"Matt Shaw led off the Chicago Cubs' ninth against Mason Miller with a little squibber down the third-base line, and it appeared to be trickling foul as it ran out of momentum. Just as it came to a stop- just!-Ty France picked it up ever so daintily, perhaps trying a bit of a frame job to make it look even more foul than it appeared on first glance."
"Umpire Dan Merzel called it fair, however, and was backed up by the third-base ump, and that call is non-reviewable. It was the dinkiest of infield singles for Shaw, who would later come around to score to end Miller's streak of 34.2 scoreless innings."
"From the umpire's perspective, looking from directly above the ball, the tiniest little piece of it would have been over the chalk of the foul line. That would've been enough to make it fair."
"So the ball was touching only foul territory, but a small slice of it was sitting above fair territory. Fair or foul? Does fairness have unlimited verticality, or is contact with the ground what counts?"
The introduction of replay review and automated ball-strike systems has led to perceptions that baseball lacks whimsy. However, the complexity of the game ensures that human judgment remains essential. An example occurred when a close call on a ball hit by Matt Shaw was ruled fair by the umpire, despite appearing foul on camera. This incident illustrates that even with strict rules, the nuances of the game can lead to unexpected outcomes, highlighting the ongoing mystery in baseball.
Read at Defector
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]