How is that not Fan Interference? Rockies-Royals Home Run Stands Due to Parallax: A Scientific Proof

Rockies batter Michael Toglia's home run survived Replay Review in Colorado despite Kansas City LF Dairon Blanco's contention that a fan interfered with him at the wall in left field. How could this call be made? Let's explain what happened, with the science of parallax. Article: www.closecallsports.com/2024/...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/closecal...
Patreon: / lindsay715
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports

[@PapaVanTwee5]

I dunno... I'm on the fence on this one.

[@McClimber234]

Totally 😅

[@atticstattic]

It's been called,..you can get off the fence now😊

[@noahbaden90]

@@PapaVanTwee5 so was he

[@BrianSchaffer]

GET OUT! 🤣

[@KWally]

Love it!

[@phantomtides1204]

This is SO good, Lindsay, the epitome of why I visit the channel so often. One of the best you’ve done. Just fantastic analysis.

[@hendog5396]

seems like an issue best solved by stadium design. Target field has a foot of flowers between the railing and field of play to prevent this rigamarole

[@jamesosteen09]

Thank you for taking the time to talk about the Parallax Effect .... so many times people think it's obvious when in fact it's anything but because they are not taking into effect the angle of the shot. It can be very misleading at times as the hockey puck example clearly shows.

[@jtsholtod.79]

I can't believe that somehow Aaron Boone got ejected over this /s

[@route2070]

Part of the reason why balls/strike callls don't go over the TV well since the camera can't be in straight away center since the pitcher is in the way.

[@Renegade605]

There was a good video about camera placement at various parks from another channel a while back. Not only are the cameras not centered, they aren't all the same either. The same pitch can appear to have way more movement in one park vs another because of that.

[@D__Lee]

Thanks for the rules interpretation on this and your other videos! After watching your videos over the past several years, I’ve learned NOT to be a know-it-all fan and appreciate the difficult job that umpires do.

[@danielcastiglione5328]

Apparently this fan, has the shortest forearms on earth. How can your elbows be at the wall, and your forearms/hands not be in the playing field? Are his forearms and hands only 6” long?

[@jimlawton4184]

Good explainer about Parallax! Contrary to my previous beliefs, it is NOT in fact a Pokémon made up of straight non-intersecting lines.

[@freezer8530]

Parallax is used in astronomy to determine the distance of nearby stars compared to the background of distant stars.

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

As someone who's spent way too many years watching horse races and trying to figure out which horse is gonna win the photo finish at racetracks where the pan camera isn't necessarily right on the finish line, I'm very well aware of this phenomenon, I just never knew what to call it. And now I do! 👍

[@caras2004]

Good news for the Rockies fan after the video review. He's not ejected from the game and can come back to another game

[@vincentwendt720]

Sometimes parallax effects happen in football too. There have been issues where it may be difficult to tell if a runner is out of bounds because the camera is on an angle. In the case of this play I would give a "call stands" as well. I can't tell if the ball is over wall or in the field of play.

[@voncornhole]

A famous fist down review in Michigan vs Ohio State made the runner look way short due to parallax when it was much closer

[@jimlawton4184]

Fellow science nerds may have heard about parallax before without knowing. It’s the PAR in parsec 😊

[@OwlRTA]

luckily there isn't any MLB teams in Calgary, so Calgarians can't get mad from this video

[@bernardrandall-jones3995]

The more you know! Fantastic as always!!!

[@MikeBHR]

The fan's elbows were almost in contact with the top of the wall. Even with his arms at a forty-five degree angle, they're long enough to have been beyond the wall. I don't see the need for doubt and uncertainty on this one. Interference should have been called.

[@Thanatos2k]

Seriously. If there's any uncertainty the fan should always be punished for reaching.

[@Subangelis]

It looks like the ball was landing on top of the wall, and the fan's hands were in the neutral zone. Secondly, the player didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway. The ball hit the fan's hands before the glove even got there.

[@puppybrap4524]

@@Subangelis you said “looks like” which is the Parallax Effect which is why they said call stands. Other two options are overturned or confirmed. Because they couldn’t tell with the replay, had to go with call stands.

[@MwD676]

Rule is unclear as to when the interference occurs. (Fan reaches over the field, but contact occurs near top of fence.) Rule is also unclear about the top of the wall being in play, or not.

[@samueldrazkowski2908]

Yea, at best it's in the neutral zone and would have been caught, bad call

[@Call_me_E_C]

Even the Rockies *fans* have to help the team score some runs

[@terryrose4804]

🖖Encroachment into The Neutral Zone just asks for trouble. Live Long And Prosper.

[@scotttnelson6050]

Kind of similar to the instance with Mookie Betts being interfered at the top of the wall in the 2018 ALCS.

[@Desirsar]

This is solvable, require fencing. Figuring out the seating sucking at older stadium designs? Team's problem, not the league's.

[@geoffroi-le-Hook]

You almost never see this at Wrigley Field with the baskets in front of the bricks. (But there was that one foul ball 19 years ago ...)

[@brendonneely9456]

3:55 - And knowing is half the battle.

[@KevinQuinn81]

Okay, great analysis and looks like a valid call stands. Looks to me like another rule that needs adjusting. It doesn't pass the smell test that a fan get essentially prevent the ball from getting to the fielder's glove and get away with it just because he is over or behind the wall.

[@jamie-dempsey]

Just casually bringing PTSD to flame fans.

[@josephhouk6703]

And to think, this is the reason why we had replay in the first place. What should happen, ideally, is that a camera be placed on the foul pole, no more than a foot above the top of the fence (where this would work - obviously not at someplace like Fenway).

[@JohnDoe-jy7sv]

My biggest problem with these sorts of reviews is there isn’t equal protection. Some stadiums will have a camera in the perfect position to make that call, others wouldn’t even have this angle available. Would be nice if we could standardize some useful camera positions. Like maybe looking straight up the foul pole, for example

[@conrailhbgline]

The parallax effect - let us introduce you to VAR

[@helviojr]

Parallax creates lots of discussion in Brazil's soccer. Usually fans can't understand this basic physics fact. Even drawing it. Remembering, NY didn't confirm the call, they just decided they didn't have enough beyond doubt evidence on the footage, because of the angle, to absolutely surely revert the call.

[@FoxtasticGaming]

Have to disagree. An adult forearm is longer than the top wall his hands would be passed the wall. I believe the view team missed on this one

[@63076topher]

Wrong it is like the hockey explanation the camera is not on the fence but on an angle.

[@FoxtasticGaming]

@@63076topher that only works for round objects like a ball or a puck not arms. He's leaning over the top wall. His hands are passed the wall easily. Unless he has the shorts forearms for a grown adult.

[@63076topher]

@@FoxtasticGaming The ball COULD be over the fence that is WHY the call would stand if it was ruled home run OR interference if it was clear and convincing evidence of HOME RUN they would have said call confirmed not STANDS.

[@FoxtasticGaming]

@@63076topher the contact with player happened before the hit the fan.

[@beamo1220]

Does it matter where the contact occurs? Like I'm pretty sure the fans hands were over the wall, but the glove hit his wrist/forearm which I think was probably above the wall. If a part of the fan is illegal, does that make the whole fan illegal? But I guess the fan touched the ball with his hands so that probably doesn't actually matter in this case.

[@clarksandberg7077]

Any indication whether call stands because of the parallax effect -- or that the Chelsea review team wasn't "clearly convinced" the outfielder would have caught the ball?

[@Subangelis]

It looks like the ball was landing on top of the wall, and the fan's hands were in the neutral zone. Secondly, the player didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway. The ball hit the fan's hands before the glove even got there.

[@MwD676]

@@Subangelis I got the ball hitting the fan’s hand with the glove directly below. Totally a probable catch, minus the fan. I do think it is clear that the fan reached over the playing surface prior to contact. But the ball, hands, glove are above the fence at the moment of contact. The rule is not clear as to the call in the “neutral zone.” It is ‘over’ the fence-but not past the fence. The fan is not over the field, but still over live-ball territory.

[@samueldrazkowski2908]

​@MwD676 I see the glove and hands atleast in Neutral zone if not in play and the ball caught without interference, so fact it's Neutral zone at best should make it a catch

[@TomHaney]

great one!!

[@AndyMiller-ln6ow]

The real problem is that these stadiums are built in a way that allows fans to do this. Build them so that this isn't even possible to happen.

[@davidstevenson5429]

I just love Lindsey. 😊

[@BobbyMinn]

Parallax is minimal here. Pick a spot on the front edge of the wall that you approximate to be directly under the fan's arms. This is about where the arm shadows are. Now draw a line straight up from that point to the fan's arms. That plane is maybe an inch inside the skewed line of the wall. The contact clearly occurs another two inches in front of the this point. Two inches is enough room for error. Another way to think about it... pause the video when the contact occurs. Draw a line straight down from the right edge of the glove. This line intersects the wall around the wonky seam in the yellow pads. For the edge of the glove to be directly on the plane of the wall, the glove would have to be over this seam. The player's arm and the fan are clearly a couple feet away from the seam towards the foul pole. This means the right edge of the glove is obviously over the field of play. Bad call.

[@Subangelis]

It looks like the ball was landing on top of the wall, and the fan's hands were in the neutral zone. Secondly, the player didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway. The ball hit the fan's hands before the glove even got there.

[@BobbyMinn]

@@Subangelis 0:44 The glove has collided with the fan's wrist. The ball has not yet landed in the fan's hands. The player was likely going to make the catch.

[@critter2]

​@BobbyMinn you cannot make that assumption

[@BobbyMinn]

@@critter2 It's not an assumption. It's logic.

[@edsimnett]

For me the base of the wall is quite a long way from the front edge of the yellow top of the wall (the padding does not extend to the ground, so the part of the fence that is the "bottom" is well behind the padding)- so even being on the yellow line is unequivocally "in the field of play" (referring to the definition at 1:09)

[@jamesrivera6068]

Wow, thank you for educating all of us as always. Great stuff. I 100% had interference.

[@ingiford175]

I did not see where in that rule that said the contact had to be in 'the field of play' just that the fan was in the field of play. I am fairly sure the hands of the fan was in the field of play even though the contact point can be debatable...

[@GregMcNeish]

"Spectator interference occurs when a spectator hinders a player's attempt to make a play on a live ball by reaching out of the stands and over the playing field." (edited to remove parts of the sentence not relevant to this play) While you're right that it doesn't say that the contact had to be in the field of play, but it does say that the hindrance has to be a RESULT of reaching over the playing field (hinders a player attempt BY reaching out). So, the interpretation here would be that if the fan's hands were NOT reaching over the playing field, the same contact & hindrance would have occurred, because the fielder's glove contacted the fan outside the playing field, and the fan didn't contact the BALL within the playing field either. Similarly, if the contact was outside the field, but the player's view of the ball was obstructed by someone reaching over, then that would be fan interference. In essence, if the portion of the spectator's body that's reaching over the field isn't actually involved in the hindrance of the player, then it isn't fan interference. All that said, I wouldn't be opposed to an argument against that interpretation, either.

[@Subangelis]

It looks like the ball was landing on top of the wall, and the fan's hands were in the neutral zone. Secondly, the player didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway. The ball hit the fan's hands before the glove even got there.

[@MwD676]

@@Subangelis Glove contacts fan prior to the ball landing. A much less obvious catch was ruled interference in the same area back in April (Mariners at Rockies). CCS says that it appears, at this parallax angle, to be fairly obvious interference. But, the parallax effect is what deceives us.

[@g.mitchell7110]

Every time I see a potential fan interference call, I can't help but ask myself why this is even possible. Why not build stadiums with a buffer zone between the front row of seats and the fence so that fans can't reach into the field of play? Leave, say, a five foot buffer zone in that area and have a strict policy of ejecting any fan who enters this No Man's Land for any reason. Boom, no more fan interference.

