Thank you specifically for pointing me to the relevant rules in the rule book! I guess no one (umpires/players/managers) thought to review the play! I wonder if, at this point, anyone other than you or I are aware of the mistake.

But, is it a mistake?

On second thought, upon reading through rules 3.15 and 3.16 a few times, including the entire set of 3.15 and 3.16 comments, I'm not sure either rule could be used to overturn Francoeur's catch or to rule the play a homerun initially. Neither the rules nor the examples provided seem to apply to the play in question.

The portion of the 3.16 comment that you quote may be specifically for cases when the ball rebounds back into the field of play. Since this didn't happen with Francoeur's catch, the 3.16 comment may not apply. Perhaps a new rule / rule comment should be added to address Francoeur's play!

I am guessing that a play is ruled "dead" at the moment a fan touches the ball so that runners cannot keep advancing at their own discretion. In our example, Francoeur made the catch so the runners couldn't advance anyway (except on a tag-up) - then again, it's not an example of intereference, so the whole "dead at the moment of interference" rule does not apply.

Nowhere does it say that when a ball travels over the wall it is "dead" at the moment a fan touches it (Except when the ball rebounds back into the field of play). So, perhaps for this reason alone, the Francoeur catch should stand as called!

Side note:
The new rule should also address what happens if a fan reaches over onto the field of play, deflects the ball, and the catch is still made. - will the play count as an out?
I believe in this case it would be up to the umpire to decide if the fielder would have still caught the ball had the fan not deflected the ball. This opinion is based on rule 3.16. (I've bolded what I believe is the portion of the rule relevant to this case.) You could also probably make a strong case that rule 3.16 is already sufficient for a ruling on play like this.
3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify [i.e., "cancel out"--B.E.] the act of interference.
Thus if a catch is made that otherwise (without the interference), would not have been made, the play should not be ruled as a catch. But, if the umpire believes the fielder would still have caught the ball without the interference, then the play should be ruled as a catch/out.

Rule 2.00(d):
"Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball."

-- Clearly, this did not occur.

Rule 3.16 Comment:
"There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field....

"No interference shall be allowed [i.e., "called"--J.A.] when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk."

MLB Network's Sunday night plays of the week featured, at #1, Jeff Francoeur leaping and reaching way over the wall to rob a home run.

Using my own personal dvr slow motion, I confirmed my hunch that just before the ball ended up in Francoeur's glove, it ricocheted off of a fan's glove. You can see the outer portion of the inside of the fan's glove flap way open as the ball hits, and then you can see the ball deflect by about 25 degrees into the palm of Francoeur's glove.

My questions is...what is the official rule regarding a play like this! ?

It cannot be "fan interference" since the fan did not reach over onto the field of play. But, should the play be "dead" and ruled a "home run" when the ball deflects off the fan's glove? My intuition tells me that if the umpire feels the fielder would catch the ball with or without the deflection, then the catch counts!

And, speaking of the '62 Mets, they, like the Astros, had only one .500+ stretch of 10 games or more (May 6-20, 9-3). Other than that stretch, they went 31-117, a .209 clip.

"The Astros have been above .500 in a stretch of 10 games or more only once, going 9-6 from Aug 16-31."

As a point of comparison, the infamous 2003 Tigers (43-119) had three such .500 stretches (May 3-14, 6-4; May 22-Jun 4, 7-5; Jun 30-Jul 17, 8-6). Plus, they closed out the season 5-1 to avoid finishing with a worse record than the '62 Mets (funny how at little motivation can produce results).

Those '36 Browns - you have to feel for them. Three 12+ run losses to both the Tigers and Yanks, plus they had another 11-run loss to the Yanks, so nearly joined the '30 Phils and 2011 Jays with four whippings by the same team.

For good measure, they also lost by 16 to the Senators, and by 13 to the White Sox. Total of eight 12-run losses, including 12-0 and 14-0 in a doubleheader against Detroit in the last week of the season. Not fun - yet, somehow, starters Tommy Thomas (11-9) and Chief Hogsett (13-15) managed respectable W-L records on a 55-97 team.

BTW, this is a good use for the Game Results chart at the top of the Team pages - really easy to pick off extreme games like this.

I ran through the game logs of the 1935-37 Browns and the 1938-41 Athletics, representing seven of the 35 team seasons in which one team lost five or more games by 12+ runs. The Browns lost three such games to the Tigers in '35, '36, and '37, and (as noted) to the Yankees in '36. The A's lost three such games to the Yankees in '39.

Then I checked the 1930 Phillies because . . . well, because the agony of pitchers long dead no longer troubles us and because lists with lots of big numbers can be fun. And I found that the 1930 Phillies lost games to the Cubs by scores of 21-8, 17-3, 17-4, and 16-2. So, presumably to Canada's deep sorrow, we now know how the 2011 Blue Jays are like the 1930 Phillies.

"I haven't researched whether the 2011 Jays' four such losses to the Red Sox is the most ever in one season to one team."

I checked out the 1927-39 Yankees. The '36 Yanks had 3 wins by 12+ runs against both the As and Browns.The '31 team had 2 wins by 12+ runs against each of the Indians, Tigers, As and Browns. But, no four-time whippings found.