glove

As if to drive the fan interference point home, Friday's Mariners-Angels game featured a play when Seattle's Domingo Santana attempted to catch a foul fly ball near the right field wall just as a fan in the stands tried to do the same. Santana emerged from this entanglement with one baseball and two gloves—his and the flummoxed fan's—as 1B Umpire Ron Kulpa signaled an air out.

Santana catches more than he bargained for.

Was this the correct call or did fan interference play a part?

The Play: With none out and none on in the bottom of the 5th inning, Angels batter Jonathan Lucroy hit a 2-2 sinker from Mariners pitcher Marco Gonzales in the air to right field, with right fielder Santana pursuing the ball into foul territory and toward the wall separating the playing field from the spectator area. As Lucroy's batted fly ball descended near the boundary, both Santana and several fans reached for the ball, with Santana ultimately coming up with both the baseball and a fan's glove, ruled an out by 1B Umpire Kulpa.

The Rule: By now, we are well versed in Official Baseball Rule 6.01(e)'s penalty for fan interference ("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"), just as we are familiar with the definition of 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").

The playing field is the fielder's domain.

Analysis: So what happened Friday in Anaheim? When Santana reached for the ball against the wall, he ran up against the boundary line separating the playing field from spectator area, from live ball territory and dead ball territory. By rule, we know that anything on the playing field side of the base of the wall is in play and the fielder has right-of-way while anything on the grandstand side of this plane is a free-for-all.

We also know that as soon as a fan makes contact with a live ball—regardless of which side of the boundary the ball is on—the ball becomes dead.

When a fan makes contact with a fielder, but not with the ball, the play remains alive unless the umpire deems that spectator interference has occurred, in which case the ball becomes dead and the nullification penalties are imposed.

A diagram of spectator interference.

In the case of Santana, replays indicate the ball first made contact with the fan's glove, before dropping, due to momentum, into Santana's glove, giving the appearance that Santana had caught the ball cleanly.

By rule, the ball is dead at the moment of contact with the fan's glove. Angels Manager Brad Ausmus failed to challenge this boundary call; had this play been adjudicated by Replay Review, it would have thus been overturned. But overturned to what?

The two options here are 1) fan interference, or 2) foul ball.

1) Fan interference is the proper call if the spectator's glove first made contact with the baseball as it was over the playing field. This would mean the spectator broke through the boundary plane (see above diagram) and touched the batted ball. In order to nullify the act, I surmise Replay Review would have declared the batter out, essentially ending up with the same result as what was called on the field (batter out).
Related Post: Fact Check - Bregman's Fan Interference Out (7/26/18).

2) Foul ball is the proper call if the spectator's glove first made contact with the baseball when the ball was not over the playing field (neutral zone or spectator area). In this case, the fan touching the ball not only made it become dead, but also made it a foul ball. The fan has the right of way in the stands and this is where home-field-advantage for spectators comes into play.
Related Post: Fan Inter-Beer-ence - Baseball's Neutral Zone (8/18/18).

Even a slight graze constitutes interference.

Due to the various camera angles used for replays—none of which were positioned on the wall itself—it is ultimately inconclusive as to whether the fan reached out of the stands to interfere or whether the fan legally contacted the ball in the "fan has the right of way" area.

Gil's Replay Review Decision: As a result of this clear and convincing evidence that the fan touched the ball, but a lack of ample evidence to indicate where the ball was in relation to the boundary plane when the fan touched it, I would overturn this call to a foul ball. This is because I have evidence to indicate the ball became dead before Santana caught it, yet I don't have evidence to contradict the on-field ruling that fan interference did not occur. Thus, with evidence that the ball-was-alive-when-it-entered-Santana's-glove call was incorrect but no information regarding the boundary issue, I overturn the catch element while upholding the on-field ruling that there was no fan interference. Hence, a foul ball. Had Kulpa ruled that fan interference occurred, that decision would have stood.

Spectator interference can result in a HR.

