Top ump: Replay is coming to baseball

[gRYFYN1]

9.01
(a) The league president shall appoint one or more umpires to officiate at each league championship game. The umpires shall be responsible for the conduct of the game in accordance with these official rules and for maintaining discipline and order on the playing field during the game.


There are official rules set up, the umpires job is to follow those rules, They are not "playing" the game any more than the foul line or bases are "playing the game".

Replay is not a "slippery slope", name one instance where it has, basketball? football? hockey? ... if replay is such a slippery slope why hasn't it happened in other sports? or are all baseball executives / owners / umps simply spinless morons who can't stop the machines ?

This will not happen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBOMYdu7b64

[ohms_law]

Oh, come on now. Everyone, from players to managers to the commisioner and the umpires themselves, knows that all umpires are human beings. You can't compare an umpire to a base or the foul lines. Umpires are not inanimate objects.

As I said above, human umpires, mistakes and all, are part of the game. Managers and players often play to that, and I for one do not see a reason to change that dynamic at all, regardless of the ability to do so.

The reason that I was drawing comparisons to aluminum baseball bats and computers and whatnot in the dugout is because those changes would be just as massive as using replay during games will be. There's only ever been one change as large as this, and that's been the move for fielders to use gloves. Other than that, the on field technology available to players (including the officiating staff) has remained fundamentally unchanged since 1871 (well, since 1920 I guess, since the change in the baseball is really significant). Wooden bats, a baseball, 9 players (10 now, in the AL), and umpires to enforce the rules. That's it, and I really don't see a reason to change anything now. The baseball was changed due to costs and neseccety. Gloves were allowed for safety. None of that applies to replay use.

[SirKodiak]

Please Google "slippery slope" before using it.

(Note: to say something is a slippery slope is to imply that it is a logical fallacy, thus illogical or not valid, but it doesn't have to be wrong. To say something isn't a slippery slope is just that, saying it is not that one particular fallacy)

On another note, it's more a parade of horrors than a slippery slope that most people use. With, of course, a heavy dose of the "Appeal to..." fallacies.

Sorry, but I could feel my Jesuit professors cringing in horror.

I feel better now...

[HoustonGM]

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 guess it's just semantics at this point, but while they're "playing the game" in the sense that they are involved in it, they are not "playing the game" in the sense that they are participating in order to win and are doing whatever it takes to win. They are not competing. I don't think the abilities of men that do not hold an interest in winning or losing should affect the outcome of a game. I think that a game should be decided solely by the performance and abilities of the two competing teams.

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 guess that's just something where we disagree. I don't think there should be uncertainty if it's possible to eliminate it. While it's not entirely possible to eliminate all uncertainty, it should be minimized as much as possible with whatever is available to do that. Uncertainty is part of the game, but calls shouldn't be uncertain because they have a clear yes/no answer. If a player hits a home run, it should be scored as such.

However, that human element introduced by umpires is, and in my opinion should be, an integral component of the game.

The first quote I posted from Joe Sheehan sums up my belief on this perfectly (although I don't agree with his overall point):

Let me make this simple: the only human element I want involved in the outcome of a baseball game has a minimum salary of $400,000. Players and their actions should be all that determines wins and losses, not the interpretation of what they’ve done by what amounts to middle management making a fraction of that number.

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.

I don't see why that should be, though. What the players did HAS a clear answer. Yes, players do try to do whatever to get the call to come out in their favor, but if, for example, a player didn't catch a ball, but tricks the umpires into thinking he did, an out should not be recorded, because an out was not made.

As I said above, human umpires, mistakes and all, are part of the game. Managers and players often play to that, and I for one do not see a reason to change that dynamic at all, regardless of the ability to do so.

I think improving the accuracy of the calls and increasing the amount that the performance of the players is the sole decider of the game is a good reason.

That's it, and I really don't see a reason to change anything now. The baseball was changed due to costs and neseccety. Gloves were allowed for safety. None of that applies to replay use.

