Top ump: Replay is coming to baseball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

So, it's OK for the umpires and/or rules procedures to delay the game since the players do? Is that really the position you guys are taking?

---

Not me. However, it does debunk the argument that having instant replay would make already historically long games even longer. THAT is not going to happen. Disputed calls take a chunk of time as it is. First, one team argues with the umpires. Then the umpires debate amongst themselves. Then, if the call is changed, the other team argues. Instant replay, I think, would actually CUT DOWN on the wasted time.

Quote:

---

Besides, those delays (and I certainly agree that their annoying as ****) are really the umpires' fault anyway.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Introducing replay is something that creates a barrier, a distinct difference, between how the game is played at the major league level and how the game is played by your groups' local pick up game.

---

I don't see how that's true. Using instant replay, if it's limited to home run calls and fair/foul calls, means that it'll only happen every once in a while. It's not creating any fundamental difference. The game is still the same.

Quote:

---

Regardless, the biggest problem that I keep coming back to is that human umpires, acting on their own, mistakes and all, are an integral aspect of the play of the game. If the human eye can't tell if a pitched ball is really a strike or not, does it matter that you can tell with advanced technology?

---

I say yes.

Quote:

---

Being the batter at the plate, it may as well be a strike if you can't pick the ball up, anyway.

---

What if you correctly pick up the ball as outside the strike zone, and the umpire calls it a strike?

Quote:

---

Because the play of any game relies on our natural, unaided perception of how things should be in order for us to maintain our interest. If all doubt were completely removed from situations such as this, then there's a huge aspect of the game that is simply missing.

---

I disagree. I don't think incorrect calls are a huge aspect of the game.

Quote:

---

Most importantly, having human umpires to call the game using nothing but their own perception is just more fun, and fun trumps correctness every time in my view. It's fun to be able to say "that stupid ump! he's blind as a bat!"

---

Sure it's more fun maybe, but I don't think that's right to the players. If a player hits a home run, it should be a home run. If a player is safe, he should be safe. Yeah, it's more fun to yell at the ump, but I don't think it's fun for the players involved to not be correctly rewarded for what they do.

I'm sure I'll say more later, as I should be asleep right now, but...

Quote:

---

but I don't think it's fun for the players involved to not be correctly rewarded for what they do.

---

To be blunt, who cares? Their professionals who are playing for our entertainment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Not me. However, it does debunk the argument that having instant replay would make already historically long games even longer. THAT is not going to happen. Disputed calls take a chunk of time as it is. First, one team argues with the umpires. Then the umpires debate amongst themselves. Then, if the call is changed, the other team argues. Instant replay, I think, would actually CUT DOWN on the wasted time.

---

I'm just quoting this, because this is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. Thanks, Houston. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Not when they want to challenge every close call.

---

I don't know why you would bring this up, when I said clearly I'm talking only about close call home runs, and right now, MLB is talking only about close call home runs. That's all we're talking here. As I said, I would support delving deeper in to replay only when the technology present can properly support it. You're veering off in to Slippery Slope argument territory, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I think HGM was talking about more than home runs when he said that, so I had every right to chime in without donning my mountainering gear.

---

Lol. Nice. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I think HGM was talking about more than home runs when he said that

---

I wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

However, Joe Sheehan did make a rather convicning argument in a subscription article on Baseball Prospectus the other day. His overall thesis was that he wants the outcome of the game to be decided by the players, and thus, the calls should be correct. He did go as far as advocating for machines to call balls/strikes, etc., saying that the game should follow the rulebook strike zone, which it doesn't, which isn't a bad point.

And you know, what's the problem with that? What is so bad about embracing technology? What is so bad about making it so that the calls are 100% right and the games are decided purely by how the players played, instead of by some old guys judgment calls, often times made when they are not in a position to make an accurate judgment?

---

Well, IMO the experience of having watched instant replay in action in football is that they still don't get them right, even with the technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Well, IMO the experience of having watched instant replay in action in football is that they still don't get them right, even with the technology.

---

I don't know very much about football, but isn't it fair to say that a lot of baseball calls are a lot more clear cut than football calls? The only football calls that I can think of off the top of my head that are as easily yes/no as the overwhelming majority of baseball calls are in/out of bounds and touchdowns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't know very much about football, but isn't it fair to say that a lot of baseball calls are a lot more clear cut than football calls? The only football calls that I can think of off the top of my head that are as easily yes/no as the overwhelming majority of baseball calls are in/out of bounds and touchdowns.

---

Well, yes, but they still don't get those right via replay enough to justify the disruption it causes to the pace of the game IMO. And baseball, even more than football, doesn't need anything to further slow the game down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Well, yes, but they still don't get those right via replay enough to justify the disruption it causes to the pace of the game IMO. And baseball, even more than football, doesn't need anything to further slow the game down.

---

How would instant replay slow the game down anymore than the arguing and the umpire discussions already do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

However, it does debunk the argument that having instant replay would make already historically long games even longer. THAT is not going to happen. Disputed calls take a chunk of time as it is. First, one team argues with the umpires. Then the umpires debate amongst themselves. Then, if the call is changed, the other team argues. Instant replay, I think, would actually CUT DOWN on the wasted time.

---

Take everything that currently occurs and add to it the time it'll take to actually review the replay. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it'll cut down time at all. Everyone will still argue the call(s), since no one on the field is going to care what the replay shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Take everything that currently occurs and add to it the time it'll take to actually review the replay. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it'll cut down time at all. Everyone will still argue the call(s), since no one on the field is going to care what the replay shows.

---

I like to think that people, even hot-headed managers and players, would be a little smarter than that, to argue with visual evidence.