Postlude: This is why it's important in a league with Replay Review to call fan interference any and every time it occurs, even if the fielder ultimately catches the ball, or even if the batted ball ultimately ends up being a home run.

For instance, the accompanying image indicates an instance of spectator interference that results in a home run. If the on-field umpire rules this play a home run, but not interference, and Replay Review determines that the ball struck the yellow line before bouncing back onto the field, thus failing to leave the playing field, and is inconclusive as to whether the fan touched the ball, the Replay Official's only recourse is to rule the ball in play and go with whatever the on-field umpire's ruling was in regard to the fan interference issue. If the umpire called the play a home run from the get-go, Replay would overturn it to a double (or triple, as the case may be)...but if the umpire called the play a home run due to fan interference from the get-go, Replay would uphold the HR call.

We've previously discussed the importance of the call on the field, and this—an inconclusive replay for one element of a play, while video is clear for another aspect—is yet another example of why the initial on-field ruling is so vital. If an umpire observes interference that nonetheless results in an out, the interference shouldn't be ignored. Even in non-replay leagues, recall that interference causes the ball to become dead: it's important umpires kill the play when prescribed by rule so unintended consequences don't occur and lead to rules-related controversy, whether or not the interference appeared to have an effect on the play: by rule, the mere fact that a fan has touched a live ball must be addressed.
Related Post: Crew Consultation - Importance of the Call on the Field (7/22/17).

Video as follows:

Replay Rewind - Fan INT & Com Clarity

Baseball's gameday communication problem exists largely because MLB umpires don't verbally communicate with fans or media during the game, the same way NFL and NHL referees have microphones to announce penalties or the way NBA officials walk over to the scorer's and media tables to explain calls.

All we have in baseball is a public address announcer's statement based on the official word accompanied by a visual mechanic—out, safe, no violation (one-hand washout/safe), score the run, waive the run, home run, base award, fair, foul ball, foul tip, hit batsman, strike, ball, obstruction, offensive interference, catcher's interference, fan interference...

...And it's such a fan interference call that brings about this edition of Replay Rewind.

Remember in 2017 when the Associated Press hinted that microphones may soon arrive for MLB umpires? That didn't happen, and instead, we got a leaked Tom Hallion "ass in the jackpot" video that MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred tried to scrub from the internet, and which a related communication with the Umpires' Union recently became the subject of an MLB inquiry related to the Angel Hernandez lawsuit.
Related Post: Umpire Microphones May Arrive in MLB This Year (4/18/17).
Related Post: Revisiting the Situation - Tom Hallion & Terry Collins (6/13/18).
Related Post: Rob Manfred is in the Jackpot - CBA Cut Hallion-Collins (6/15/18).
Related Post: MLB Fight with Hernandez Evokes 20-Year-Old Feud (5/24/19).

MLB tried to hide Hallion/Collins audio.

Anywho, a UEFL fan watching Wednesday's Twins-Indians game sent me a note regarding a play in the bottom of the 5th inning after Indians batter Francisco Lindor was safe at first base due to an overthrown ball.

The Play: With none out and none on, Lindor hit a ground ball to Twins third baseman Miguel Sano, whose throw to first base sailed wide and toward the wall beyond first base, in foul territory. The ball caromed off the bottom of the wall and popped into the air, above the warning track, whereupon a fan appeared to reach over the wall—through the boundary plane separating the field of play from the spectator area—and touched the live ball.

The Call, Replay, and Confirmation: After consultation, Chief Jeff Nelson's crew awarded Lindor second base, prompting a challenge by Twins Manager Rocco Baldelli. Replay Review returned in agreement, confirming HP Umpire Laz Diaz's ruling of fan interference and second-base award for batter-runner Lindor.

Nelly's crew gets together after the play.

The Rule: This was obviously spectator interference, as the fan clearly reached over to touch the live ball, but the question is rather what happens to the runner(s)? Pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(e), "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."