I think it is a necessity to get the calls as accurate as possible. In past times, they WERE as accurate as possible. They didn't have what we have now to increase the accuracy.

Everybody is right that has said umpires don't do a bad job on the whole. It'd be really hard to do a bad job, overall, because the overwhelming majority of plays are obviously one way or the other. However, the minority of plays which aren't clear-cut when happening in real-time at the blink of an eye shouldn't be left up to judgment. They do have a definite answer, and that answer (safe, out, fair, foul, etc.) should be the call.

[robinhoodnik]

Personally, I think the variable strike zones from different umpires adds a charm to the game that a machine would totally take away. .

I think that they should have specific, reliable umpires for home plate. Stop putting the guys who aren't good at calling balls and strikes back there, and just get it right. America has millions upon millions of people, surely MLB car get together 20 or so people who can do the job the right way, every game.

[CatKnight]

Houston: I wish you'd stop quoting Sheehan. That article really annoys me. I disagree with his entire premise, and I find that opening statement of his condescending. Not to mention that it leads to the spurious argument I made earlier. If you're going to argue that the only peeps who should affect the outcome of the game are the players, then you MUST remove the managers, coaches and fans as well as the umpires.

Robinhoodnik: Are you aware of the training umpires go through? They have to come up through the minors just like anyone else. They get over 99% of the calls right, which is far better than most people can do.

No one ever gets it 100% right btw. It can't be done.

I've also found that 99% of the time when a commentator talks about the umpires making a mistake, it's because a call went against their team. I have never, ever heard a commentator say something like "Oooh....I can't believe he let us have that grand slam. That was foul by a mile."

Ditto with fans.

You know, perhaps we SHOULD try it out. Then all these whining b******* would have to face the fact that they were wrong and their team really does suck.
*******

Incidentally, I've been told more than once, and I tend to believe, that baseball has a lot of lessons to offer about life. Let's say the premise of this argument is right, and the umpires aren't as accurate as possible. Here's a lesson our youngest generations are having problems with:

Life ain't fair.
Corrollary: So you just get up again tomorrow and make it right.

[kenny1234]

My problem with replay in baseball is that it would change how umpires call the game. Reviewing fair/foul seems easy - unless the umpire called foul and all the players have stopped. Same thing for a homerun - if the umpire calls it a homerun that would just create massive problems in determining what should have happened. Homeruns reviewed and found to be in the park could be defined as ground-rule doubles - but that doesn't seem ideal. The question becomes - do the umpires hedge towards calling balls fair or not homeruns because that makes the review easier to accomplish.

I'm also just opposed to replay in general - the calls even out over time and I think it is totally unnecessary.

[HoustonGM]

Houston: I wish you'd stop quoting Sheehan. That article really annoys me. I disagree with his entire premise, and I find that opening statement of his condescending.

I don't think it's condescending. He wants the game to be decided by the players, not judgment calls on things where there is a definite answer. I don't find that condescending at all.

Not to mention that it leads to the spurious argument I made earlier. If you're going to argue that the only peeps who should affect the outcome of the game are the players, then you MUST remove the managers, coaches and fans as well as the umpires.

Managers and coaches are lumped in with players, and I'd say that's obvious. Fans very rarely affect the game, and there are clearly defined rules in the case of fan interference. Once again, I think there's a clear difference here between umpires and the other participants (players/coaches/fans).

Robinhoodnik: Are you aware of the training umpires go through? They have to come up through the minors just like anyone else. They get over 99% of the calls right, which is far better than most people can do.

As I said, in 99% of the cases, it's 100% obvious what the outcome is. A home run that sails 450 feet is obviously a home run. A player out by 10 feet is obviously out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to get the 1% of calls that are hard to determine right. (I have no idea if 99% and 1% are accurate, but the point is, an overwhelming majority of calls are obvious)

You know, perhaps we SHOULD try it out. Then all these whining b******* would have to face the fact that they were wrong and their team really does suck.
*******

I know for me, wanting instant replay has nothing to do with a play screwing over "my team." It has to do with getting calls correct for every team.

