Sonnanstine and the Rays pitching staff got quite a few ball and strike calls their way as well. All in all, it was a poorly officiated game on both sides.

Next week's series in whatever-city-the-Rays-play-in should be a hum-dinger.

The Rays are blessed this year and from now on. Ever since they dropped "DEVIL" from their name, God has picked them to win every World Series, forever.

Also, it helps that they're from Floriduh- it's Jesus' favorite state.

Isn't "pennant" reserved for the actual league championship? Technically winning the AL East doesn't get you the pennant -- winning the ALCS does. I guess this makes the whole concept of the "pennant race" obsolete, though.

Or are they giving out actual, physical pennants for division champions now? Did they ever give out actual physical pennants?

King- Great article on all points, per usual. My question about the Bartman Ball:

Was the call in the Cubs/Marlins game the same as the call in the game last evening? My memory says no, of course not. The Bartman Ball was not ruled interference, and the Marlins got a man on first. Is that the case? If so, was it the correct application of the same rulebook rule from last night?

[Not that it really matters, because if I remember correctly(?) it was the Cubs' shortstop that really screwed up that inning, anyway.]

Just wonderin!

Wasn't there anybody within earshot of ESPN's announcers who could have done the same?

Sure, but they were all busy looking up when the last time a left handed batter facing a right handed pitcher in the 8th innnig in the third game of a series with two men on base and two men out, at least 5 weeks after the All-Star break, hit a ground-rule double on the 4th pitch after 2 fouls, spitting once and knocking the dirt out of only his left shoe.

I mean you have to have your priorities.

So that guy with the rainbow wig who somehow got a seat right behind home plate for every big televised ball game of the 70s and 80s and held up the sign that said "3:16"...

He was just there to remind the umps of the fan interference rule??

(Of course, that was before he planned to assassinate both G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton during the 1992 campaign, and was captured holding a hotel maid hostage in Los Angeles that same year, for which he's now serving 3 [three!] life sentences. But that doesn't affect the ruling on the interference plays.)

I could've sworn the Bartman play happened in the stands, rather than in the field of play. I'd YouTube it if I weren't still at work. Am I wrong?

Foul ball.

The batter, Luis Castillo, eventually walked. It then went:

A wild pitch, two singles, two doubles, two intentional walks, a sac fly and an error by the shortstop later, not in that order, a 3-0 game was 8-3.

1) No, the rule wasn't invoked. Bartman grabbing the ball just kept the AB alive.

2) No, Bartman was reaching out of the stands, into foul territory.

3) It wasn't *clear* to me (seeing too many replays) that Alou would have caught the ball, but that would have been a reasonable interpretation at full speed.

4) King may be right that fans in *foul* territory instintively reach out, but if you watch enough Red Sox games, you will see the fans around the pesky pole deliberately NOT reach out if a Sox RF has a (possible) play on the ball. One example I recall included a fan stretching his arms out to prevent other fans from reaching for a ball--may have been '04 playoffs, as I remember noting that it was exactly opposite of what Bartman did. This *very* occassionally happens at Dodger Stadium, too, but LA fans are much less likely to be aware that there is a ball near them.

So King Kaufman is now the resident expert on Baseball Rule Book interpretation. What a joke!

Several years ago when the Oakland A's were playing Boston in the ALDS the homeplate umpire "ruled" Miguel Tejada "out" at the plate after being obstructed at third base. The third base umpire (who made the obstruction call) actively disagreed, to no avail, with the homeplate umpire (crew chief). It was a turning point in the Series.

I wrote to King and explained that the obstruction was clear and play continued as "delayed dead ball" (since the "play" on Tejada came when the left fielder threw home after fielding a base hit). King omnisciently wrote that there is no such thing as a "delayed dead ball" (which, of course, there certainly is).

Now, King would like his readers to believe that his interpretation of the rule book for fan interference is the correct one. Not likely!

Cheers.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of rule 3.16, King. I read the rule on the mlb website a drew the conclusion that the word "clearly" applies to the interference. In other words, if the ball hits the fan's hand and changes direction, then the fan has "clearly" interfered. The mlb site uses in their example a player ATTEMPTING to catch the ball (not a player who CLEARLY WOULD HAVE caught the ball). Peter Gammons had it right. To take it a step further, almost all catches where fan interference can occur are difficult catches. The fielder is often running, jumping, sliding, crashing into a wall or railing AND thinking about the fans. Under those circumstances, it would be rare to say a fielder clearly would have caught the ball.

I caught the last 5 innings or so. One thing stuck out. They had Big Papi sacrafice bunt a guy into scoring position in about the 12th.

He succeeded, but I didn't quite get it. Okay, you get the guy to second - and you took the bat out of Papi's hands.

I think he's hit roughly 600 walk offs homers in Boston.

If he's injured or hurt at all - I get it. But if he's healthy you must give him a chance to end the game with a swing.