THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

1. Can you provide the text of the rule from which you are making this conclusion?

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20110904&content_id=24211006&c_id=mlb

According to Major League Baseball, ”instant replay will apply only to home run calls—whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed.”

It has to be a HR call…
(1) either to affirm the HR, or reverse it into a non-HR, or
(2) to affirm the non-HR, or reverse it into a HR

The choice is not: affirm the double or reverse it into an interference, by checking to see if you were looking to reverse it into a HR.

I could bold a different part of that.

According to Major League Baseball, ”instant replay will apply only to home run calls—whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed.”

I don’t see your additional qualifications in the text that you quote.  That may be your opinion on how you think they ought to handle it, but it’s not in that paragraph you quoted.

The rule is not “regardless of what the call on the field is, if the play is close enough to a HR, even if it was not originally called a HR, then you get to view the replay, and then make the correct decision, even if it was not to make it into a HR”.

I’m wondering, “Why can’t that be the rule?” since this would almost certainyl give a greater chance, overall, of getting the call on the field right.

Is your argument that “It could be the rule, but it’s not explicitly written that way”, or are you arguing that the rule has to be the way you are interpreting it because having it the other (more loosely written) way would be undesirable?

The former is more understandable to me, but less interesting.  The latter I would find baffling, but it would certainly be more worth discussing…

Mike: you can quote that part all you like, but that paragraph is a conditional statement.  And it clearly states that one of the conditions is that it MUST be a HR call.  That’s how the law works. It has to pass each test. You have to satisfy each of the conditions.  That’s your starting point.

Obviously, ANY fan interference call IS a boundary call.  The fan is in the stands, and he reaches over.  It’s a boundary call.  They could just said that.  This way, they can allow a play to be a non-interference or interference play.  That is, to affirm fan interference, or reverse into a single / double / triple / HR.  Or, affirm the hit or reverse into fan interference.

But the rule is not a “fan interference” rule.  It’s a HR rule.  It’s to affirm the HR / reverse the HR, or affirm the non-HR / reverse into HR.

Greg: It’s the former.  If they wanted to allow a replay to turn a double to fan interference, or vice versa, then they wouldn’t have explicitly said “HR call”.

Obviously, ANY fan interference call IS a boundary call.

Not true. Most of the edges of the stands are in foul territory where a boundary call is not in question.

And it clearly states that one of the conditions is that it MUST be a HR call.

But it WAS a home run call, so that condition is satisfied.

(Mike: I meant fan interference from behind the fence.)

It was not a HR call!  The play on the ground was a double.

In order for it to be a HR call, you’d have to have situation #2: affirm the double, or reverse it into a HR.  THAT’s what makes it a HR call.

It is not a HR call to: affirm the double, check to see if you can reverse into a HR, but instead reverse into an interference call.  You may have just said: affirm the double or reverse into an interference call, because that’s the same thing. 

The ONLY way to make this a HR call is for Joe West to FIRST call it a HR before seeing the replay.  That becomes the ruling on the field.  He then goes to the replay and his choice would have been to affirm the HR, or reverse it into a non-HR (double or interference).

Tango/7: You don’t understand then how the term “home run call” is being used.

It does not mean that the play was originally ruled a home run.  It means that there is a question on whether the play should have been ruled a home run, regardless of whether it was originally ruled to be a home run or in the field of play.

I thought from your original post that you were clear on that, so I don’t understand why you’re confused about it now.

Mike/8: I understand it perfectly.  I think you are simply missing my argument.

I gave two scenarios here.  In the Phillies/Marlins game, scenario #2 is on the table.  We have a non-HR call on the field, and the review is to either affirm that call, or reverse into a HR.  THAT is what makes it a HR call.  To affirm the double or reverse into an interference does NOT make it a HR call, regardless of the reason that they went to the replay.

Tango/9, okay good.

So we have a “home run call” in question here.  That condition is satisfied.  Your scenario #2.

Now the umpires have to decide

whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference.

If you are not allowing the “fan interference” part, it’s because you are reading something into that that is not there.  Maybe it should be there, maybe the full directive given to the umpires has it there.  I don’t know.  But all I’ve been able to find is the same MLB article summary of the directive that you quoted here, and it simply does not say that the umpires are not allowed to consider fan interference in your scenario #2.  In fact, on its face, it says quite the opposite.

