Baseball rules corner: spectator interference calls liable to create controversy

Rich Marazzi

WITH THE CHICAGO CUBS FIVE OUTS away from advancing to the World Series for the first time since 1945, a Cubs fan (Steve Bartman) tried to grab a foul ball at Wrigley Fieid preventing Cubs' outfielder Moises Alou from catching it.

The Marlins, trailing 3-0 at the time in Game 6 of the 2003 National League Championship Series, proceeded to stage an eight-run rally (thanks in part to shortstop Alex Gonzalez's error) in the eighth inning and went on to win the contest, 8-3. The wild card Marlins won Game 7 and subsequently defeated the Yankees in the World Series.

Although it is popular to say that an overzealous fan stole a pennant from the Cubbies, the truth is Bartman, by definition of the rule, did not interfere with Alou.

According to rule 3.16, when a fielder breaks the plane (fence) of the playing field and reaches into the stands, spectator interference cannot be called. It is called when a fan reaches across the plane of the stands on to the playing field.

When this occurs, the umpires can impose any penalty that would nullify the act of interference. They can award a runner/runners one, two, three, or four bases. Of they can rule a putout in favor of the defense.

In retrospect, several fans in addition to Bartman attempted to snare the foul ball that had the "Curse of the Billy Goat" written all over it. Was it a wise thing to do at the time? Probably not, but to be fair, Bartman and those around him reacted like any fan would have in the other 29 ballparks, 30 if you include Hi Bithorn Stadium in Puerto Rico. On the other hand, Alou, his teammates and Cubs fans all over planet Earth had a right to be disturbed about the incident.

Did the ball cross the place of the playing field? From my perch in my living room chair 1,500 miles away and from photographs I've seen, it appeared that it did. There was no argument from the Cubs, just the expected appearance of disgust.

Who can forget Game 1 of the 1996 American League Championship Series played between the Yankees and Orioles at Yankee Stadium.

With one out in the bottom of the eighth inning, Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter bit an Armando Benitez pitch to deep right field. Orioles' right fielder Tony Tarasco leaped up to get the ball, but it never came down. Instead it went into the glove of Jeffrey Maier, a 12-year-old Yankee fan and Jeter was credited with a home run as the ghosts of October made their annual Fall visit to the Bronx.

Umpire Rich Carcia working right field saw no interference on the play although the call has been the subject of controversy ever since. Tarasco and the Orioles argued vehemently to no avail. This was not the case, however, with Alou and the Cubs.

My purpose here is not to determine whether of not the call in the Cubs-Marlins game was a proper one but to examine the rule itself. I believe that the reason for any rule is to promote fairness and common sense. If a fielder can catch a fly bar with ordinary effort, even though he must cross the plane of the stands to do so, should he be deprived of the catch as Alou was on October 14?

I raised this question to Steve Palermo, the supervisor of major league umpires.

"Willie Mays made a great catch in the 1954 World Series," said Palermo. "For him that's ordinary effort. Keep in mind that ordinary effort for one person can be construed a different way for another. When you have to take into account everybody's defensive capabilities and or liabilities, then you are really asking the umpires to jump inside the body of that particular fielder. I think the way we have the rule set up now for spectator interference is a very good rule and it works well. And I think the umpires do a very good job in interpreting that rule."

Palermo's point concerning individual differences as to what constitutes ordinary effort is well taken. But let's explore this idea.

What if the various seats throughout the ballpark were designated as potential spectator interference seats?

For instance, for the sake of argument, any seat within three-feet of the playing field that is in an area that is reachable to a fielder, might be labeled a "hot seat" for the purpose of the rule. A fielder with minimal defensive ability should be able to extend his arm three-feet into the stands. If any fielder has to leap, it would not be considered ordinary effort.

Baseball does have an arm extension interpretation when a runner tries to avoid a fielder's tag. If a runner goes beyond the extension of a fielder's outstretched arm, he is considered out of the baseline. I assume the thinking here is that a fielder is making ordinary effort to apply a tag if his arm is fully extended. Why not apply the same standard for a fielder who extends his arm into the stands where fans are sitting?

Palermo does not agree. "When the ball is on the playing field side it's a lot easier for an umpire to judge," he said. "In that particular play in Chicago you ask if he (Alou) would have been able to get in there or would it have been beyond his reach? That's why we have the dividing line. Anything beyond that plane is for the fans."

I understand Palermo's thinking but I'm still not sold.

Some might argue that the safety of the fans becomes an issue if fielders had the license to dive into the stands for fly ball. Well, guess what? They do have the right to do that.

The only penalty is that if a fielder makes a putout while falling into the seats, the bar becomes dead and all runners advance one base if there are less than two outs. I don't consider diving into the stands to be ordinary effort but I find it a contradiction that a fielder is allowed to do that yet he is open game on routine fly balls that cross the plane of the playing field.

One final point. I do not think a fan should be ejected for trying to catch a ball that is descending over his seat or one nearby. But on the other hand, if he interferes or hinders a fielder who is making normal effort by major league standards (which is what official scorers do in determining hits and errors) to make a catch that crosses the plane of the stands, I believe the putout should be credited and the play ruled a dead ball.

Maybe my thinking is a bit out of the box, but I think it at least deserves a review by the Rules Committee.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Century Publishing Co.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning