tried to catch a foul ball which was going right at his head, but then it's ok for that kid to catch the ball at Fenway Park yesterday and took away a catch from the Angels catcher? That is totally hypocritical. So, what you're saying then is, it's ok for the hometown to interfere with foul balls and try to catch them if it will benefit their team, but if it hurts their team then that is bad. I think it's a shame what all of you Cubs fans did to Bartman. The poor guy had to go into witness protection and move to another state and assume another name, because of death threats, same thing with his immediate family. All over a freaking foul ball that Alou might or might not have caught. When it comes to interfering with balls that are FAIR, I see your point, that is wrong. But when it comes to balls that are FOUL, then it's up for grabs. The fans pay good money for seats, and if they will get a potential souvenir, I say GO FOR IT. What that little 12 year old kid Jeffery Mayer
2007-10-06 14:24:39 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
did in 1996 was wrong, because he reached into FAIR territory and cause the Yankees to get credit for a home run, which should've been a ground rule double. My point is, if the ball is in FOUL territory, then it is anyone's ball, if it is in FAIR territory, then the fan absolutely CAN'T interfere with it.
2007-10-06 14:27:12 · update #1
I was a lifelong Cub fan until the Bartman episode. They ran that kid out of town over a foul ball. Not one player on the team nor anyone from the front office ever stepped up to protect him. They let him take the fall for the team losing. I would never again root for a team that would do something as low class and gutless as that. That's what the Chicago Cubs organization is - low class and gutless.
2007-10-06 14:45:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Vinik's actions benefited the home team, and besides, were completely legal within baseball rules. If the ball comes down off the field, the defense is not entitled to non-interference from the spectators. And it wasn't close; Mathis had to reach waaay over the photographer pit row even to have a chance.
Bartman's actions may have been above the field of play -- it was reeeeeeally close -- and acted against the home team's interests. Alou probably could have made the catch. (Bartman has been unfairly excoriated far beyond his crime. That one play didn't make the Marlins keep on scoring. The Cubs have to own the greater part of responsibility for the outcome of the game and series.)
"Root, root, root for the home team." Remember?
The only important things to remember about the Maier incident are that (a) Garcia, despite being right on top of the play, blew the call (in favor of the home Yankees, but we'll ignore conspiracy theories for now) and (b) Maier DID NOT CATCH the ball. Tarasco at least could have done that much.
2007-10-06 21:56:12 · answer #2 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For what happened last night at Fenway, the Red Sox created that problem. Had the temporary camera area not been created for the playoffs, Mathis would have had that ball, no interference needed, and if Vinik HAD interfered, he'd have been sentenced to a suite (since his Dad is a limited partner). But since that area was there, it pushed out the stands area, making what Vinik did legal.
This crap about Bartman? It's just that. Damn Cubs fans blaming him for losing that series, NO WAY! The CUBS lost that series, not Steve Bartman. Just accept that and move on.
On the Yankee thing, that kid should have been tossed, he DID interfere with that ball, but because it went the Yankees way, he was "a hero". What a crock!
2007-10-06 22:55:46 · answer #3 · answered by yakdude89 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cubs fans are idiots. There was at least 4 other fans going for the same ball. I think only one of the fans in that area backed off when they saw alou. However, when you sit that near the field you should be aware when YOUR TEAM is trying to catch the ball and move out of the way for YOUR TEAM. What the B-Sox fan did was great, and his right, and it helped his team. If he did that against Variteck, he would have had to leave the stadium.
2007-10-06 21:38:15 · answer #4 · answered by bahamamike78 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, if the ball is in the stands it's the fan's ball. Steve Bartman got a lot of grief for it because he took away a catch from his own team. Yeah, he didn't deserve it, since it was a foul ball in the first place, but the dumb kid who stopped the Angels catcher from catching it it justifiable since he was helping his own team.
2007-10-06 21:29:54 · answer #5 · answered by ousooners4life 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Steve Bartman incident was different because he was a cubs fan at wrigley stadium who interfering with a cubs player catching the ball. If Alou caught that ball the cubs probably would have wen't to the world series, which they haden't won in over 95 years (curse of the billy goat). If they don't win it this year it will make 100 years.
2007-10-06 21:43:48 · answer #6 · answered by acefabo 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If the ball is in the stands it belongs to the fans, but if the other team is hitting and some one on the home team has a chance to catch it, then yes you should try to get out of the way. If he catches it he will probably give it to you anyway
2007-10-06 23:45:19 · answer #7 · answered by rome 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In all fairness, Bartman was a Cubs fan who supposedly hurt the Cubs, while the Red Sox fan helped the Red Sox
2007-10-06 22:07:53 · answer #8 · answered by rootbeersoup 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
um, lets see. catching a foul ball is a fans right even if you cause the home team, the team you root for, a chance to win the game. yeah baseball fans are hypocritical when they want there team to win. yeah buddy you make a lot of sense.
2007-10-06 21:34:19 · answer #9 · answered by the kidd 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is your opinion that it was foul. It looked like he reached into the field of play to me. either way he should not have been treated badly.
2007-10-06 22:07:43 · answer #10 · answered by budleit2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