We have a non-HR call on the field, and the review is to either affirm that call, or reverse into a HR.  THAT is what makes it a HR call.  To affirm the double or reverse into an interference does NOT make it a HR call, regardless of the reason that they went to the replay.

You seem to be saying that it’s OK to use replay review for a ball originally called a double, but after review ruled a HR, but it’s not OK if the ball is originally a double and then upheld as a double.

It seems like you’re saying that the permissibility of the employment of the replay review is contingent on the results of that review.  That wouldn’t make much sense to me. 

It makes more sense to interpret “HR call” as meaning “a call where a ball is possibly a HR” at initial viewing.

If there were a similar rule for reviewing diving catches, and they said that it could be used on “Catch calls”, would we interpret that to mean that only balls that end up being ruled catches could be reviewed, and balls that (after review) are ruled safe are not reviewable?

I’m saying that in this scenario, it can only be a HR call if the umpires can reverse into a HR.

It is NOT a HR call because they think it might be a HR, and will eventually conclude that it was not a HR, and then go further and change a double into fan interference.

What makes it a “HR call” is not that they think it might be a HR, but rather that they either conclude it was HR / non-HR.  That’s their choice.

“After further review, the umpire has concluded that it is NOT a HR.  The call on the field stands.”

That’s the only thing he can say.  He cannot say:
“After further review, the umpire has concluded that it is NOT a HR.  However, he did notice that it was fan interference, and so, he is reversing the non-HR call (double) into another non-HR call (fan interference).”

That doesn’t make (legal) sense.  It’s the baseball equivalent of an illegal search.  That he uses the mechanism of reviewing a HR call to then reversing a non-HR call into another non-HR call.  That was not the intent of the replay rule.  The replay rule is a HR or not rule.

You don’t have to share my legal opinion, but just understand my argument perfectly.

"but it’s not OK if the ball is originally a double and then upheld as a double. “

I never said that.  If the ball was originally a double, and the review does not support a HR, then it should be upheld as a double.  REGARDLESS of whatever else the umpire sees (fan interference).  His only choice is to either reverse into a HR, or let the call on the field stand.

Tango - If there is the possibility that a fan touched the ball that in itself makes it a reviewable HR call.  The umpire should consult the videoto determine if the fan reached over a barrier and extended onto the field to touch a ball that could clearly be caught by a fielder within the field of play.  If the spectator did this it is fan interference.  If the fan touched a ball without extendeing past the fence onto the field it is a home run whether or not the fielder had a chance of catching the ball.  This is according to rule 3.16.  The umpire also has to decide where the runner would have ended up had the fielder caught the ball.  In this case he decided to send the runner back to first, concluding that the runner would not have been able to tag and reach second.

"That’s the only thing he can say.  He cannot say:
“After further review, the umpire has concluded that it is NOT a HR.  However, he did notice that it was fan interference, and so, he is reversing the non-HR call (double) into another non-HR call (fan interference).”

Sorry Tango, but it is not clear from the MLB paragraph on “replays” that that would not be allowed.  Not clear at all.

The ambiguous part of the replay rule is “subject to fan interference.”

We have already determined that this is a “HR call” although MLB (as usual) used a poor choice of words since obviously a “HR call” is one that is initially called a HR or a double, but could be the opposite.

So we have a “HR call.”

The rule reads “whether (the HR call) is subject to fan interference.”

OK, the umpire replayed the event, presumably because it could have been a HR, and they determined that it “was subject to fan interference.” In fact, it was interfered with.

Now what?

The rule is not explicit on that.

Which is why the protest will not be upheld.

And MLB will probably (should) clarify the rule.

Nowhere in the rule does it say or imply that if fan interference is discovered or affirmed that the original call must stand or that a HR must be awarded…

I agree with MGL/15, with the caveat that what we have is not the actual text of the replay directive that was sent to the umpires and clubs but rather a PR summary of it in an article on MLB.com.  I’m reluctant to parse every word of such a thing too finely.

Let’s agree that MLB rule book is about the worst rule book written.  So, we have to read into the rule some of it.

Hockey has a similar “boundary” rule: was it a goal or not.  He either affirms the non-goal, or reverses it to a goal.  (The analogy here is that Joe West would either affirm the non-HR, which is a double in this case, or reverse to a HR.) If the NHL official happens to also see a penalty, he will NOT call a penalty.

