Top ump: Replay is coming to baseball

[gRYFYN1]

1st off replay is a great idea, there is no arguement against in on foul balls/homeruns that make any sense, it all boils down to "If we allow them to use instant replay the machine will eat our brains".

Out/Safe calls, maybe, the NCAA version could easily work there.

As far a machine called Balls/Strikes, that a bit trickier.
Saying that camera angles lie, is really a vote against human ump, they have one and only one poor angle to call a ball/strike, while a machine will have several cameras at various angles, mapping the patch in true 3D.

Still there are way too many issues as far as calibartion/batter to work out for it to happen anytime soon (even if we let SkyNet start calling homeruns)

As far as uniform stadiums.. who said that replay was to make the game fair, fairness has absolutley nothing to do with it, its about CORRECTNESS not fairness.

[lkcostas]

It might start innocently enough - with using replay to see if a ball was really hit outta the park. I don't know why in the course of a 162 games it's really vital to get all those calls right, but let's pretend it is. But that won't be where it ends. It'll end with using replay to challange balls & strikes. Then it becomes an all-day game that nobody wants to watch and the whole thing collapses.

[gRYFYN1]

It might start innocently enough - with using replay to see if a ball was really hit outta the park. I don't know why in the course of a 162 games it's really vital to get all those calls right, but let's pretend it is. But that won't be where it ends. It'll end with using replay to challange balls & strikes. Then it becomes an all-day game that nobody wants to watch and the whole thing collapses.

See instant replay will just be the 1st step to Skynet launching a Nuclear attack.

See the NFL uses instant replay and the averge NFL game takes so long they can only play 1 game a week, NBA uses replay that why the averge NBA game time in 17.3 hours, and using replay in the NHL makes games take so long that had to cancel a whole season just to finish the previous years schedule. (I may need to fact check that stuff, but I'm fairly sure that its accurate)

[BorgHunter]

It might start innocently enough - with using replay to see if a ball was really hit outta the park. I don't know why in the course of a 162 games it's really vital to get all those calls right, but let's pretend it is. But that won't be where it ends. It'll end with using replay to challange balls & strikes. Then it becomes an all-day game that nobody wants to watch and the whole thing collapses.

I'm actually not so sure about this. Ball/strike and safe/out have historically been judgment calls at umpire discretion: Argue one of these, and you can be immediately tossed from the game. Home run or not, though is more of an objective call rather than a judgment call.

If it stopped at home run/not and fair/foul, maybe, just maybe, I'd be able to swallow it. But the QuesTec ball/strike machine idea is, I believe, absolutely ludicrous. But slippery slope arguments are fallacious, so I don't think the argument that one form of instant replay will lead to more stuff along that line is a good one. So this discussion should be restricted solely to the effects of X alteration, not if X alteration will lead to Y alteration then Z alteration.

[Swampdog]

Hockey? Someone plays hockey? Is that a sport? You mean field hockey, right?

[ohms_law]

No. Period.

And why is that a bad thing? The PLAYERS should decide the game, not the umpires.

Umpires are players as well.

[CatKnight]

I'm actually not so sure about this. Ball/strike and safe/out have historically been judgment calls at umpire discretion: Argue one of these, and you can be immediately tossed from the game. Home run or not, though is more of an objective call rather than a judgment call.

If it stopped at home run/not and fair/foul, maybe, just maybe, I'd be able to swallow it. But the QuesTec ball/strike machine idea is, I believe, absolutely ludicrous. But slippery slope arguments are fallacious, so I don't think the argument that one form of instant replay will lead to more stuff along that line is a good one. So this discussion should be restricted solely to the effects of X alteration, not if X alteration will lead to Y alteration then Z alteration.

I find when people want to restrict discussions, they're worried where it might lead.

So, tell me. Why is the slippery slope argument fallacious? Because balls/strikes etc. have always been judgement calls? Well...up to now so have foul balls and homers.

You can't argue fouls and homers are more objective. THAT is fallacious. There are clear guidelines for what constitutes a foul or homer. There are also clear guidelines defining strike zones, and telling us when a runner is safe or out.

I think the 'slippery slope' argument is perfectly valid. The only way this works is if MLB does what the NFL did: Clearly express what may or may not be challenged, and levy a penalty on the challenging team if they're wrong.

[HoustonGM]

It might start innocently enough - with using replay to see if a ball was really hit outta the park. I don't know why in the course of a 162 games it's really vital to get all those calls right, but let's pretend it is. But that won't be where it ends. It'll end with using replay to challange balls & strikes. Then it becomes an all-day game that nobody wants to watch and the whole thing collapses.

No. There is no slippery slope. You set up rules. If the rules say instant replay can only be used on home run calls, that's what it's used on. And I don't see how it's not vital to make sure that the calls are correct...so you know, what the players actually do is what decides the game, instead of some guy's judgment.

Umpires are players as well.

Huh? No they're not. I don't follow this logic.

I think the 'slippery slope' argument is perfectly valid. The only way this works is if MLB does what the NFL did: Clearly express what may or may not be challenged, and levy a penalty on the challenging team if they're wrong.

I don't think you need to have any penalties. You simply clearly express what may or may not be subject to instant replay. In my opinion, this should be fair/foul or home run/not. You have a separate booth umpire who watches the play. If it's disputed, you look at ask that guy, and he tells you. Simple. No slippery slope, no if's, just a simple "Yes that was over the fence."

[ohms_law]

Geez, I hope to **** that there's no "challenges" implemented in baseball. Man, I hate that.

