From that angle the fan couldn’t have touched the ball and made the ball not go over the wall without reaching over. The fan either didn’t touch the ball or he reached over and touched it. Which is impossible to do. So he didn’t touch the ball and it hit off the top of the wall on its own.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by lsupride87

Member since Dec 2007

96769 posts

Posted on 5/3/24 at 10:50 pm to The Boat

Hmm. Not saying you are definitely wrong. But I think the ball could have been heading on a trajectory between the wall/fence. Fan was over fence, not wall. Ball bits fans glove causing slight push back towards field of play wall

I think it’s either how you described, or a homerun. Interference being the worst of the options

But none of the options seem definitive which is what an overrule is supposed to be

This post was edited on 5/3/24 at 10:51 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by mdomingue

Lafayette, LA

Member since Nov 2010

31249 posts

Posted on 5/4/24 at 9:56 am to The Boat

quote:
From that angle the fan couldn’t have touched the ball and made the ball not go over the wall without reaching over. The fan either didn’t touch the ball or he reached over and touched it. Which is impossible to do. So he didn’t touch the ball and it hit off the top of the wall on its own.

I disagree on one point here. From what I saw, it looks like his glove flexed downward and the ball's trajectory changes slightly. I think if he does not touch the ball, it comes down slightly further back against the stands or on the very top of the fence, out of the reach of the A&M player and a home run. As such, I think the ruling should probably have been a Home Run but minimally a ground-rule double, I do not believe the glove interfered with the outfielder's ability to make a play.