It’s not a HR call to reverse one non-HR call for another non-HR call.  How is that a HR call?  Again, that’s the baseball equivalent of an illegal search.

I’m not sure I’m buying your use of the “illegal search” analogy - to examine the HR or not HR issue, you have no alternative but to view the ball as it approaches the fence, and you cannot help but notice the interference.  It literally *interferes* with your evaluation of the play.

That is analogous to a policeman walking up to a car he/she stopped for speeding, and seeing a bound and gagged person in the passenger seat.  You literally could not perform a traffic stop without noticing the more serious crime.

A potentially invalid extension of a legal search, like say opening the trunk up just because the driver seemed nervous, would be analogous to evaluating a replay of a HR call, and then trying to decide if the hitter had too much pine tar on their bat.

Just my opinion, of course…

If they wanted to allow a reversal of a non-HR to another non-HR play, then they wouldn’t have put “instant replay will apply only to home run calls”.

If all fan interference plays in fair territory are reviewable, then they would say that.  Instead of making it a “home run call”, they should just call it a “fence call”.

On a pure legalese, if only HR calls are reviewable, then you can either affirm or reverse the HR.  If all fence calls are reviewable, even if HR is not going to be affirmed or reversed, then fine.  But this is a HR rule, not a fence rule.

Well I think we can easily agree that the language of the rule needs tightening (or perhaps loosening?) This issue has highlighted some ambiguity that ought to be clarified…

What you guys are saying is that the next time a fan clearly reaches over the fence, but is also clearly below the fence line, and POSSIBLY touches the ball, and the umpire calls fan interference, then the hitting manager can say: “Hey!  He did not interfere!  That was a double off the wall!”

And then the umpire looks at the replay, clearly sees the fan reaching over the fence and below the fence line (of which the ump never had a doubt), but also does not see any interference, and reverses to a double.

Are you saying that this is possible?  That the umpire never suspected a HR, and allows an interference call to be reversed to a double call?

No, not possible? But, if the umpire POSSIBLY suspected a HR, and still sees everything above as described, then he CAN reverse an interference call into a double call.

So, a “HR call” is only about “looking for a HR”, but then he can “look at all available evidence”?  Indeed, even look to see if the batter’s feet were outside the box, the catcher interfered, the pitcher balked, or whatever else you want to include?

Re #21, I don’t think a fan can reach over the fence and interfere with a ball that isn’t also close to being a home run.  It’s not physically possible given the length of an adult’s arms and the angle at which such balls are descending, unless I guess the fan leaps out of the stands and onto the field or something strange like that.

Also, the summary of the replay directive specifically indicates that umpires are to consider fan interference.  It does not talk about balks, catcher interference and the like.  That is a red herring.

The summary we have unfortunately does not specify any parameters within which the umpires are allowed to consider the effects of fan interference (other than specifying that it occurred on a home-run boundary play) and outside of which the umpires are to ignore the effects of fan interference.

If that summary is reflective of the character of the actual replay directive, then I agree with all here who believe it needs clarification.

If all fan interference plays in fair territory are reviewable, then they would say that.  Instead of making it a “home run call”, they should just call it a “fence call”.

I believe I have more commonly seen it referred to as replay for “boundary plays”, the nomenclature of which is more in line with what you are suggesting as a “fence call” (but also includes fair/foul at the foul pole as a different type of boundary).

But of course one could misapply that term as well to think that is referring to other boundaries on the field other than the boundaries related to home runs.

Tango the difference is that the replay rule specifically addresses interference.  It does not address any other thing that the umpire may happen to see.  Unfortunately the interference part of the replay rule is written poorly.

I cross posted with Mike in 22.  We are saying the same thing.  The rule specifies that umpires are to consider interference on “HR plays.”. What to do about it is another story.

I happen to agree that the best interpretation of the rule is what Tango says. But by no means is it clearly the only interpretation....

Ok, so forget the thing about balks and batters boxes.  The rest of my post stands and is unaffected by that.

As for a fan reaching over the fence line, and NOT be a HR, I had Fenway Park (RF) in mind:

http://www.hoffmann.caltech.edu/PlacesVisited/html0001/images/Fenway%20Park%20Boston%2010-03.jpg

You get yourself a line drive (like McGwire’s #62) to hit the RF wall, and the fan reach over the fence line, and you have my illustration.