Analysis: Under this "nullify the act" principle (which also shows up in Obstruction Type 2/B situations, e.g.) the umpires must determine what would have happened had the violative act—in this case, fan interference—not occurred. Both the on-field umpires and the Replay Official determined that, had interference not occurred, Lindor would have advanced to second base, and that's why he was awarded said base.

Proper Mechanics: From an umpiring standpoint, everything was handled properly. Diaz, off-camera, declared the ball out of play in real-time, the crew convened after the play to determine that the penalty for fan interference, in order to nullify the act in this situation, would be to award the batter-runner second base, and, upon receipt of the Replay Official's verdict, Crew Chief Nelson visually indicated 1) fan interference, and 2) the batter-runner shall be placed on second base.

Not every Replay is as simple as safe or out.

Communication Problems: The problem, then, is for anyone who isn't familiar with Umpiring Sign Language (USL, ©CloseCallSports), it's not all that easy to figure out 1) what the original ruling was, 2) what exactly was replayed, and 3) what the final outcome was.

The stadium's public address announcer does announce 1) and 3)—the PA listens in for the official verbiage and then dictates this to the stadium—but this isn't too helpful for a television audience subject to broadcasters that aren't all that great with rules to begin with.

Of all replays shown of the play beyond first base, we only see one umpire—1B Umpire Roberto Ortiz—who doesn't make any call whatsoever as the ball leaves the playing field in the fan's hands.

Umpire Ortiz is the only official pictured.

To an umpire, the obvious answer is that we don't see the first base umpire make a call because that's not his call to make. In this situation, the plate umpire has boundary responsibilities, so HP Umpire Diaz, off-camera and in a much better position than any other umpire, is the one making the dead ball call. Because Diaz isn't shown on camera, it'd be very easy for the average fan to assume that the crew didn't make a call whatsoever when, in fact, Diaz did acknowledge that a live ball had died.

The broadcast acknowledged that the crew met to discuss the play, but never followed up with the umpire's ultimate pre-replay determination, all while the public address announced that the Twins were challenging the umpires' ruling that a fan had interfered with the ball.

Nelson signals review's interference finding.

After Replay Review confirmed the crew's ruling, the broadcast was confused whether the runner would be sent back to first or placed at second base, despite Nelson pointing the runner to second base.

Gil's Call: This confusion could be easy to clear up with a better communication system. As for the reluctancy to incorporate microphones, especially re: Hallion/Collins, there's a pretty significant difference between a hot mic during an ejection argument and a deliberately activated microphone during the public announcement of a ruling.

The microphones are already there.

MLB would be wise to shore up the communication issue by adopting the Nippon Professional Baseball approach to placing a microphone on field level for the umpires to use in communicating tricky rulings to the stadium—by not putting the PA microphone on the official like the NFL or NHL does, baseball would avoid a Hallion/Collins situation, while still allowing umpires to communicate with the fans. The Replay Review headsets already have microphones—just add the capability to flip a switch and broadcast to the stadium. Take Ed Hochuli or Wes McCauley out to the ballgame, and give us something like:

Minnesota has challenged the call that a spectator interfered with play and the decision to award the batter-runner second base...

And after the review:

After review, the ruling on the field has been confirmed [or, in McCauley fashion, "the ruling on the field has been...confirmed!]. The spectator reached through the plane separating the stands and playing field, and touched a live ball while it was over the playing field. This is fan interference, the penalty of which shall be to nullify the act. In other words, the penalty is to determine what would have happened had the fan not interfered and to place baserunners accordingly. In this situation, the crew deemed that had the fan not interfered, Lindor would have advanced to second base and awarded him second base in order to nullify the act. The Replay Official confirmed this ruling. Minnesota loses its challenge.

Field-adjacent microphones: a chance for umpires to regain some personality that was lost when MLB asphyxiated the American and National League offices for Y2K.