[@MyBiPolarBearMax]

Parallax is a very real thing and you see how crazy it can be in hockey. That being said. This is just a horrifically blown call and if they used parallax angles as justification thats bullshit. Might as well argue every replay is fine because theres some amount of parallax involved and we *could* be seeing it wrong.

[@Call_me_E_C]

I agree. If "definitive proof" is 100%, this still looks like a 90% "yeah, the fan's hands were over the wall, and the fielder probably would've caught the ball". But I think this brings up a bigger point: how do major sports not have cameras at *every* possible angle of a bounds? The NFL notably has cameras along the goal line, out-of-bounds, and usually the line-of-scrimmage and line-to-gain. It seems every year in the MLB, there's a controversial replay call with some of the most piss-poor camera angles in a giant stadium in a multi-billion dollar sport. Would it be that costly or time-intensive to put *official* cameras at key locations in the stadium?

[@donh6416]

​@@Call_me_E_C The NFL uses more cameras than than MLB. And they still don't get all the reviews correct.

[@teebob21]

​@@Call_me_E_CBaseball doesn't have standardized dimensions outside of the infield. Putting a set of two cameras parallel with every possible boundary in 32 stadiums would be a technological challenge, and likely prohibitively expensive.

[@theburnetts]

Relying on the "possibility" of a Parallax effect to make a ruling is just dumb. Remember Lindsay - we don't actually know if the Parallax effect is in play here. You are guessing and assuming that the fan's arms are not actually over the fence. For all you know if the camera was right in line with the fence it would clearly show the fan's arms over the fence. In the hockey video we have the benefit of moving the camera to show the Parallax effect. But for this video you are just guessing!! The benefit of the doubt on a play like this should go to the fielder not the fan. If there is any doubt on fan interference the call should be interference unless there is clear and convincing evidence that there was no interference - not the other way around! And I know people will say that the call on the field was no interference - so it takes precedence. But in this situation that shouldn't even come in to play. The third base umpire was at least 150 feet away and had no way to see from a side angle which is what you need to determine fan interference so his call should not take precedence at all. Just another example of replay review not getting a call right.

[@evilmark443]

This makes me think there should be cameras aimed straight down each segment of the outfield wall to make these situations easier to figure out.

[@SalemHarbor]

Where is the proof that it is an illusion? It seems you're saying it might have happened.

[@Mehnwai397]

But that's the point. If you can plausibly say it *might* have happened, then you don't have clear and convincing evidence to say it *didn't* happen. Probably if called interference on the field, that would have stood as well.

[@kurumauzamaki2731]

Can a fan reach over the fence when it’s 10 ft and a fielder isn’t attempting to field it

[@KazeShikamaru]

That fan was player of the game.

[@craigwinter3792]

Way to trigger all of Calgary, Lin.

[@linollieum3742]

I hate the microanalyzing of this rule and I think the rule for spectator interference needs to change- if the players have a chance to make a play on the ball it should be the fan's responsibility not to interfere (if a fielder Jeters himself into the stands obviously some leeway should be given there but if the balls close to the wall fans need to wait for it to come to them and not be a jerk affecting play.

[@mdot0785]

Thank you for the commentary and explanation. This is clear interference and the replay is extremely conclusive. The spectator's hands and arms are clearly past the neutral zone and they make contact with the fielder.

[@user-fq2cv8un6w]

How do you know they based their decision on the Parallax effect? They didn't say anything. Perhaps they judged the ball as being over the line, despite the initial contact by the fan with the glove being in the field of play. In other words, a fan has the right to interfere with a catch not in the field of play.

[@hamxsandwich37]

Because they ruled stands. If the on field ruling was interference, it would not have been overturned.

[@chrisjones3791]

That is an out by fan interference. The fan reached over the yellow line and interfered with. The outfielder would have caught the ball. The fan touches the glove of the outfielder. Kansas City got hosed by the call and definitely the umpires with the replay judge helped the Rockies on that call.

[@roymauler]

This video is solid evidence that replay should be abolished. Or perhaps MLB should be abolished.