And note that the rule, as described, talks about a “reversal”.  A reversal as in HR / notHR.  A reversal implies some binary choice (safe/out, fair/foul, ball/strike, innocent/guilty).  It’s not about “changing the call to best match the replay”.  You don’t “reverse” the double call to an interference call.  That’s not a reversal.

The rule is about HR or not.  If the call on the field is double, then you “reverse” that to a HR.  Or let the call on the field stand.

Given the text as presented, in Tango/2, and the intent of the rule to only be about HR calls to begin with, changing a non-HR call to another non-HR call is not an option.

What you guys are saying is that the next time a fan clearly reaches over the fence, but is also clearly below the fence line

Tango - Why are you stating this as if it applies to this case?  The only reason that the fan “clearly” reached over the fence and “clearly” is below the fence line is that we have the benefit of seeing the video taken at an angle that shows the play clearly.  To the ump having to make a decision in real time from field height I am sure that it was not at all clear. And if it was not clear if the ball had been touched by a fan, or where the touch took place if it took place, then it becomes subject to video review because one of the possible outcomes of the review would be a home run.

"Why are you stating this as if it applies to this case? “

I never said it applied to this case.

Re-read Tango/21, as I describe two future scenarios, and I’m asking which ones (or both) of those scenarios are you going to allow a review.

To the ump having to make a decision in real time from field height I am sure that it was not at all clear.

Exactly.  If the ball Jeffrey Maier stole from Tony Tarasco in the ‘96 ALCS wasn’t seen to be clearly on the field and below the fence, then I don’t think any hit will ever be totally clear.

As long as West signed a correct scorecard after the game, I’m happy.

I agree that the Tangotiger/21 scenario is not appealing, but I don’t like the flip side implications either:

If the umps got the initial call completely wrong and called a HR, then I think we all agree that they could have gone to replay and gotten it right.  But because they didn’t get the initial call completely wrong, now they’re restrained from doing that?

------

Given that replay was billed as a solution to the “Jeffrey Maier” fan interference issue when it was rolled out, even in articles on MLB.com, then I think it’s reasonable to construe (in spite of the horribly ambiguous rule) that any possible interference involving fans along the HR boundary should be reviewable. 

http://www.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080829&content_id=3386016&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy

-----

Another area of ambiguity with the rule AFAICT: 
Any decision regarding the placement of runners, should a home run call be reversed, will be made by the crew chief. As is done in cases of fan interference, the crew chief will place the baserunners where he believes they would have been had the call been made properly.

If the umps don’t know how far the baserunners travelled / whether they tagged up / advanced halfway / etc., can they use replay to help determine that too?

I understand where Tango is coming from, but in this specific case, I think there’s wiggle room in the wording of the rule to let it stand.

I believe what’s getting Tango upset is that we expect the review to be binary - the result should either be A or B, but not C. I recall a Steelers game a couple years ago where the refs ruled an incomplete pass when the ball came out as the Pittsburgh receiver hit the ground. Pittsburgh challenged, contending the receiver had caught the ball. All the viewers awaited the decision, catch or no catch. The refs came back and ruled that the receiver did in fact catch the ball, but then fumbled it away to the other team, turning an incompletion into a turnover. Pittsburgh won the challenge and lost the ball.

That kind of result can get you really p!ssed, but then we have to check the rules to see if the called result was within the guidelines.

A home run call, subject to fan interference. Tango’s logic is that for it to be a HR call, a HR has to be one of the possible outcomes. But if the play is called a double on the field, and the coach says “No, it was fan interference, he should be out”, the umps are then considering double or interference, and where’s the HR?

MLB will need to clarify the wording.

Hopefully we can arrive at a clearly worded rule that helps the umps get the call right in as many instances as possible.

I hate the idea that because of some ambiguous wording, we’re all having to talk about how in certain circumstances, one of the teams can argue “you got the call right, but I think that’s unfair”.

As Mike has pointed out two or three times, there is a replay directive, not a replay rule, and no one seems to have found a first hand text of the directive, only second hand accounts of it.

This link (from 2008), http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/10947997, contains a description of the directive more compatible with Joe West’s review:
“...video will be used only on so-called “boundary calls,” such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs.”