Video as follows:

No Interference - Umpires Allow Beer Spilled on Player

A fan reaching out of the stands in New York dropped a cup of beer on Brewers left fielder Ryan Braun as he jumped in an attempt to catch Mets batter Pete Alonso's fly ball, resulting in a triple after Replay Review affirmed 3B Umpire Adam Hamari's original ruling that the fan did not interfere with play.

However, with Braun drenched in liquid evidence of wrongdoing, was a no-call the correct call?

The Play: Mets batter Alonso hit a fly ball to deep left-center field, where outfielder Braun jumped at the wall in an attempt to catch the batted ball as a fan reached below the railing and spilled his beer over Braun, who missed his catch and pursued the baseball, which at this point was rolling freely in left field. Alonso wound up cruising into third base as Brewers center fielder Lorenzo Cain pointed toward the stands and the offending fan.

Analysis: In discussing whether or not this was interference, it's always helpful to cite precedent.

In August 2018, a beer-bearing fan similarly interacted with a fielder in San Diego, though unlike Sunday in New York, the August 2018 play had a greater chance of actually depriving fielder Jon Jay with the opportunity to catch a batted ball, though replays ultimately were inconclusive as to whether the fan actually broke the plane separating the field from the spectator area.
Related Post: Fan Inter-Beer-ence - Baseball's Neutral Zone (8/18/18).

Victorino catches a ball as a beer cup flies by.

In August 2009, a fan, identified only as a pixel from the 1960's (real name: Johnny Macchione), threw a cup of beer at Phillies outfielder Shane Victorino as he tried to catch a batted ball. Victorino successfully caught the ball, despite the beer-throw, but a Cubs baserunner scored on the sacrifice fly. Pursuant to "nullify the act" doctrine, this was likely the proper outcome.

In 1988, another Cubs fan dropped some beer (just the liquid) onto Mets center fielder Lenny Dykstra as he attempted to catch a ball. Though Dykstra didn't catch the ball, replays indicate the beer bath didn't hinder his fielding effort.

Sunday Afternoon: This Bud's for Braun.

The Rule: Upon consulting the Definition of Terms, we are left with the following: "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."

As eluded to above, there are two elements to consider.

First, we must determine whether the fan reached out of the stands and over the playing field (or whether an object thrown by the spectator has entered the playing field). Because Braun was covered in the fan's misplaced liquid courage, it follows that, yes, the physical evidence is there to suggest that an object thrown by the fan (albeit unintentionally) did breach the vertical plane separating the spectator area from the playing field.

Second, we must judge whether or not this action has hindered a player's attempt to make a play on a live ball. Replays indicate both Braun and Cain pointed to the beer during live play, suggesting at least some hindrance did occur; however, as communicated visually by Crew Chief Tom Hallion after receiving a decision from New York, and affirmed by MLB's communication in confirming the on-field ruling, the Replay Official ruled that no interference occurred.

Hallion signals no home run and no INT.

Had the Replay Official deemed that interference did occur, Replay would have had the responsibility to place Alonso on the bases or to declare Alonso out so as to nullify the act of interference.

History of the Rule: MLB changed the definition of spectator interference prior to the 2018 season to account for the case where a fan may interfere with a player without actually touching the player or baseball. The old rule required physical contact.

Old Rule: "Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands and over the playing field, or goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball."
Related Post: MLB Changes Rules for Retired Runner, Fan Interference (3/25/18).

The penalty for spectator interference, as in Rule 6.01(e), was not changed: "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."

Gil's Call: If the fan is wearing Mets apparel, that's interference. If the fan is wearing Brewers clothing, it's a legal play. That's not a statement of fact and it's definitely not the rule (by rule, I believe this was interference as the fielder was hindered in his pursuit of the uncaught ball and would have placed Alonso at second or third, depending on the unaired high-home camera angle [there's a chance Alonso would wind up at third base regardless]; to be clear, however, there was no interference on the initial catch/no catch issue), but calling the interference by the fan's team affiliation feels like the most just outcome...that if applied by an umpire during a game would surely land that umpire's ass in the jackpot.