[@michaelround8054]

Lindsey: if you were 3rd-base ump ruling real-time on this call, would you have called fan-interference?

[@CloseCallSports]

I don’t know what was seen from that angle so I can’t say for sure. It’s a really difficult call from the field. If I was calling on replay not on a review basis but a call-making basis, I’d have interference, but I’d say it’s preponderant and not clear and convincing.

[@nickbaumgartner-hm3hb]

Definitely contact within the field of play, yes before the ball got there so fans can reach out on field and disrupt a player as long as the ball is heading out?

[@Subangelis]

It looks like the ball was landing on top of the wall, and the fan's hands were in the neutral zone. Secondly, the player didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway. The ball hit the fan's hands before the glove even got there.

[@TommyG1313]

Not buying this one. Forget parallax view - the fan hit the fielder’s glove. Fan should be ejected and out called. A fan may not come in contact with a player when the ball is in play

[@skydiverclassc2031]

The fan was "framing" the catch. Legal. 😀

[@WesDaBest]

If you’re going to have review, get it right the first time…. That was the obvious fan interference

[@samueldrazkowski2908]

Even with angle it was in Neutral zone at best and he could have caught it, should be out, but I like that fans can cause problems still, like that Yankee fan was so obvious and I hate the Yankees, but like what he did

[@FUGP72]

That NHL video wants viewers to think they play in 6 inch thick ice or something. That red "line" was WAY more than 1 to 1.25 inches below the surface.

[@twinlamp]

I think they are just exaggerating to make the point. It absolutely comes up in any review where there's a question of if something is passed a line. So much so that they install replay cameras in such a way now to minimize the parallax effect.

[@zachansen8293]

zoom doesn't change parallax

[@Goomlahexpress]

@closecallsports I'm reminded of Joe West's fan interference in the ALCS (BOS-HOU I think) that looked clear as day as not fan interference but called fan interference

[@OwlRTA]

the fans literally closed Mookie Betts' glove

[@Goomlahexpress]

@@OwlRTA The problem with that argument is that the ball would have hit the chest of the fans if Mookie missed it. I don't care if his was closed. The fans hands we're all around the same spot as the fan in this clip.

[@MwD676]

The real problem is that the top of the fence “neutral zone” is not clearly specified as the playing field, or not.

[@DirtyD218]

Tell this to Steve Bartman!!

[@SalemHarbor]

Unreal...

[@jamesoliver6625]

That's a BS call. Fan interference should apply to anywhere the fielder (with Major League skills and athleticism) reach with his glove. Even under the current rule, to say that this is a grey interpretation is BS.

[@user-zx9ji9lv8n]

Welcome to baseball, the only sport that allows fan interference. Any other sport he fan would be ushered out quickly.

[@donnyhighsmif]

I can understand there being some unclarity with the interference due to the parallax effect, but this has to be the most textbook example of fan interference. If this isn't fan interference, then it seems like the only way that happens is if a fan puts his/her whole arm across the fence. Blanco made contact with a fan without reaching over the wall and would have caught the ball had the fan not made two-hand contact with his glove. Out.

[@1969EType]

This is 2024. MLB is and has been a multi-billion dollar industry for quite some time now. There is simply no reason with MLB's resources for these "parallax effect" plays to occur. The replay officials are not getting "conclusive" evidence because MLB has not instituted proper camera positioning which would eliminate the "parallax effect". And let's turn our attention to the rule book now...yes, as written, this call and replay were initiated and called correctly. But, any reasonable person with no rooting interest in the outcome of this game can look at this play and not think that fan interfered. The spectator interference rule(s) need(s) to be amended/edited to give the umpires more jurisdiction over these kinds of plays. The rule simply needs to say that in the judgement of the umpire, if the fielder could have made a catch and they are contacted, hindered or impeded IN ANY WAY during the play by a spectator, then the act of the inference should be nullified. If after ruling it was spectator interference, the ball goes out of play it's an immediate dead ball. If after ruling it was spectator interference, the ball remains in play it's a delayed dead ball in order to potentially give the defense an opportunity to make additional plays on the runners.