QuesTek should be used, as well as cameras for everything else that we can think of. They should be limited to post game review, advanced training, and auditing purposes though, not in game review. Like I said above, umpires are players as well. They have been, are currently, and should remain as independant participants of the game. I don't want to see players using any sort of advanced technology on the field either. Wooden bats in MLB are great, and I'd hate to see outfielders use some sort of binocular system or something similar to assist them in seeing fly balls. Heck, I don't think managers, coaches, or players ought to have access to computer systems in the dugout either. Technology should be heavily leveraged, but it should remain off the actual field.

[HoustonGM]

Why? If the technology is available to make accurate calls, what's wrong with that? There's no way that taking 20 seconds to review a video of a home run ball can lead to binocular systems for outfielders. These are ridiculous slippery slope arguments. Nobody is talking about technology to increase the ability of the players. We're just talking about technology to make accurate calls so that what those players do has the outcome that it should correctly have.

[ohms_law]

The technology is available for hitters to hit the ball an additional 50-100 feet as well, yet we don't let them use aluminum bats. Why not?

Computer systems and additional communication devices are not allowed in the dugouts. Why not?

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument to me. Managers and players can't use technology to improve their play on the field, so I don't see why umpires should be able to either. Their play calling is a part of the game, good or bad. Just like players and managers, we can all hope that they'll learn how to perform to the best of their abilities, but they should do that without any artificial assistance.

[HoustonGM]

The difference between umpires and players is fairly obvious to me. The purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules and call the game. The umpires aren't playing the game. They should get calls correct. They are not in a competition. If something is available that will increase the accuracy of the calls, I don't see why it shouldn't be used, particularly in areas like home run calls, where they are game-changing plays.

The umpires should get calls correct so that the performance of the players is what decides the game. They are the ones in the competition, and that's the difference between players using technology to enhance their on-field play and umpires using technology to increase the accuracy of the calls. The players are participating in an athletic competition. Athletic competitions are meant to be decided by the athletic performance of the participants. A binocular system for outfielders is beyond athletic performance. The umpire is meant to oversee said athletic performance, enforce the rules, and make accurate calls. An instant replay system for umpires is not beyond the scope of what they're supposed to do, as technological enhancements are for players. It improves the accuracy of their playcalling.

We shouldn't be hoping that umpires perform "to the best of their abilities." In a precision game like baseball, with clearly defined rules and yes/no outcomes, those outcomes shouldn't be decided by the differing abilities of men. They should be called correctly. There is no judgment call in a home run ball. It's either over the fence or not. If it is, it should be a home run. It shouldn't not be a home run because the umpire running out from the infield couldn't see a tiny white ball 200 feet away. There's no judgment in a play at first base. The player is either safe or not.

With such clearly defined rules and explicit yes/no outcomes, we should use whatever we have available to use to make sure those yes/no outcomes are as accurate as possible. This is distinctly different from giving players technological enhancements to their on-field play. I know I'm probably just repeating myself now, but the umpires should serve to make sure that the athletic performance of the game's participants determines the outcome of the game, and that means making calls with as much accuracy as possible.

Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought.

[ohms_law]

The purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules and call the game. The umpires aren't playing the game.

That's right, and in doing their jobs they are active participants on the field of play. They are part of the play of the game, and indeed are an integral part of the game play. They are therefore players.

They should get calls correct.

Of course they should. Managers should make the correct strategic moves, and players should make the correct plays as well. They often don't though. It's part of the game.

They are not in a competition.

They help decide the competition, so they are a component of the competition.

If something is available that will increase the accuracy of the calls, I don't see why it shouldn't be used, particularly in areas like home run calls, where they are game-changing plays.

As I siad above, it should be used, and used heavily. It simply shouldn't be used during the play of the actual game.

[HoustonGM]

That's right, and in doing their jobs they are active participants on the field of play. They are part of the play of the game, and indeed are an integral part of the game play. They are therefore players.

But they're not part of either of the competing teams.

Of course they should. Managers should make the correct strategic moves, and players should make the correct plays as well. They often don't though. It's part of the game.

That is letting the performance of the participants of the two competing sides determine the outcome of the game. Sometimes, they fail to perform as they should. The rules of the game, however, should not be subject to this. They stay the same. A player is safe or out. A ball is over the fence or not. A ball is fair or foul. Mistakes in the judgment of such yes/no outcomes should be minimized as much as possible.

They help decide the competition, so they are a component of the competition.

Component of the competition, yes. They are not, however, competing. I do not think that their judgment calls on plays, sometimes called from an angle that does not at all allow the umpire to make an accurate call, should decide the competition. I think the performance of the players should.

As I siad above, it should be used, and used heavily. It simply shouldn't be used during the play of the actual game.

And I disagree. If something is available to increase the accuracy of calls, I think it should be used. I want the outcome of a baseball game to be determined as much as possible solely by the performance of the two competing teams.

And I'd just like to point this out to all. This is an example of a fine, civil debate. There are two sides, with two different opinions, both going back-and-forth on the points of the issue, presenting their thoughts. It's nice, isn't it?

[ohms_law]

No, umpires are not members of either competing team, but they do play a huge role in the play of the game, and therefore are playing the game. I don't think that element of game play needs to be or should be altered in any way. Of course mistakes should be minimized, but the uncertainty factor is, has always been, and should remain a part of the game. I'm not worried about any sort of "skynet", or "computers taking over the game" at all. Heck, I'm not even worried about any sort of slippery slope (there is obviously a difference between using cameras to assist refereeing and batters using aluminum bats). However, that human element introduced by umpires is, and in my opinion should be, an integral component of the game.

Players and managers make it even more a part of the game by playing to the umpires as well. Good players make their own luck, and part of doing that is learning how umpires work and using that knowledge to get calls in your favor more often than not. Again, it's just a part of the game.