how to explain this one?

There is nothing to get reveresed. The ball hit a fan which kept the ball from going in the stands. That makes it a double and that is what was awarded.

The ball hit two fans. One leaning over the rail and touching a fair ball (not easy for the ump to detect), and the 2nd touch was when it hopped up and hit the fan in the stands before bouncing back in play.

Spectator INT allows the umpires to place the runners where they think they would have gotten without the INT. U3 can't make that part of the call since his back was turned. U1 has to decide if the runner would have scored without the INT and he would have.

Not sure about the first fan touch which may be why the call was made. But, if the fan in the corner is the call, it isn't spectator INT then. It is a double by means of the ball going OOP and then being touched. The fan was not over the field but was within the confines of the fence.

Maybe he thought the second fan was on the field or he saw the first person attempting actually touch the ball. It would be nice to see the timing of the call and to know which fan he called it on.

quote:

The ball hit a fan which kept the ball from going in the stands. That makes it a double and that is what was awarded.

But on a ground rule double, doesn't everybody get two bases? They allowed the runner to score from first I believe..

As previously stated, it is not a double but it is umpire judgement as to where runners would end up absent the fan interference. Apparently they believe the runner would have scored so that's what they awarded. And Gardenhire was 100% wrong and the ejection was totally justified.

quote:

Spectator INT allows the umpires to place the runners where they think they would have gotten without the INT

It was a tough call in real-time to see spectator INT on the first guy leaning over the rail. Slow motion seems to confirm he did touch it with the left hand. With that call there is no way the run scores, he would be sent back to 3rd. That is what Gardenhire came out to argue about, "the first fan touched it." This was a big run as Twins lose by one. Gardenhire was wrong only because of the way it was called on the field, but he definitely had an argument and I would have been tossed myself if I was coaching on that call.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:

quote:

Spectator INT allows the umpires to place the runners where they think they would have gotten without the INT

It was a tough call in real-time to see spectator INT on the first guy leaning over the rail. Slow motion seems to confirm he did touch it with the left hand. With that call there is no way the run scores, he would be sent back to 3rd. That is what Gardenhire came out to argue about, "the first fan touched it." This was a big run as Twins lose by one. Gardenhire was wrong only because of the way it was called on the field, but he definitely had an argument and I would have been tossed myself if I was coaching on that call.

Why? They got it right. With that first touch, it's handled as "what-if." Benefit of the doubt goes to the visiting team.

So is it spectator interference only that allows umpire judgement as to score/no score or does it apply to the ball that goes into stands and pops back out? This ball clearly hit the fan in the orange IN THE STANDS and then bounced back into play.
How is this different from the ball that bounces into stands or over the wall that is ruled a double and limits a runner on first to 3rd not home? Or is this an incorrect ruling when we see it?

I think the call was Fan interference on the guy who reached over the fence and touched it. What happens next doesn't matter as the ball was dead at that point, so the fact that it bounced into the stands after that is mute.

If nobody had touched it before it bounced into the fans, it would've been a good old fashioned ground rule double.

Yes. The official ruling was spectator interference based on the touch of the ball by the fan leaning over the railing prior to the ball hitting the other fan in the chest.

This is not a ground rule double. Umpire places runners based solely on his judgment.

I didn't know where the runners started so I couldn't tell if they had fan interference on the first guy or a BOO on the second guy. Either way there is nothing to argue, the first is a God ruling, the second a straight double.

K thankyou all

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
Benefit of the doubt goes to the visiting team.

No.

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
Benefit of the doubt goes to the visiting team.

No.

Yep.