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 034 - Jerry Meals (1; Aaron Boone)

2B Umpire Jerry Meals ejected Yankees Manager Aaron Boone (Replay Review decision that overturned 3B Umpire Marty Foster's HR call to a fan interference out; QOCY) in the bottom of the 3rd inning of the Royals-Yankees game. With one out and two on (R1, R2), Yankees batter Gleyber Torres hit a 1-1 fastball on a fly ball to the left field wall, ruled a home run by 3B Umpire Foster and overturned to spectator interference after Crew Chief Review following a request from Royals Manager Ned Yost. Replays indicate that as Royals left fielder Alex Gordon jumped in an attempt to field the descending fly ball, a fan reached out of the spectator area and onto the playing field side of the vertical plane separating the in-and-out of play areas, thus interfering with the fielder's opportunity to field the baseball before the ball left the playing field, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Yankees were leading, 2-0. The Yankees ultimately won the contest, 9-2.

This is Jerry Meals (41)'s first ejection of 2019.
Jerry Meals now has 3 points in the UEFL Standings (-1 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 3).
Crew Chief Jerry Meals now has -3 points in Crew Division (-4 Previous + 1 Correct Call = -3).
*Rule 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 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."
*The OBR Definition of Terms entry for interference (d) states, "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."

This is the 34th ejection report of the 2019 MLB regular season.
This is the 14th Manager ejection of 2019.
This is New York's 1st ejection of 2019, 2nd in the AL East (BAL 3; NYY 1; BOS, TB, TOR 0).
This is Aaron Boone's first ejection since Sept 27, 2018 (Vic Carapazza; QOC = U [Throwing At]).
This is Jerry Meals' first ejection since August 4, 2018 (Rick Renteria; QOC = N-C [Replay Review]).

Wrap: Kansas City Royals vs. New York Yankees, 4/20/19 | Video as follows:

West's Upheld Fan Interference Call is Growth Opportunity

MLB's problem Wednesday night was not that RF Umpire Joe West ruled Astros batter Jose Altuve out for spectator interference against Red Sox outfielder Mookie Betts, it's that replay couldn't produce ample video evidence with which to review the call with any meaningful level of conclusiveness. West's call stood, and, right or not, it speaks to a technological shortcoming to one extreme puts all of baseball's video engineers on notice, while, to the other extreme, begs the question, "why even have replay at all?"

Did a fan interfere with Betts in Houston?

The Play: With one out and one on (R1), Astros batter Altuve hit a 2-1 fastball from Red Sox pitcher Rick Porcello to deep right field, where Boston' Betts jumped at the wall in an attempt to catch Altuve's fly ball, and, in doing so, made contact with fans similarly attempting to catch the batted ball.

The Call: RF Umpire West ruled the play not simply spectator interference, but specifically interference with a fielder whose opportunity to catch a batted ball was prevented. Accordingly, West enforced the prescribed penalty of nullifying the act by declaring Altuve out and placing baserunner Springer back at first base. Upon Replay Review, West's call stood; instead of a potential two-run home run, Houston did not score a single run during the inning. Naturally, Houston lost the game by two runs.

SIDEBAR: This isn't West's first fan interference out rodeo. On September 4, 2011, West ejected Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel for arguing an instant replay ruling that resulted in a fan interference out call in right field when Florida fans similarly interfered with the fielder's ability to catch a live ball.
Related Video: West ejects Manuel for arguing fan interference on Pence's fly ball (9/4/11).

The Rule: By now, we all know that "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" (and 6.01(e)'s approved ruling, "If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out").

Diagram depicting where a fan may legally be.

Precedent: And from our repository of fan interference discussions, we know that the playing field area is considered everything from the base of the padding on the outfield wall extended vertically upward. If the fan remains on the spectator side of this plane, there is no interference. if the fan breaches this plane—even by a fingernail—and subsequently hinder's a player's attempt to make a play on a live ball, then this illegal act qualifies as interference.