[@Subangelis]

It looks like the ball was landing on top of the wall, and the fan's hands were in the neutral zone. Secondly, the player didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway. The ball hit the fan's hands before the glove even got there.

[@1mbecker]

Disagree w/the part about 'didn't look like he was going to catch it anyway'. As mentioned in the video, the fielder was drifting towards the foul line as he was tracking the ball and when he lept. If you watch the slo-mo starting around :42 seconds, right as the ball touches the fan, the "fingers" of the fielder's glove start to touch the fan and a frame or two later you can actually see the glove significantly bend, especially the bridge and webbing. Not enough to overturn but minus the fan's hands it looks like he tracked the catch on the backhand perfectly.

[@MrGeneric2011]

Disagree. Parallax might account for some distortion, but it does not account for the full extension of his hands, especially fingers. Even adjusting for parallax, there is no way his fingers were not beyond the fence skyward-extended.

[@hendog5396]

oh god we got parrallaxed lmao

[@JacobOwen01]

I thought this was an ejection video.

[@BIOHAZARDRUSGaming]

Aren’t there cameras that are at the foul poles used to track home runs into the stands? Where’s that angle here?

[@mikecumbo7531]

Perhaps a stadium or broadcaster has installed them, but they aren’t normally there. The reason, who is going to pay for them.

[@mrmoose6619]

If Jeffrey Maier wasn't interference, this can't be.

[@thomasbarilla3214]

Obvious Jeffrey Maier incident.

[@SW-mc2zx]

Definitely looked like interference.

[@CosmicGoku529]

Problem with that is the camera is at the side not directly behind. So, the Parallax view wouldn't be present. This is a fan reaching over the Neutral Zone to catch the ball. It's 100% fan interference.

[@ThatBlockyMan]

If the rule was executed correctly it’s a dumb rule. Any reasonable person can see that the fan was unnecessarily in the way of Blanco, who had at least a decent chance of making the catch. Umpires need to be given more discretion for situations exactly like this.

[@deansapp4635]

Thats a out

[@WesDaBest]

Most rigged calls I’ve ever seen. Two calls where they missed a non-home run. first versus the Indians and then this Rockies game. MLB doesn’t want the Royals to be in the playoffs.

[@Thanatos2k]

Why is any baseball field designed to allow fans to reach close enough to do this? Fix your fields.

[@user-yg7jw4vt9r]

Been out call dumb rule there

[@pauld7704]

I’m glad you did this play, I thought it was interference for sure when I saw it

[@garytravis9347]

Probably because it was. Oh well.

[@nacoran]

What drives me crazy is when someone is sitting behind a desk in a studio and the camera makes it look like their hands are about to jump out of the screen but the rest of them looks 10 feet away.

[@fifiwoof1969]

Put the camera DIRECTLY in line with yellow line - eliminates parallax completely.

[@jimgahn9188]

That's 100% fan interference.

[@randominternet5586]

That looks like fan interference that should be called - I think he's over field, and interfered. Should let the players make the plays. Neutral zone should be interference.

[@lscales6131]

But then you run the risk of when does the neutral zone end? So if they had a camera on the fence and the player goes just over and hits the fans hand and the ball comes out would that count if the video shows it at a certain angle? This is a tough call to make real time I’m all for letting it stand with out clear evidence.

[@Thanatos2k]

@@lscales6131 Fans shouldn't be physically allowed anywhere near the wall to interfere like this.

[@lscales6131]

@@Thanatos2k again you didn’t see the whole angle. My point is he could have been behind the wall so you don’t know. I’m okay with it standing. I agree people shouldn’t reach over but yet again not sure if he did.

[@Thanatos2k]

@@lscales6131 Fans should not be allowed to be in an area where ANY angle allows them to reach over the field.

[@1kislandstare]

why even play the games? just run a simulation and hand out trophies.

[@paulnicholson5937]

Worse call in MLB in a decade, this is complete nonsense. It was fan interference no question at all.

[@a_badali]

Relax