In this wording, the scope is “boundary calls”, not “home run calls.” I’d expect a list of examples following “such as” to be a non-exhaustive list.

If you are going to interpret that, then we should expect to see more situations of fan interference into doubles, or vice versa, exactly like I described with Fenway/RF that has nothing at all to do with home runs.

Tom,
the replay rule has been in effect for only three years. You’re making what amounts to an “argument from silence”, based on there never before having been a reversal from a non-HR to another non-HR call. To give that weight, you need enough balls hit into that area in that park with the right conditions (boundary play,non-HR call, umpires uncertain) to assume that there have been at least a few untaken opportunities to invoke the directive before. I think my guess about the probability of this is different from yours.

That Joe West went out of his way to say “HR” as a possibility, as opposed to simply saying “double to interference” tells me something… especially when he said that one of the umps thought it was interference to begin with.

So, none of the umps thought it was a HR, one called it a double, and the other thought it was an interference.

But, he had to say that Manuel (or someone) said “HR?” to justify him going to the replay.

My guess is that the HR has to be a real option here, and he took advantage of that to look at the replay to determine double or interference.  It was an illegal search.

Denial of protest, and no explanation. 

Indeed, no clarification if the replay rule can be used to turn a non-HR call into a non-HR call.  And if it can, does it only require that it “may possibly” appear to have been a HR, even though none of the umpires thought it was a HR.

You know what I love about the NFL: they mike the head ump, and he explains the call, and sometimes explains it fairly thoroughly in some obscure cases.

And what other leagues do is issue a clarifying statement on the rules to the press.

The only similar situation (maybe you guys remember others) of keeping quiet is when the Stanley Cup was decided on a “toe in the crease”, and the NHL said there was some “memo” during the year that clarified it for the refs, but the public never saw the memo.  Before the next year started, they changed the rule entirely. 

I would expect to see something like that here.

"But, he had to say that Manuel (or someone) said “HR?” to justify him going to the replay.

My guess is that the HR has to be a real option here, and he took advantage of that to look at the replay to determine double or interference.  It was an illegal search.”

Illegal if he was lying, which you are suggesting he is.  Perfectly legal if it is true that the “Phillies” were asking for a HR and therefore he was looking at the video to see if it might have indeed been a HR (and then discovered or confirmed the interference).

The umpires don’t have to “think it was a HR” or order for it to be OK to do a video review.  They simply have to want to make sure that it was or it wasn’t, especially if the other team suggests or requests a review for that purpose (even though we all no know that a request is not necessary).

IOW, “None of us think it was a HR, but we’ll check just to make sure or just to satisfy team X.”

A legal search and arrest is when the cop sees suspicious looking plastic bags with a white powdery substance in the back seat of your car, searches the car and finds illegal weapons.

An illegal search and therefor invalid arrest is when the cops search your car without your permission because they claimed they saw some weapon-looking thing in plain sight, but they really only saw some normal looking boxes in the back seat or they claim that you gave them permission when in fact you did not.

In this case, we don’t know which it was because we don’t know what the umpires were thinking and discussing. My original post suggests that I think it was scenario number two, that Joe West and the rest of the umpires were NOT checking to see whether the ball was a HR and everything that he said afterward (about the Phillies yelling that it was a HR, etc.) was posturing and/or lying to cover his ass.  Sounds like Tango agrees with that, more or less…

Eh, more or less.

I’m saying that it would be more like violating a judge’s order, that the videotape can’t be used other than to establish something specific (HR or not), and anything else viewed in that tape is inadmissable. 

The judge would ask: “Did you see a HR there?” And if the response is “no”, then he would say “thank you, and don’t tell me whatever else you think you saw”.

I have no doubt that this is what should have happened.  That Joe Torre did not clarify this in his short press release cements it for me.

As I said, this ruling opens the door for further doubles / interference replays, especially at those parks where a fan can reach over the wall (like Fenway).  The Angels ballpark is also a candidate.

"I’m saying that it would be more like violating a judge’s order, that the videotape can’t be used other than to establish something specific (HR or not), and anything else viewed in that tape is inadmissable.”

So what do you think the “interference” part of the directive refers to?

That it only applies if you want to reverse a HR call, due to interference. Or you uphold the interference call.