Now, I'd like to point out one key piece of information, regardless of West's call. Notice the annotated interference diagram, taken from a Padres-Rockies game earlier this season. Notice anything interesting, as compared to what we saw in Houston Wednesday night?

Is this really a useful angle for this play?

All About The Angle: In Colorado, during the regular season, we were treated to a camera angle fairly perpendicular to the relative boundary plane for this play. We're essentially looking "down the line" so to speak such that we can better determine whether the fan was on the legal (right) or illegal (left) side of the boundary plane.

In Houston, during the penultimate round of the postseason, we had absolutely no broadcast footage of a camera along the fence-line. Instead, we're treated to competing views taken from across the playing field such that judging depth becomes a most improbable task.

In comparing Wednesday's Houston play to 2011's Florida play, the biggest help to West in 2011 was that the fans reached below the height of the wall. Had the fans remained above the height of the wall, a similar angle confoundment may have occurred.

How far is this fan reaching past the wall?

Physically and visually, the higher atop the wall the fans reach, the more difficult it is to discern whether or not their arms or hands have broken the boundary plane. It goes without saying that the plane extends vertically upward an infinite distance; if a stadium was so designed, a fan sitting in the front row of the second deck could potentially commit spectator interference. And speaking of stadium design...why even have fans in a position to interfere at all? But that's another topic for another day.

For an example of this version of parallax, consider this August 2017 play from AT&T Park where a fan reached to catch a batted ball.

The fan's arm overhangs the green roof.

Ground rules aside (in San Francisco, the rule is "home run" if the ball lands on any fair part of the green metal roof, making right field at AT&T Park one of the easiest situations to officiate as fan interference is highly unlikely to occur except as it relates to fair/foul), the spectator is clearly reaching above the green metal roof, and by at least a half-arm's length. It's difficult to tell, and not at all clear nor convincing from the first angle taken from what looks to be foul territory behind home plate or first base.

The only predictable part about this play, given the replays provided, was that it resulted in a "call stands" outcome. There is absolutely no way that Replay Official James Hoye could realistically, conclusively, or convincingly find enough evidence to confirm or overturn West's on-field ruling based on the poor angles given.

In the postseason, if baseball wants replay to work, the sport has to do better. Otherwise, get rid of it.

SIDEBAR: Houston last fell prey to a spectator interference air out after Replay Review on July 25, 2018, at Coors Field.
Related Post: Fact Check - Bregman's Fan Interference Out (7/26/18).

Video as follows:

Fan Inter-Beer-ence - Baseball's Neutral Zone

Friday's Replay Review that upheld umpires' home run and fan interference no-call in San Diego upset Arizona after video conclusively indicated that Diamondbacks left fielder Jon Jay's glove made contact with a Padres fan's beer during Eric Hosmer's solo-HR in the bottom of the 5th inning.

Did a fan interfere with Jay in San Diego?

Lest they say we're going to the animals in the jungle of outfield fandom, let's cruise into our capstone report on spectator interference, introducing a concept of interference neutrality.

The Play: With one out and none on during Friday's D'Backs-Padres game, Padres batter Hosmer hit a fly ball to deep left field. As D'Backs outfielder Jay leapt to catch Hosmer's batted ball, his right hand and glove came into contact with a fan in the left field bleachers attempting to do the same. Upon Crew Chief Review, the Replay Official upheld 3B Umpire Sean Barber's on-field ruling of home run (no fan interference).

The Rule: By now, we know that "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."
Related Post: MLB Changes Rules for Retired Runner, Fan Interference (3/25/18).

We're dealt with this play before, most recently when Astros batter Alex Bregman fell prey to an interference ruling by 2B Umpire Greg Gibson, but it's time to add another layer to the issue. We call it baseball's "neutral zone."
Related Post: Fact Check - Bregman's Fan Interference Out (7/26/18).

Related Rule: The Definition of Terms states that "FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines, from home base to the bottom of the playing field fence and perpendicularly upwards. All foul lines are in fair territory" (underline added for emphasis).