Incidentally, I've been told more than once, and I tend to believe, that baseball has a lot of lessons to offer about life. Let's say the premise of this argument is right, and the umpires aren't as accurate as possible. Here's a lesson our youngest generations are having problems with:

Life ain't fair.
Corrollary: So you just get up again tomorrow and make it right.

I think it was gRYFYN1 that said this earlier in the thread. It's not about fairness. It's about correctness.

Thanks for making the sane, intelligent argument I couldn't. Umpires have been part of the game since its inception. They are as much of the game as the bases or pitching rubber.

And allowing calls to be reviewed does not remove umpires from the game. Also, thanks for implying that favoring instant replay is insane and unintelligent.

[HoustonGM]

I figured you were saying that the opposing argument wasn't sane or intelligent, and that ohms made the sane, intelligent argument better than you did. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I'm sorry, my mistake.

[boomboom]

Frankly, I'm tired of both of them. Neither of them has any ability whatsoever to simply LET SOMETHING GO. They're both too stubborn and, possibly, pompous to just end a conversation, because they simply HAVE to get the last word in. I see them both as pretty much even when it comes to any kind of fault.

Edit : I should note that I enjoy conversing with both of them, and aside from when they 'communicate' with each other, have no issues with them at all.

i agree, HGM and YH, take your lovefest off of the forum, go onto AIM or something

[rogue9]

I've also found that 99% of the time when a commentator talks about the umpires making a mistake, it's because a call went against their team. I have never, ever heard a commentator say something like "Oooh....I can't believe he let us have that grand slam. That was foul by a mile."

Ditto with fans.

I watch most Giants games and regularly hear Kruk and Kiup point out things like Umps saying that the Giant batter didn't go around when he did, and safe/out of the same nature. I can't say I have heard it on a home run call as those are usually clear-cut. But the two of them usually call it like it is, even if it went in the Giants favor and shouldn't have.

My wife and I talk about the games during and after and are pretty honest as well. I am not gonna kid myself, there is no point to that.

That said you are probably right about the majority being that way though. I think the ONLY time replay should be used is fair/foul, HR/not because there are times when none of the umps have a good look. All its doing is giving the umps a better set of eyes, its still their call. My gut reaction to the K-zone thing is no, not at all. But when I look at the consistency you could get out of that I start to warm up to it. No more squeezing certian pitchers or hitters, I hate when umps do that. If you piss an ump off and they start squeezing you, thats just not right at all. I guess I am undecided on that.

[gRYFYN1]

Please Google "slippery slope" before using it.

(Note: to say something is a slippery slope is to imply that it is a logical fallacy, thus illogical or not valid, but it doesn't have to be wrong. To say something isn't a slippery slope is just that, saying it is not that one particular fallacy)

On another note, it's more a parade of horrors than a slippery slope that most people use. With, of course, a heavy dose of the "Appeal to..." fallacies.

Sorry, but I could feel my Jesuit professors cringing in horror.

I feel better now...

I did and it says :

"In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope: It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies"


Saying that using Replay on Homerun calls will lead to computers making all the calls and removing umpires is a "Slippery Slope" theory ; and it is totally untrue. There is no evidence to support that the theory that once replay has been used it will eventually replace refs.

[MeetDaMets]

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Frankly, I'm tired of both of them. Neither of them has any ability whatsoever to simply LET SOMETHING GO. They're both too stubborn and, possibly, pompous to just end a conversation, because they simply HAVE to get the last word in. I see them both as pretty much even when it comes to any kind of fault.
Edit : I should note that I enjoy conversing with both of them, and aside from when they 'communicate' with each other, have no issues with them at all.

i agree, HGM and YH, take your lovefest off of the forum, go onto AIM or something

I like quoting Boom Boom quoting ArcticBlast.

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=159834

[MeetDaMets]

i can't! he blocked me

what ?

[HoustonGM]

i can't! he blocked me

The only screen name on my blocked list is "BuddyBulletin" which is an annoying bot.