If there is a dispute, the on-field umpire signals to the booth umpire doing the reviews, and he signals back the correct call.

Both. The overwhelming majority of calls aren't going to be inconclusive. There will be some that are. As I said earlier, baseball calls are generally much more clear-cut than the calls in other sports where action is non-stop. You're never going to satisfy everyone, as people will choose to be unsatisfied even if they know they are wrong, because that's just the way people are. However, you can increase the accuracy of close calls.

There not going to have monitors on the field. It's not going to matter what the guy in the booth says, the people directly involved aren't going to see it. And, yankee hater is correct here. Even if they could all watch it together, I guarantee that there would be a lot of "see! look at that!" going on from all sides. The managers have a vested interest in getting things to go their way, regardless of the "correctness" of their position.

I think that, when it comes to calling foul/home run or whether or not the ball made it out, things will be much more cut and dried than a lot of the football replays (was he in bounds? Okay, he stepped down out of bounds, but was he pushed, or did his own momentum carry him?) That would seem to equal less time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

I think that, when it comes to calling foul/home run or whether or not the ball made it out, things will be much more cut and dried than a lot of the football replays (was he in bounds? Okay, he stepped down out of bounds, but was he pushed, or did his own momentum carry him?) That would seem to equal less time.

---

Right. That's what I'm saying.

You could also institute rules. Once the instant replay is checked and the call is given, that call is final, and any further arguing results in immediate ejection.

There's a rule about arguing strikes or balls, and yet both players and managers still argue those...

Regardless, I'm personally not to concerned about the time. It is a concern, but it's hardly my primary problem with replay in baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BorgHunter

But slippery slope arguments are fallacious, ...

---

Well, we've all seen NFL games where they take ten minutes to make a ruling on a call. How conclusive can it be if it took ten minutes to make up their mind?

I quite clearly remember, a few years ago, what happened when the Big Ten started using instant reply. When I was watching a game (or rather, trying to watch a game), they'd stop for video review on almost every first down, incomplete pass near the sideline, running play where someone though the ball may have come out. I mean, it must've been 90% of those sort of plays. It got to the point that whenever someone made a first-down, I'd change to another channel for a few minutes to allow them to get by the inevitable replay before the started the game up again.

I have full faith that no matter how innocent something looks, it can be screwed up. It's human nature.

I think the main two reasons people have for going on about instant replay are:

1. It gives sports writers something new to complain about since they don't have Barry Bonds to kick around any more.
2. It gives t.v. networks a chance to show more commercials.

I remember when replay first came to the NFL, I thought "long overdue." Then, when I saw how it began to bog down the games and they dumped it - for a few years - I was happy to see it go. I was sorry to see it come back. I expect the same thing to happen with baseball.

So, to avoid what happened in that Big Ten game, you do what the NFL does, and limit the number of reviews. Really, how many questionable home runs are there per average game? Not many, if any, so limiting it wouldn't be a huge problem. Also, the officials would be the ones calling it, not the managers, so you remove that factor from things.

As for NFL replays, actually there is a 60 second time limit for the ref to watch replays before he has to return to the field and announce a decision, so I really don't know where you're getting this '10 minute replays' stuff from, lkcostas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

So, to avoid what happened in that Big Ten game, you do what the NFL does, and limit the number of reviews. Really, how many questionable home runs are there per average game? Not many, if any, so limiting it wouldn't be a huge problem.

---

There's an average of like 2 home runs per game or so, I think...around there. The overwhelming majority of them aren't questionable.

Quote:

---

Also, the officials would be the ones calling it, not the managers, so you remove that factor from things.

---

True.

http://www.retrosheet.org/losthr.htm#Other

Wow! Interesting there! Never knew that existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

Also, the officials would be the ones calling it, not the managers, so you remove that factor from things.

---

Are you actually suggesting that if a manager asks for a call to be reviewed the umpires will say no? This would just leave the umpire open to a ridiculous level of criticism. On home run calls this would be OK because there aren't very many of them - but close calls on foul balls are fairly frequent and some sort of challenge system would be needed if review was used for foul balls.

Yea but, there needs to be a game going on too. If we're just sitting there looking at the players, managers, and umps milling around, that's not fun.

I'd rather wait for some dude to look at a video of a disputed home run call, which the overwhelming majority of such calls are conclusive when slowed down and viewed at different angles, and the call be correct, than wait while some people yell at each other, and then the umpires talk to each other and make the incorrect call and then some more people yell at each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Are you actually suggesting that if a manager asks for a call to be reviewed the umpires will say no? This would just leave the umpire open to a ridiculous level of criticism. On home run calls this would be OK because there aren't very many of them - but close calls on foul balls are fairly frequent and some sort of challenge system would be needed if review was used for foul balls.

---

Well, for foul balls, I would suggest it would come more 'from the booth', sort of like what the NFL does with the final 2 minutes of each half. Or, a more efficient version of what the NHL does on questionable goal reviews.

baseball + instant replay = FUBAR

How can that even be said without it being tried?

quite easily.

i open my mouth start with fu then proceed to the bar

not hard at all.

:rolleyes:

:confused:

what ?

You know exactly what I mean. How do you know it's "FUBAR" if it hasn't even been tried?

i KNOW that if i slide down a razor into a vat of iodine ,"things" will be fubar.

If you think it must be tried to certain , feel free ...

go ahead now
say it
cmon
you can do it !

FU - BAR

ps - im over here now

Comparing a method to increase the accuracy of the calls to idiotic things like cutting open a giant vat of iodine doesn't even deserve a response.