The neutral zone is a free-for-all.

Analysis: This neutral zone encompasses that area referred to as the "top of the wall" extended vertically upward—any fly ball that bounces off the top of the wall, untouched by a fan, and caroms back onto the field is considered live and in play, while any ball that bounces off the top of the wall and caroms into the seats behind is deemed a home run.

For all intents and purposes relative to this rule, wall padding is to be considered part of the wall itself.

As for a ball that sticks to the top of the wall, that's where the neutral zone takes on a rather unique quality: if a batted ball in flight strikes and settles on top of an outfield wall without a fan touching it, the call is "Time" and a two-base award. If a fan does touch the ball atop the wall before it settles, the proper call is "Home Run."

Summary of Top-of-the-Wall Batted Ball Considerations/Calls (Fair ball, wall/seats in fair territory):
Fly ball hits top of wall and immediately bounces back into play, untouched by fans = In Play.
Fly ball hits top of wall and immediately bounces out of play (in fair territory) = Home Run.
Fly ball hits top of wall, eventually settling on top of the wall, untouched by a fan = Two Bases.
Fly ball hits top of wall, and a fan picks it up while it's still in motion on top of the wall = HR.
Fly ball hits top of wall, and a fan picks it up after it's settled on top of the wall = Two Bases.

I'm not kidding—that's the importance of this neutral zone and an example of how a spry home-town fan can influence the game simply by choosing to touch or not touch a batted ball on top of the wall.

Relative to actual fan interference, because the term is interference, this implies a violative act (by the fan). In order to be said to have violated a rule, the fan has to actively engage in misconduct by "reaching out of the stands and over the playing field" (or by going onto the playing field).

Jay's arm bends backward above the wall.

In other words, "reaching out of the stands" and into the neutral zone is not enough for interference: the fan must break the plane separating the playing field from the neutral zone in order to submit candidacy for interference; otherwise, the fielder reaches into the neutral zone (and stands) at his own peril.

The accompanying image indicates Jay's right arm is flush with the outfield wall, and bends backward at the wrist (and possibly elbow, as well), which is at or above the height of the wall. This portion of Jay's body and glove which has bent backward beyond the base-of-wall plane and into the neutral zone is not subject to protection against interference: if the fan makes contact with the portion of Jay's person or glove that is extended into the neutral zone, this contact shall not be deemed fan interference for the fielder has reached out of the playing field at his own peril.

That makes this the proper ruling, for lack of evidence or angle to suggest the fan broke the playing field plane.

SIDEBAR: Another baseball saying holds that "it all evens out." Perhaps, one can consider this an even-out play for Padres Manager Andy Green, who was ejected in April on an interference no-call decision (also finalized via Replay Review) that went against San Diego.
Related Post: MLB Ejection 011 - Brian Gorman (1; Andy Green) (4/9/18).

Video as follows:

Fact Check - Bregman's Fan Interference Out

Something about the left field wall and fan interference at Coors Field in Colorado invites controversy. Wednesday night, it was Astros batter Alex Bregman who fell victim to a Replay Review decision that overturned 2B Umpire Greg Gibson's " in play" call, awarding a fly out to the Rockies at Houston's expense, something Bregman wasn't all that pleased with...

The interference is clearly apparent on film.

The Play: Bregman led off the 6th inning of Wednesday's Astros-Rockies game with a fly ball to deep left field where outfielder Gerardo Parra jumped in attempt to catch the ball, which fell back onto the playing field as Bregman circled the bases, winding up at third base before all was said and done.

The Challenge: Upon Replay Review as the result of a challenge by Rockies Manager Bud Black, it was determined that a spectator interfered with Parra by reaching out of the stands and touching a live ball, hindering Parra's opportunity to make the catch, and the Replay Official thus declared batter Bregman out on the play.

