Video: Young's potential go-ahead HR is ruled foul by 1B Umpire Ted Barrett, upheld via replay (DET)
Conclusively correct, the close call nonetheless brought to light two glaring deficiencies with the instant replay review process, specifically the angular optical illusion and inequality and inconsistency between ballparks.
To illustrate the principle of angular optical illusion, consider an April 15, 2011 Adam Lind home run hit at Fenway Park (Video). Hit near Pesky's Pole in right field, Paul Nauert's initial call of HR was overturned after instant replay review when umpires judged the ball's trajectory carried the projectile to the right of the foul pole, rendering it a foul ball. From the angle at or near first base, the drive appeared fair, as the vertical yellow line drawn into the wall, next to the advertisement sign, appears in congruence with the foul pole itself; from the infield foul line, this would appear to be a home run as the ball landed to the left of the vertical line drawn on the wall, suggesting a fair ball.
However, and as the above image indicates, a view from above third base captures the true nature of this illusion: To maintain an appearance of one continuous vertical line when viewed from the infield, the right field corner's foul line is segmented into three separate borders: one on the lower wall, another on the padding and the third being the foul pole itself. This phenomena has also been detailed in "Papi Foul: Red Sox DH David Ortiz Loses Hit to Pesky Angle, Ad Placement."
It is this principle of angular optical illusion that creates the appearance of a fair ball from one angle, and foul from another. As such, instant replay decisions based on one angle may be flawed: When two angles appear to show two separate events, replays can no longer be clear, convincing or conclusive, and it behooves umpires to uphold the original call.
(2) Ballpark Broadcast Inequality
It is no secret that certain MLB teams are far richer than others, in terms of payroll, operations cost or otherwise. That otherwise, of course, includes broadcasting, wherein certain teams have the means with which to allocate a greater amount of funds to their broadcast than others do. For instance, the Yankees' regional sports network (RSN), the YES Network, pays the team a significant rights fee, which is higher than an according fee paid by, say, Fox Sports Kansas City to the Royals or Sun Sports to the Rays.
This effectively, and for the purposes of this discussion, means... more high quality television cameras per broadcast. These HQ cameras, in addition to HD, may have additional features, such as greater frame rate (xMo super slow-motion or even infrared "Hot Spot"). Additionally, nationally televised games tend to carry more cameras of higher quality per broadcast than any regional network; with ESPN featuring Yankees-Red Sox rivalry contests more often than, say, Astros-Padres, it is logical to conclude that if a difficult call must go to instant replay, the New York-Boston umpiring crew will be at a distinct advantage of having more camera angles of higher quality to choose from.
Ballpark broadcast inequality is so apparent, the video game MLB 11: The Show introduced a feature known as "Authentic Broadcast," wherein broadcast angles varied from park-to-park, similar to the real-life variation. This was followed up by TruBroadcast in the 2012 version.
Yet while angular illusions and ballpark inequality affects Quality of Replay from game-to-game and stadium-to-stadium, replay remains remarkably consistent within each actual contest.
For instance, the limitations seen in Kansas City with Young's 9th inning fly ball were present for both the Tigers and Royals for the duration for that specific contest. In that respect, the replay process is fair to both teams playing the same game.
Yet try comparing Detroit-KC to Boston-New York and... well... there is certainly a discrepency.