Otherwise, MLB should be explicit that you can do a doubles / interference review (which is exactly what happened here, under the pretense that they were maybe looking for a HR… that’s just a bridge to get from double to interference).

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6933360/umpire-joe-west-was-right-call-hunter-pence-fan-interference-former-umpire-says

If that is accurate, then this supports the notion that doubles off the wall, where a fan hangs over, is reviewable.  And all the ump has to say is “possible HR” (and who’s going to argue that, since a fan’s arms are going to be at best 3 feet below the fence line, close enough to call a “possible HR” as a guise so they can view the tape). 

And once he says that, then he’s allowed to review any individual component in the rule, even if it’s not dependent on it being a HR or not.  Basically, the test of dependency no longer exists.

And that there is no such thing as “reversing” a call, since, according to the umpire in the article, there is never a “call” made by the umpire: he just lets the play go on until the ball is dead.  They didn’t rule a base hit, they didn’t rule an out, they didn’t rule a HR, they didn’t rule interference.

There is no “presumption of a call”, that the call was actually a double.  Without a presumption of call, there is no reversal of call.

Therefore, the MLB missives are horribly written, if what that ump says is correct.

The picture that they showed in the article that Mike referenced above seems to be very close to what an umpire would have seen during the play.  It shows how difficult it was to determine during the play whether the ball was touched and where the fans hands and the ball were when the ball were in relation to the top of the fence.  I see no problem in how the rule was written or how it was applied in this case.  The only problem I see was West claiming that he was asked by the Phiillies to review for the possibility it was a HR when no one else has come forward to support his claim that he was.  The possibility of that unnecessary lie taints what was a perfectly reasonable use of the video review rule.

"I see no problem in how the rule was written”

Dude, c’mon.  The rule, as we’ve seen it, is horribly written.  It talks about “home run calls” and “reversing calls”.

I mean, if plays are allowed to go on without the umpire indicating anything (i.e., no call on the field), then what is there to reverse?  With no call, there’s nothing to affirm or reverse.

You can’t read that rule (as we’ve seen it), and conclude that a doubles to interference call would be permitted.

I just taking issue with your opinion that there’s “no” problem with HOW it was written.  I’d get an F if I wrote that rule, and allowed the play as they called it.

I will stipulate that there is a non-public rule out there, that MAY be well-written.

What we’ve been discussing is based on whatever is available to us, and whatever non-public information is interpreted for us.

***

In any case, the precedent has been set.  Looks for calls at parks with short OF fences.

In any case, the precedent has been set.  Looks for calls at parks with short OF fences.

Fine by me.  I think that’s within the intent of the original creation of the replay rules, whether or not a minute parsing of the rule text (or public rendering of the private rule text) clearly defines it as in-scope.

Tango, why are you so agitated by this?  Do you feel that a team has a right to benefit from a bad call that would be infringed upon by an umpire who uses replay to get the call right?  How would using replay to adjudicate fan interference issues in RF at Fenway, Anaheim and Dodger Stadium (and maybe LF at PNC) be a bad thing?

I’m just saying to stick to the rules, and if the rules need changing, then change the rules.  I saw this with the “toe in the crease” rule in the NHL.

Skaters used to run in the goalie, and no calls would be made.  So, they decided to have the “toe in the crease” rule, that even so much as a toe in the crease, that precedes the puck, would be called a penalty.  It got to such an absurd point that it culminated in the Stanley Cup decided on it (and allowing the toe in the crease, against the original rules, but apparently clarified in some non-public rules).  They changed the rule right after that.

So, in the MLB case, we have a similar situation, as to whether to go to the letter of the law, or be more “fair” about it. 

Doubles to interference was never the intent.  But after seeing what happened here, that taking advantage of the “was it a HR?” made up excuse, the umpires really wanted access to that replay, come hell or high water.

So, let’s be honest about it.  The umpires want the replay rule for more than HR-to-not and not-to-HR.  They want access to anything where the umpire is 150 feet away from the play.

"That it only applies if you want to reverse a HR call, due to interference. Or you uphold the interference call.”

That is your interpretation. According to the umpire quoted in the article you can rule interference in and of itself as long as the play was reviewable in the first place.  Again, the wording of the rule, at least as we have seen it, makes it very unclear as to how to handle an interference situation.