Bregman's Postgame Comments: After the game, Bregman took issue with the Replay Official's decision to overturn Gibson's call and declare the batter out, becoming yet the latest player to harshly criticize umpires in postgame comments belying the complainant's extensive vocabulary:

"It was a f* joke, and they should be f* ashamed of themselves. Obviously, the guy has never played f* baseball before in his life, the guy in charge of whoever made that decision.

"There is no possible way you can say that a left fielder jumping backwards into a wall is guaranteed to make a catch. It changed the whole f* game. We're up 2-1 at the time, I'm at third base. We need a fly ball to the outfield to get me in, and it's 3-1. It's f* horrible."

Said Parra, "I never saw the fan touch the ball until I saw the replay, but I feel I would have had that ball."

This isn't the first fan INT play at COL in 2018.

Deja Vu: If you feel like we've been here before, that's because we have, yet with the opposite result. This is the second time in 2018 that a visiting team has taken umbrage with a Replay Review decision concerning potential fan interference on a fly ball to deep left field at Colorado's Coors Field.

The first play of the season occurred on April 9, 2018, when 2B Umpire Brian Gorman ejected Padres Manager for arguing a review decision that affirmed 3B Umpire Dan Iassogna's spectator interference no-call that awarded Rockies batter Carlos Gonzalez with a home run. The write-up for that ejection report is at the following related link.
Related Post: MLB Ejection 011 - Brian Gorman (1; Andy Green) (4/9/18).

The Rule: By definition, "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."

Bregman was slightly upset with the call.

Pursuant to Rule 6.01(e), "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."

Furthermore, "APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out."

The Claim: Bregman said, "there's no possible way a left fielder jumping backwards into a wall is guaranteed to make a catch."

Fact Check: This statement is factually true. There is no way that such a catch is guaranteed.

Rules-wise, the claim as false as most of George Washington's teeth.

Rule 6.01(e) states that if interference "clearly prevents" a fielder from catching a fly ball, the batter is out. Bregman's statement—"is guaranteed to make a catch"—is 1) a much higher standard, and 2) not in the rulebook.

I actually searched the Official Baseball Rules for the words "guaranteed" and "guarantee," and neither appear anywhere in OBR.

So while Bregman is correct in that the catch is not guaranteed, the rules don't require this level of strict scrutiny in order to declare the batter out—if a catch is clearly prevented, it's an out.

To be clear, this is not an "ordinary effort" situation, either—spectator interference only concerns itself with whether the interfering act "clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball."

In my view, it clearly did.

Gil's Call: How many times has a player, coach, or manager said something about an official that makes you want to respond and correct the plethora of inaccuracies that have just spewed forth?

The spectator interference rule inaccuracy notwithstanding, Bregman made it personal by stating, "Obviously, the guy [in charge] has never played f* baseball before in his life"—let's entertain this statement.

According to scheduling & stats scout Russ, Brian Gorman and Gary Cederstrom's crews are in Replay this week. Gorman—well, we all know the Tom Gorman story of how Brian grew up with baseball—and Cederstrom lettered in baseball for the Minot State College Beavers.

As for Senior Director of Instant Replay Justin Klemm, this interview with Midwest Ump Pete Reiser revealed that Klemm played ball at Temple University before starting his minor league umpiring career.

Regardless, pursuant to Bregman's logic, unless one is familiar with the fielding acumen required for a particular play, one has no authority to rule on it.

Video: Parra makes a catch while...
...jumping backwards into a wall.

Thus, as for Bregman's claim that an outfielder jumping backwards into a wall lessens the likelihood of a catch...Bregman is an infielder who has played a total of 3.2 innings in the outfield over the course of his three-year career.

...which means that 3.2 innings in a Major League outfield may or may not be enough experience to determine what a career outfielder like Parra is and is not capable of.

In my estimation as a center fielder who never quite made it past high school ball, if a fan reaches out of the stands and puts a hand in front of my glove while I'm tracking a fly ball, even jumping for it, the fan has clearly prevented me from catching said fly ball.

Perhaps it's the fielder in me, but I have an out...though your mileage may vary.

Videos as follows: