PDA

View Full Version : MLB Instant Replay Review: For or Against?


Vernam
05-25-2008, 10:06 AM
Kind of surprising no one has posed this, given that MLB is talking about adding replay reviews as early as the 2008 post season.

Me, I think the absence of replay has been one of Bud Selig's few positive accomplishments. How fitting that it required him to do nothing. :cool:

Vernam

cbotnyse
05-25-2008, 10:20 AM
For HR calls, I'm all for it.

Madvora
05-25-2008, 10:33 AM
I can't see why someone would be in favor of the umps making the wrong calls.
I'm all for it.

Also, this is something that Bud Selig has resisted, not one of his positive moves.
I think I heard that others have pushed this though. Was it the GMs?

soltrain21
05-25-2008, 10:50 AM
For only homerun calls, sure, why not? You couldn't do for anything else because there would be way too many variables that wouldn't be able to be played out if you called a guy out or safe.

downstairs
05-25-2008, 11:02 AM
Homerun calls only seems dumb to me. How often are HRs actually debatable? Very rare.

I say some sort of challenge system is the way to go, where you can challenge most calls (not balls/strikes)... but only so many per game. Maybe two to use any time. Maybe you get only one, but if the call is reversed in your favor, you get it back and can keep using it until you lose?

I don't know, but the NFL system works very well.

I don't like letting the umps alone decide when to look at the replay, because often times they completely think they got the call right. Let the manager challenge.

cbotnyse
05-25-2008, 11:08 AM
Homerun calls only seems dumb to me. How often are HRs actually debatable? Very rare.there were at least 4 missed calls this week! And I dont think the rarity matters, it still doesn't diminish its importance in a game.

Daver
05-25-2008, 11:10 AM
Opposed. Once they open that door, how long before every decision including balls and strikes are subject to review?

FedEx227
05-25-2008, 11:11 AM
Opposed. Once they open that door, how long before every decision including balls and strikes are subject to review?

Exactly my thoughts anytime this debate is brought up.

First you do homers, then there's plays down the line, then traps, then check swings and as Daver said what's to stop it from Ozzie throwing a red towel on the field anytime he thinks the ball was low and outside.

cbotnyse
05-25-2008, 11:18 AM
Opposed. Once they open that door, how long before every decision including balls and strikes are subject to review?fans, owners and players would simply never allow that to happen. (balls and strikes)

soxfan21
05-25-2008, 11:18 AM
If they were just going to use it for home run calls and some close foul ball calls I am for it. I don't think that they should use it for anything other than that, because then most close calls would be reviewed and the game would drag on even longer and then human error gets taken out of the equation completely.

Madvora
05-25-2008, 11:18 AM
Opposed. Once they open that door, how long before every decision including balls and strikes are subject to review?

Exactly my thoughts anytime this debate is brought up.

First you do homers, then there's plays down the line, then traps, then check swings and as Daver said what's to stop it from Ozzie throwing a red towel on the field anytime he thinks the ball was low and outside.
That's a slippery slope way of thinking. Why would one thing lead to another automatically?
Even if they do decide to get more stuff right instead of wrong, then what's wrong with that?
There has been a recent attempt to speed up the game, so as long as they stick to that idea, then any implementation of replay will have to fit into that mold of thinking. If they see that this slows the game up too much, then they won't use it. I still feel that they are thinking of game speed as more of a priority than replays. If you can have both, then what's the problem?

I want Mags back
05-25-2008, 11:19 AM
Homerun calls only seems dumb to me. How often are HRs actually debatable? Very rare.

I say some sort of challenge system is the way to go, where you can challenge most calls (not balls/strikes)... but only so many per game. Maybe two to use any time. Maybe you get only one, but if the call is reversed in your favor, you get it back and can keep using it until you lose?

I don't know, but the NFL system works very well.

I don't like letting the umps alone decide when to look at the replay, because often times they completely think they got the call right. Let the manager challenge.

I feel we may be better off with a system similar to the NHL. They can review anything upstairs and if the replay officials see it as questionable and if would like more time to review it, they can buzz the plate umpire to not continue to the next play.

they then can either have it reviewed
by the umpire on a monitor behind the plate, or only have the review done by a booth official, either way would work

FedEx227
05-25-2008, 11:22 AM
That's a slippery slope way of thinking. Why would one thing lead to another automatically?
Even if they do decide to get more stuff right instead of wrong, then what's wrong with that?
There has been a recent attempt to speed up the game, so as long as they stick to that idea, then any implementation of replay will have to fit into that mold of thinking. If they see that this slows the game up too much, then they won't use it. I still feel that they are thinking of game speed as more of a priority than replays. If you can have both, then what's the problem?

Because it's a natural progression, once you start saying it's okay to debate home run calls, then we start getting those all right then someone traps a ball in the OF and it swing the outcome people will naturally start saying "Why can't we review that? It changed the game and the umps should get it right."

cbotnyse
05-25-2008, 11:24 AM
If they were just going to use it for home run calls and some close foul ball calls I am for it. I don't think that they should use it for anything other than that, because then most close calls would be reviewed and the game would drag on even longer and then human error gets taken out of the equation completely.I think it'd be faster than a manger kicking dirt at an ump for 10 minutes, which of course solves nothing.

cbotnyse
05-25-2008, 11:25 AM
Because it's a natural progression, once you start saying it's okay to debate home run calls, then we start getting those all right then someone traps a ball in the OF and it swing the outcome people will naturally start saying "Why can't we review that? It changed the game and the umps should get it right."has this slippery slope happened in any other sport?

Madvora
05-25-2008, 11:26 AM
Because it's a natural progression, once you start saying it's okay to debate home run calls, then we start getting those all right then someone traps a ball in the OF and it swing the outcome people will naturally start saying "Why can't we review that? It changed the game and the umps should get it right."
But, these are rules that are actually going to be written down in the rule book. It's not decided based on whatever the ump wants to review. If they can only review HR calls, then that's all they can do.

Further reviewable plays, could (if necessary) be added in later as a separate rule.
I don't think it just progresses to that point on it's own, but even if they do get to a point of reviewing traps and missed tags etc, I'd be in favor of that. If an error by an ump gives a win to a team that really lost a game, then I think it's important.

whitesox901
05-25-2008, 11:28 AM
Umpires have been blowing calls for 120 years, why stop now?

manders_01
05-25-2008, 11:30 AM
Exactly my thoughts anytime this debate is brought up.

First you do homers, then there's plays down the line, then traps, then check swings and as Daver said what's to stop it from Ozzie throwing a red towel on the field anytime he thinks the ball was low and outside.

Exactly the same way they do it in the NFL - only a certain amount of challenges are given to the manager and those challenges are tied to certain plays only - if at all. Maybe the reviews can only come from an ump in the booth.

I definitely think HRs should be able to be reviewed. I think beside balls and strikes, which will never be called correctly 100% of the time, HRs are the easiest call to blow.

Sox It To Em
05-25-2008, 12:00 PM
Opposed. Umpires do their jobs exceptionally well and get the vast majority of calls right. We just remember the few times they don't. The occasional blown call is part of the game. I enjoy this human aspect of the game and believe it makes baseball unique.

I suppose I could live with disputed HR-only replay at the umpire's discretion, used on a very limited basis, but I'm afraid that once instant replay gains a foothold, there's no stopping it. And when people start talking about things like red-flag challenges... :puking:

eastchicagosoxfan
05-25-2008, 12:47 PM
The action is on the field. The technology that allows replay is only there to allow the TV announcers to do their job. I would just as soon get rid of replay from the telecasts.

I want Mags back
05-25-2008, 12:56 PM
Opposed. Umpires do their jobs exceptionally well and get the vast majority of calls right. We just remember the few times they don't. The occasional blown call is part of the game. I enjoy this human aspect of the game and believe it makes baseball unique.

I suppose I could live with disputed HR-only replay at the umpire's discretion, used on a very limited basis, but I'm afraid that once instant replay gains a foothold, there's no stopping it. And when people start talking about things like red-flag challenges... :puking:

what makes it part of the game, I just dont get why messing up is part of the game

Stoky44
05-25-2008, 01:24 PM
I am for it on homerun calls not balls and strikes. For one thing there is no "set strikezone" it is different for each player and hence is a judgement call. However, a homerun is always a homerun, no judgement needed, and why I think it should be replayed.

I do not get the people who use the arguement and say if we allow replays on homeruns, soon it will be used on balls and strikes. In everything I have ever seen talking about replays, the one constant fact is nobody wants it to ever be used on balls and strikes. Take basketball as an example, allowing replays at the end of a quarter/half. Has that progressed to replay should be used on all foul calls? No. Allowing replay does not mean no more umpires and balls and strikes called by a computer. The slipery slope arguement can be made to make everything look bad.

Mistakes are not just a part of baseball, they happen in every sport. Baseball is just unique in saying we are too stuborn to fix it at any level. And its only Bud who is saying no. In fact 25 GMs voted infavor of replay.

I also don't know why so many people think its okay to have wrong calls. There is nothing else in life we think its fine to have mistakes in. Banking, law, medicine, politics, you name it, there is no one saying well we have a way to get rid of some mistakes, but its part of the system why improve it. If we took that approach with everything else we would never have improvement.

JGarlandrules20
05-25-2008, 01:27 PM
I'm against it. Human error is a part of the game, always has been. I don't want technology to interfere with the sport. How lame would it be to sit around while the umps checked the booth to replay the play in question or what not. That just seems soooo un-baseball to me.

If worse comes to worse, I'm okay with just the review of home runs... but I really fear that would just open up a bigger can of worms to review every single play. Fair/foul, out/safe etc. There's too much gray area in baseball for that to work out.

Let's say back in '05, the umps reviewed AJ's dropped third strike. We all know that call could have gone either way. If the umps ruled it a strike out, who knows what would have happened after that.... baseball is a game of inches, and lucky breaks, etc. I just feel technology would take that away.

Stoky44
05-25-2008, 01:36 PM
but I really fear that would just open up a bigger can of worms to review every single play. Fair/foul, out/safe etc. There's too much gray area in baseball for that to work out.



But making that jump is not fair to say will happen. They want to use it in homerun calls, and for nothing else. You could make the arguement of "open up a can of worms" for a lot of things. Two examples: when the players switched from using those old fashion gloves you see back in say the 20-30's to the current gloves used now. Before the glove was almost the size of your hand now its much bigger. We better watch out pretty soon the gloves are going to be 2 feet big, or maybe they will play with Lacrosse sticks. The gloves are too big imagine how bad the game will be. 2. Oh they lowered the mound, before you know it the pitcher is going to be throwing off level ground. Imagine how bad the game is going to be now with the pitchers throwing off level ground. Think back to 2005 ALCS, if the pitchers were throwing off level ground there is no way that there would be 4 complete games thrown by the pitching staff.

I agree with you that its a game of inches and makes it great. Thats why replay should not be used for anything other than homerun calls. The game would suck if it were used for balls and strikes. I think everyone would agree.

Daver
05-25-2008, 01:42 PM
I am for it on homerun calls not balls and strikes. For one thing there is no "set strikezone" it is different for each player and hence is a judgement call.

Questec disagrees with you.

Jerko
05-25-2008, 01:46 PM
So what if replay shows that there was NOT a home run hit and the ball bounces back onto the field? Then you will have people bitching about which base the batter should be awarded. Does the guy get 2nd automatically, or 3rd if he "would have made it". That will open up another can of worms..

Stoky44
05-25-2008, 01:48 PM
Questec disagrees with you.

totally agree and is why I would hate for that system to be used for actual game calls. How long has Questec been around, and there is nobody calling for its use in games to make calls. Its been used after games to help with umpireing. And many will say calls are much more constant in a park where Questec is monitoring the umps.

TDog
05-25-2008, 01:52 PM
I would be against instant replay in any form. It's not about getting the call right. It's about giving people the impression that the game is getting the call right. The NFL throws out the idea of instant replay as a matter of fairness, when it is anything but, because teams are limited on their challenges.

I fully understand the "slippery slope" argument. If replays are allowed on home runs calls and there is a missed call that ends a World Series game (not like this hasn't happened), it is easy for public sentiment to cry out for extension instant replay.

The fact that bad calls happen doesn't bother me because they don't happen that often. And I find bad calls better than the alternative. People often would disagree with interpretations of instant replays just as they disagree with umpires' calls. I know it is fashionable to whine about all the bad calls that have hurt the Sox this year just as it was fashionable for the country in general to whine about all the bad calls that went the White Sox way in the 2005 postseason. But I am comfortable with the umpires having no court of appeal.

Stoky44
05-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Does the guy get 2nd automatically, or 3rd if he "would have made it". That will open up another can of worms..

The same thing could be said for ground rule doubles. It will have to be a set rule and thats it. Maybe the sox should put up a glass fense that is at least 6 feet high down the lines so fans can not touch the ball.

So give up a potential of 2 extra runs, just so you don't have to have an arguement over a ground rule double.

Stoky44
05-25-2008, 02:01 PM
I would be against instant replay in any form. It's not about getting the call right. It's about giving people the impression that the game is getting the call right. The NFL throws out the idea of instant replay as a matter of fairness, when it is anything but, because teams are limited on their challenges.

I fully understand the "slippery slope" argument. If replays are allowed on home runs calls and there is a missed call that ends a World Series game (not like this hasn't happened), it is easy for public sentiment to cry out for extension instant replay.

The fact that bad calls happen doesn't bother me because they don't happen that often. And I find bad calls better than the alternative. People often would disagree with interpretations of instant replays just as they disagree with umpires' calls. I know it is fashionable to whine about all the bad calls that have hurt the Sox this year just as it was fashionable for the country in general to whine about all the bad calls that went the White Sox way in the 2005 postseason. But I am comfortable with the umpires having no court of appeal.

I can't argue with you. That is a great point and I understand your reasoning. I don't necessarily agree, but I can't find fault with you if you would rather have bad calls over reviewing a play, ie slowing down the game, not getting the call for sure 100% right with replay. Thats your opinion, and I respect that. I guess I got into this arguement because I just found it crazy not to allow replay because that will turn into no umpires and balls and strikes be replayed. I respect the arguement and would not argue against someone saying they just don't like how it will disrupt flow of the game.

cbotnyse
05-25-2008, 02:47 PM
It's not about getting the call right.how can you say this? If someone hits a HR, I'd rather he get credit for that HR, and not penalized just because an ump couldn't get out there fast enough to see it.
The fact that bad calls happen doesn't bother me because they don't happen that often.why do people keep saying this? its happened 4 times this week!

South Side Irish
05-25-2008, 02:50 PM
I'm against it. Human error is a part of the game, always has been. I don't want technology to interfere with the sport. How lame would it be to sit around while the umps checked the booth to replay the play in question or what not. That just seems soooo un-baseball to me.

And this is the perspective that bothers me most. Don't you think if this technology was around in 1875, that baseball's creators wouldn't have used it? Baseball purists sometimes have this backward way of thinking, that nothing new can come into the sport. You don't think technology has "interfered" already? Look at the design of uniforms, bats, gloves, plate approaches, and pitch tracking. Hell, look at the design of ballparks an fields, too. Technology is all over the place, and that's not including the muscles science of training athletes (legal and illegal). Not wanting technology interfering isn't just naive, it's wrong. Technology already has done that.

And baseball is largely a game of "sitting around." It's a relaxed, fun sport. If it takes 5 minutes to review a HR every few months, so be it.

South Side Irish
05-25-2008, 02:57 PM
Opposed. Umpires do their jobs exceptionally well and get the vast majority of calls right. We just remember the few times they don't. The occasional blown call is part of the game. I enjoy this human aspect of the game and believe it makes baseball unique.

I suppose I could live with disputed HR-only replay at the umpire's discretion, used on a very limited basis, but I'm afraid that once instant replay gains a foothold, there's no stopping it.

Right on with umps/refs in most sports. Unless you've officiated, people have no idea how hard it is. The simplest mistake gets you torn to shreds!

Where I disagree with you is the "slippery slope" debate. Where is the evidence for this happening? The NFL has NOT slipped and allowed the judgement calls (penalties) to be debated, nor has the NBA gone past Technical/Flagrant Foul and end-of-game situations. This argument has no merit, at all, as the leagues with replay have not "slipped" into allowing anything/everything to be reviewed, as some people are arguing without basis. There's just nothing to back this claim up. :shrug:

fquaye149
05-25-2008, 03:07 PM
completely against replay in any capacity in any sport, but most of all MLB

mrfourni
05-25-2008, 04:05 PM
Maybe the sox should put up a glass fense that is at least 6 feet high down the lines so fans can not touch the ball.



Or they could just build a moat around the outfield seats. Oh wait, they already tried that.

Stoky44
05-25-2008, 04:27 PM
Or they could just build a moat around the outfield seats. Oh wait, they already tried that.

Wow way to take my comments out of context. I was not suggesting they do this. Just trying to prove a point about ground rule dbls.

PKalltheway
05-25-2008, 04:48 PM
And this is the perspective that bothers me most. Don't you think if this technology was around in 1875, that baseball's creators wouldn't have used it? Baseball purists sometimes have this backward way of thinking, that nothing new can come into the sport. You don't think technology has "interfered" already? Look at the design of uniforms, bats, gloves, plate approaches, and pitch tracking. Hell, look at the design of ballparks an fields, too. Technology is all over the place, and that's not including the muscles science of training athletes (legal and illegal). Not wanting technology interfering isn't just naive, it's wrong. Technology already has done that.


I agree. I have no problem with instant replay, as long as it is just for home runs. This would just be another way the game would evolve if this was implemented. I don't see the "slippery slope" happening for this, either.

TDog
05-25-2008, 04:54 PM
how can you say this? If someone hits a HR, I'd rather he get credit for that HR, and not penalized just because an ump couldn't get out there fast enough to see it. ...

If you had not taken my quote out of context, perhaps your question would have been answered.

In the NFL it certainly isn't about getting the call right, but the perception that replay is there to get the call right. If it were about getting the call right, all calls would be reviewed. It would not be up to a coach to challenge a call, and challenges would not be limited. Limited replay (because you don't want to slow down the game) greatly diminishes any value that replay holds.

Even in the limited nature of the discussion for baseball, as framed here, most calls that are reversed would be controversial. Many calls that wouldn't be reversed after review would be controversial. Meanwhile, the poster child for the instant replay advocates is the no-brainer call which is uncommon.

I don't believe replay would improve umpiring because umpires aren't intentionally blowing calls in the first place. Their work is reviewed by the league, and they want to keep their jobs.

And thanks, Stoky44 , for seeing my point, even if we're not in agreement.

Juice16
05-25-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm all for Instant Replay. The human element adds nothing to a game but grief when an ump can't get a call right. If I make mistakes in my job I don't get to say it's part of the game.

TDog
05-25-2008, 05:04 PM
I'm all for Instant Replay. The human element adds nothing to a game but grief when an ump can't get a call right. If I make mistakes in my job I don't get to say it's part of the game.

In my professional career I've gottent things right on the job that were changed on review by others who got things wrong. They still stuck my name on the finished product.

fquaye149
05-25-2008, 05:07 PM
I'm all for Instant Replay. The human element adds nothing to a game but grief when an ump can't get a call right. If I make mistakes in my job I don't get to say it's part of the game.

If instant replays didn't cause plenty of wrong calls in the leagues in which it's instituted, you'd have a point.

But since the NFL, NBA, and NCAA show time and again that instant replay officials aren't much more reliable than live-action officials, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here :shrug:

South Side Irish
05-25-2008, 05:09 PM
I'm all for Instant Replay. The human element adds nothing to a game but grief when an ump can't get a call right. If I make mistakes in my job I don't get to say it's part of the game.

The human element is still involved in reviewing calls. Reviews can be incorrect, too, if not less frequent. Just don't pretend that they don't happen.

Vernam
05-25-2008, 05:10 PM
And this is the perspective that bothers me most. Don't you think if this technology was around in 1875, that baseball's creators wouldn't have used it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't help smiling at the thought of Cartwright and Co. using replays and dodging cow **** that probably covered the fields back then. :wink:

Vernam

eastchicagosoxfan
05-25-2008, 05:16 PM
And this is the perspective that bothers me most. Don't you think if this technology was around in 1875, that baseball's creators wouldn't have used it? Baseball purists sometimes have this backward way of thinking, that nothing new can come into the sport. You don't think technology has "interfered" already? Look at the design of uniforms, bats, gloves, plate approaches, and pitch tracking. Hell, look at the design of ballparks an fields, too. Technology is all over the place, and that's not including the muscles science of training athletes (legal and illegal). Not wanting technology interfering isn't just naive, it's wrong. Technology already has done that.

And baseball is largely a game of "sitting around." It's a relaxed, fun sport. If it takes 5 minutes to review a HR every few months, so be it.

Catcher's masks, better gloves, pitch counts, and the like are all technology that was designed to improve the play on the field. The technology of replay has nothing to do with the play on the field. If the game's not televised, the replay doesn't exist. It's a tool for the tv announcer and has zero to do with the game. Teams practice hitting, catching, bunting, etc.,; they do not practice their replay skills. To believe that replay technology has anything to do with the game of baseball is naive.

South Side Irish
05-25-2008, 06:04 PM
Catcher's masks, better gloves, pitch counts, and the like are all technology that was designed to improve the play on the field. The technology of replay has nothing to do with the play on the field. If the game's not televised, the replay doesn't exist. It's a tool for the tv announcer and has zero to do with the game. Teams practice hitting, catching, bunting, etc.,; they do not practice their replay skills. To believe that replay technology has anything to do with the game of baseball is naive.

Do you think that people playing ball in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never thought "I'd like to see that again?" Maybe they did, I don't know. While replay might have first existed to entertain viewers, that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's uses. It has everything to do with play on the field - it ensures the play on the field determines the outcome of a game, not an umpire's mistake.* Ignoring that is naive. :cool:

*Sure, a mistake can still happen, but it greatly reduces the capacity for making such big mistakes.

South Side Irish
05-25-2008, 06:05 PM
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't help smiling at the thought of Cartwright and Co. using replays and dodging cow **** that probably covered the fields back then. :wink:

Vernam

:redneck

eastchicagosoxfan
05-25-2008, 06:21 PM
Do you think that people playing ball in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never thought "I'd like to see that again?" Maybe they did, I don't know. While replay might have first existed to entertain viewers, that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's uses. It has everything to do with play on the field - it ensures the play on the field determines the outcome of a game, not an umpire's mistake.* Ignoring that is naive. :cool:

*Sure, a mistake can still happen, but it greatly reduces the capacity for making such big mistakes.
Replay won't ensure anything other than people asking for more. I will just stick with my point. The technology of replay has nothing to do with the game. The umpires are part of the game. So are their mistakes. Big mistakes included.

Railsplitter
05-25-2008, 07:34 PM
I'm against it. I'm sick of this blame the officials stuff.

MHOUSE
05-25-2008, 09:39 PM
Opposed. I think it's too slippery of a slope towards replaying everything else too. If there were replay it would have to be a challenge system. I mean the original call last Sunday Night was right until Jeter and Damon went ballistic and then the homeplate ump overturned it from farther away. I still don't understand why one of them couldn't jog down and look at the big scuff mark on the foul pole. Leaving it up to the crew alone isn't going to help.

I would just add two umpires down the lines in every game, like in the playoffs. They seem to get 99% of the calls right anyways and adding two more sets of eyes would only help.

The only reason it's been at the forefront recently is because we had a strange week of missed calls. Interesting that once the Yankees got screwed it was all anyone talked about. Delgado got robbed and it was hardly an issue the next day. hmm...

Frater Perdurabo
05-25-2008, 09:53 PM
Opposed. Once they open that door, how long before every decision including balls and strikes are subject to review?

I was thinking about this recently. Why not at least use some kind of system to judge whether the ball is over the plate?

I understand that the high and low strikes are a judgment call, because every batter has a different height and stance, and often moves when the pitch is coming.

But the plate never moves. Inside is inside; outside is outside; over the plate is over the plate. But not according to the umps. This is a completely arbitrary part of the game that I wouldn't mind seeing go the way of the dinosaur.

Oh, and I support instant replay to determine whether a potential HR was fair or foul.

Daver
05-25-2008, 10:03 PM
I was thinking about this recently. Why not at least use some kind of system to judge whether the ball is over the plate?

I understand that the high and low strikes are a judgment call, because every batter has a different height and stance, and often moves when the pitch is coming.

But the plate never moves. Inside is inside; outside is outside; over the plate is over the plate. But not according to the umps. This is a completely arbitrary part of the game that I wouldn't mind seeing go the way of the dinosaur.

Oh, and I support instant replay to determine whether a potential HR was fair or foul.

They already have it, it is called Questec.

So far it has accomplished Bud Selig destroying the umpires union and replacing it with one that answers to his office only.

fusillirob1983
05-25-2008, 10:08 PM
I don't see why you wouldn't want to get the call right if given the opportunity. I'm not a fan of the fact that sometimes the players can do everything in their power to help their team, but some other factor ends up negating that.

fquaye149
05-25-2008, 10:50 PM
I don't see why you wouldn't want to get the call right if given the opportunity. I'm not a fan of the fact that sometimes the players can do everything in their power to help their team, but some other factor ends up negating that.

If there were a way to get the call right every time, you might have something.

All I see being proposed is instant replay--the system that has proven to be a joke in the NFL and in NCAA football (As well as a pretty :shrug: "advancement" in NBA and NCAA basketball)

Nellie_Fox
05-26-2008, 02:18 AM
They already have it, it is called Questec.

So far it has accomplished Bud Selig destroying the umpires union and replacing it with one that answers to his office only.Who should the umpires answer to? For a long time, we had a supremely arrogant umpires' union, leading umpired to talk about "my strike zone."

Umpires should enforce the rules as they are told to by the people who pay them to do so.

RadioheadRocks
05-26-2008, 02:24 AM
The only reason it's been at the forefront recently is because we had a strange week of missed calls. Interesting that once the Yankees got screwed it was all anyone talked about. Delgado got robbed and it was hardly an issue the next day. hmm...


THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

IlliniSox4Life
05-26-2008, 02:42 AM
Catcher's masks, better gloves, pitch counts, and the like are all technology that was designed to improve the play on the field. The technology of replay has nothing to do with the play on the field. If the game's not televised, the replay doesn't exist. It's a tool for the tv announcer and has zero to do with the game. Teams practice hitting, catching, bunting, etc.,; they do not practice their replay skills. To believe that replay technology has anything to do with the game of baseball is naive.

Replay would help umpires do their jobs.

Are umpires allowed to wear sunglasses, extra padding, cooler fabrics, more comfortable shoes, etc? Certainly these changes in technologies aren't helping the play on the field (when used by umpires), however they are allowed. If replay is able to help them better do their jobs, why not allow it?


Also, giant stadiums, loud PA systems, and giant lights don't improve the play on the field, yet they have become huge parts of the game (you could argue that lights do when it is dark out, and they certainly do improve the quality of play at night, but it really isn't an improvement over playing during the day, it just extends the amount of time where you can play the game).

tick53
05-26-2008, 07:47 AM
For HR calls, I'm all for it.


I agree, home runs only. There are no umpires in the outfield.

ondafarm
05-26-2008, 08:52 AM
Opposed. Once they open that door, how long before every decision including balls and strikes are subject to review?

Having seen the Questec ratings of a number of umpires, this would be fantastic.

Frater Perdurabo
05-26-2008, 08:56 AM
They already have it, it is called Questec.

So far it has accomplished Bud Selig destroying the umpires union and replacing it with one that answers to his office only.

I know about Questec. I say use it during the game, simply to judge whether a pitch is over the plate. If it's not over the plate, it's a ball, simple as that.

Oh, and I'd be fine with widening the actual plate an inch or two and raising the mound an inch or two to offset the "negative" effects that such a system would have on pitchers who live on the corners.

ondafarm
05-26-2008, 09:05 AM
I know about Questec. I say use it during the game, simply to judge whether a pitch is over the plate. If it's not over the plate, it's a ball, simple as that.

Oh, and I'd be fine with widening the actual plate an inch or two and raising the mound an inch or two to offset the "negative" effects that such a system would have on pitchers who live on the corners.

Only pitchers who live on their reputations or uniforms would see any negative effects. If Questec called the balls and strikes, tricky guys like Buehrle would do much better. MB would probably have about a dozen more career wins.

BadBobbyJenks
05-26-2008, 09:54 AM
Human error is part of the game is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. The game may have been created in the 19th century, but we have the technology to bring it to the 21st.

I don't understand the it will slow the game down argument either. A manager throwing a fit and then the umpires huddling together will be longer then a person upstairs watching a replay monitor and correcting calls that need to be made.

Start with home run calls then I think plays at first and the plate.

I would prefer an NHL style replay where if someone upstairs sees a blown call they can call down to the home plate ump and correct it.

whitesox901
05-26-2008, 01:39 PM
I agree, home runs only. There are no umpires in the outfield.

I can agree to that, but only if they wont put 2 outfield umpires out there

cbotnyse
05-26-2008, 01:48 PM
If you had not taken my quote out of context, perhaps your question would have been answered.how is it taken out of context? It is about getting the call right. period. I dont know what kind of circular logic you're trying to throw around here.

In the NFL it certainly isn't about getting the call right, but the perception that replay is there to get the call right. If it were about getting the call right, all calls would be reviewed. It would not be up to a coach to challenge a call, and challenges would not be limited. Limited replay (because you don't want to slow down the game) greatly diminishes any value that replay holds.comparisons to the NFL are irrelevant. And you're still not making any sense. It is about getting the call right, and for the sake of not slowing the game down, coaches are only allowed a few challenges a game.

Even in the limited nature of the discussion for baseball, as framed here, most calls that are reversed would be controversial.OK??? Many calls that wouldn't be reversed after review would be controversial.OK????
I don't believe replay would improve umpiring because umpires aren't intentionally blowing calls in the first place. Their work is reviewed by the league, and they want to keep their jobs.its not about improving umpiring, its about calling a HR accurately.

SoxandtheCityTee
05-26-2008, 02:59 PM
I don't want baseball to become like football, where you have to wait to see if there's a flag before you even know whether to cheer a big play. But I'm not sure yet how my "bottom line" position plays out.

In baseball, close and/or controversial calls are not replayed on the big screens at the ball parks. It's my understanding that this is per the contract between MLB and the umpires. If the umpires have instant reply, will that change so that we can all see what they see? If the crowd can't see why the initial call was changed on review and the "corrected" call goes against the home team, it's going to be bad news in the stands.

If we're going to see all the close calls on the Jumbotron from now on, that's a huge shift from the crowd having to move along after a call and watch the game as it proceeds. It isn't only the call of a particular play that has to be "got right." It's the look and feel and pace of the game as seen in person, IMO.

fquaye149
05-26-2008, 03:09 PM
comparisons to the NFL are irrelevant.

why? It's IR and it's on a largescale level in a professional sports league.

It's about "getting the call right" but the NFL and college football show IR is not particularly good at "getting the call right" so why wouldn't that be relevant in a discussion about whether IR in baseball is about "getting the call right"?

Lefty34
05-26-2008, 11:23 PM
I hate to make this thread seem like a broken record, but: I am for video review of HR calls only. One can make a slippery slope argument as intricate and detailed as they want, but in the end, there is no proof that replay in professional sports sends said sports down the slope.

As for the people saying that human error is part of the game, I agree with you completely. I assume that some (if not most) of you also enjoy the yelling at the TV screen and complaining to co-workers about a botched call and maybe even a manager-umpire altercation. My thinking is, those aspects of baseball will certainly not be lost and might even be augmented by instant replay. I think that the ability to challenge a play will allow managers to argue more calls they believe to be suspect. And even if baseball miraculously departs from their "HR Replays Only" maxim, there would most certainly be a strict limit on how many "challenges" a manager can have. Right now I think that one challenge per manager per game is a great place to start, and it has the added benefit of not slowing the game down all that much. More than that, the human error that is part of the game would still be there for safe/out and ball/strike calls.

To me, it is not that big of a deal, especially because (as some of you have pointed out) this is only a big issue because of the freak occurrences happening so close to each other. If HR Replay is implemented, there is no reason to believe it will be used in every single game, nor is there reason to believe it will be used in anything resembling a majority.

TDog
05-27-2008, 01:37 AM
how is it taken out of context? It is about getting the call right. period. I dont know what kind of circular logic you're trying to throw around here. ...

I am not supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. I am pointing out that leagues that use instant replay only pay lip service to getting calls right. They are lying to fans. There is no reason to believe that instant replay in baseball is about getting the call right. Home run calls are probably the most infrequent of blown calls in baseball and instant replay may or may not be definitive in judging whether umpires made the right call.

I haven't watched an NFL game since the 1980s, but I have read about the league's instant replay rules and heard many football fans complain that many replays that fans believe clearly show one thing are ruled either as inconclusive clearly showing something else.

It is true that home run calls are dead ball situations. But like others, I am concerned that with instant replay being set up for home run calls, public sentiment would push for it to be used for instant replay being used in other situations that are more frequent and more decisive. The biggest complaint about umpiring is with called balls and strikes.

Action in baseball is faster and more continuous than action in any other sport. In hockey or football, a score is a score and the play is dead. In baseball, a player scores in a close play at the plate and runners could be trying to advance. A runner is thrown out at, and if the inning isn't over other runners can be trying to advance. A fielder catches or doesn't catch a a fly or line drive for the first or second out and the runners need to know immediately from the umpires if the out was recorded or a force is possible at the next base. On a 3-ball count with runners going, a catcher needs to know immediately if a pitch is a ball or a strike.

If the problem is dead-ball home run calls, installing instant replay is an extravagant and not a fully satisfactory solution. The configuration of many ballparks is the bigger problem, and one that would make even some instant-replay reviews controversial. The best thing to do to solve this rash of missed home run calls is to make it clearer to the umpires on the field what is and what is not a home run.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 08:34 AM
why? It's IR and it's on a largescale level in a professional sports league.because it would not be used on a largescale level in baseball as it is in the NFL.

I have no problem with IR in the NFL (or any sport) becuase overall, I think IR does help to get the call accurate. I'm sure you will point me to a few times it didn't work. I understand its not perfect, but I think it does help.

But like others, I am concerned that with instant replay being set up for home run calls, public sentiment would push for it to be used for instant replay being used in other situations that are more frequent and more decisive. The biggest complaint about umpiring is with called balls and strikes.I really do not understand why this is such a concern for people. Show me where this has happened before in any other sport. It is used now on a limited bais in the NBA and NHL and I have yet to read once that fans want to push for more use of it.

And I'll say this again, you'll never find a fan, player or owner who wants to use IR for balls and strikes. It will never happen. never.

SoxandtheCityTee
05-27-2008, 08:45 AM
Another problem looming is that some clubs own or are under common ownership with their TV networks or the stations that broadcast their games (including you-know-who, until the sale of the team goes through). If you think there are conspiracy theorists now, wait until a TV producer on the payroll of the ownership of the team benefitting from the replay call gets to determine which view(s) the reviewing umpire(s) see or don't see.

Maybe Fenway can offer some insight on this. I'm not attacking the integrity of TV producers everywhere -- far from it -- but we in Chicago all know that team ownership can throw its weight around with the media covering their team when the team owns both.

Mike & Mike were talking about this this morning and cited a print journalist's column about this conflict of interest but I did not catch his name or paper -- anybody else hear this?

Save McCuddy's
05-27-2008, 09:23 AM
Even with Replay, you could still have interpretation sneak into calls. Hr's that are determined by a yellow line on a flat wall offer such a chance. Can't quite tell whether the ball struck a millimeter below the line or right on it due to the concavity of the ball.

Make the call on the field as best you can and move on. It has worked for an awfully long time.

Bruizer
05-27-2008, 10:19 AM
Opposed. I can't stand the delays in football. We don't need that in baseball as well.

As some have suggested, they should just put two more umpires down the lines, perhaps right under the foul poles. Sort of like referees under the goal posts for field goal tries at football games.

Bru

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 10:46 AM
because it would not be used on a largescale level in baseball as it is in the NFL.

I have no problem with IR in the NFL (or any sport) becuase overall, I think IR does help to get the call accurate. I'm sure you will point me to a few times it didn't work. I understand its not perfect, but I think it does help.



IR sometimes gets the call right in the NFL. It sometimes gets the call wrong. But more often than not, it says "inconclusive." That's the biggest problem. It's a ****load of time to waste for no result.

Most likely if the MLB has IR, even if it's just for HR, it will be used about 10 times a year. It will slow games down immensely and get pitchers and hitters out of their natural rhythms. And I would guess that about 8 times out of 10 it will either confirm the call on the field or prove inconclusive.

No thanks

rdwj
05-27-2008, 10:50 AM
I hate instant replay in EVERY sport. I hope we never see it in baseball, but I know it's coming.

TDog
05-27-2008, 11:31 AM
...

And I'll say this again, you'll never find a fan, player or owner who wants to use IR for balls and strikes. It will never happen. never.

There are plenty of fans who want to use replay for balls and strikes. Look at the opinion polls. They don't comprise a majority by any means, but they are there, and at this point there is no replay review in place in baseball. Extending instant replays to the plays that more frequently anger fans would be a natural progression. If instant replay was in place on a limited basis in the 2005 postseason, many would have been clamouring for review of Josh Paul's dropped third strike just as people are now clamouring for replay help in determining home runs. Some people insisted for days, weeks and months that the replay showed one thing while others insisted it showed something else. Who knows what what will happen to a play when it is reviewed.

Maybe that example is extreme. The question of whether a home run is fair or foul is much less common than the question of whether a ball that remains in play is fair or foul. If replay is in place for home runs, many people now demanding replay is in place for home runs will be demanding it be in place for balls in play.

What people are advocating as harmless and limited use in baseball involves extremely rare situations that could be resolved by changing stadium configurations to make it more clear to umpires whether a ball is a home run. Many replays will prove inconclusive without those changes anyway.

If you can point to instances where instant replay didn't get calls right in other sports where fans watching replays believe they saw the truth differently, it obviously is not about getting the calls right.

If there is a problem with home run calls, and if there is, the problem is rare, the solution isn't replay to make people believe everything is good, but making it clearer on the field what is and what is not a home run.

The harm replay review could do to baseball would outweigh its extremely limited benefits.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 11:46 AM
^^ please link me to those opinion polls, and if IR for balls and strikes is higher than 15%, I'd be shocked.

moochpuppy
05-27-2008, 11:55 AM
HR calls ONLY!

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 11:59 AM
If there is a problem with home run calls, and if there is, the problem is rare, the solution isn't replay to make people believe everything is good, but making it clearer on the field what is and what is not a home run.I'm sorry I just dont understand what you're saying here. 99/100 times IR will be able to correctly see if a ball is a HR or not. And if the problem is so rare, than IR will be rarely used.

TDog
05-27-2008, 12:01 PM
^^ please link me to those opinion polls, and if IR for balls and strikes is higher than 15%, I'd be shocked.

You're the one who wants to pollute baseball with instant replay and wrote "no one" wants to see balls and strikes included. Find them yourself while you revise your definition of "no one" to include up to 15 percent.

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 12:02 PM
I'm sorry I just dont understand what you're saying here. 99/100 times IR will be able to correctly see if a ball is a HR or not. And if the problem is so rare, than IR will be rarely used.


Not sure where you're coming by that "fact"

If anything, IR in other sports has shown that IR is not able to show anything that conclusively at that high a rate.

Of course, it's a different situation, but watching replay of supposed HRs I have yet to see anything that suggests that such a high success rate is possible.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 12:23 PM
You're the one who wants to pollute baseball with instant replay and wrote "no one" wants to see balls and strikes included. Find them yourself while you revise your definition of "no one" to include up to 15 percent.I did a search and couldn't find any polls you claim exist. And by "no one" I mean the overwhelming minority.

Not sure where you're coming by that "fact"

If anything, IR in other sports has shown that IR is not able to show anything that conclusively at that high a rate.

Of course, it's a different situation, but watching replay of supposed HRs I have yet to see anything that suggests that such a high success rate is possible.you are against IR, so I'm not going to try to convince you it works. I think it does many more times than not. Have you seen the replays from the past week? all of them clearly show the hits were HRs. Its pretty easy to tell where a ball lands when slowed down by IR.

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 12:26 PM
I did a search and couldn't find any polls you claim exist. And by "no one" I mean the overwhelming minority.

you are against IR, so I'm not going to try to convince you it works. I think it does many more times than not. Have you seen the replays from the past week? all of them clearly show the hits were HRs. Its pretty easy to tell where a ball lands when slowed down by IR.


And you're for IR, so I'm not going to convince you either.

You ever watch an NFL game where the replay seems CLEARLY to indicate something and the refs rule otherwise?

Same thing with these HR that are CLEARLY one way or another to you. The umps aren't going to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt 99/100 and if you think they are, you're either incredibly naive, or letting your desire for IR blind you to what is extant

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 12:31 PM
I'm just saying, you can stop a tape at the exact spot a ball lands, (or crosses a foul poll). Will it be perfect? or course not, but it would help make the accurate call many more times than not.

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 12:35 PM
I'm just saying, you can stop a tape at the exact spot a ball lands, (or crosses a foul poll). Will it be perfect? or course not, but it would help make the accurate call many more times than not.


Maybe it will, maybe it won't. If it changes a call more than half the time, I'd be surprised

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 12:49 PM
I'm just saying, you can stop a tape at the exact spot a ball lands, (or crosses a foul poll). Will it be perfect? or course not, but it would help make the accurate call many more times than not.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. If it changes a call more than half the time, I'd be surprised

Cbot has this right, I think. It won't be perfect, but if this happens to the Sox, I'm pretty sure we'd all change our tune. I don't understand how the 6 or 7 blown HR calls this week alone couldn't have been overturned. Every one was obvious. If an ump blows THAT call, then he should be punished for it.

I do understand the fear of IR being widespread. I don't doubt Bud would do anything if he can find away to get a buck off it (more TV time, sponsored replays), but I just don't think it would extend past HR calls. Every ump has a different zone, and a good pitcher works within that zone. It's like in basketball - every ref has their own idea of a foul. It's a teams job to adjust to that perception, and play accordingly.

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Cbot has this right, I think. It won't be perfect, but if this happens to the Sox, I'm pretty sure we'd all change our tune. I don't understand how the 6 or 7 blown HR calls this week alone couldn't have been overturned. Every one was obvious. If an ump blows THAT call, then he should be punished for it.

I do understand the fear of IR being widespread. I don't doubt Bud would do anything if he can find away to get a buck off it (more TV time, sponsored replays), but I just don't think it would extend past HR calls. Every ump has a different zone, and a good pitcher works within that zone. It's like in basketball - every ref has their own idea of a foul. It's a teams job to adjust to that perception, and play accordingly.

It's happened to the Sox in the past. It was a tough pill to swallow, but these things even out. There was also no guarantee that a replay would have overturned the call on teh field

alohafri
05-27-2008, 12:59 PM
I can't believe I am saying this, but I have to agree with what Peter Gammons and Joe Morgan were saying on Sunday. I am not in favor of it, but if the umpires say, "hey, we could use some help on certain calls" then that would be okay.

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 01:06 PM
Okay, I was cruising around trying to find other opinions on this whole IR thing (which we will cover extensively on 643 Sports tonight, just follow my link), and I came across this (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/). I think this response to the Morrissey article pretty much sums up my case for IR and my response to those who are against it.

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 01:09 PM
I can't believe I am saying this, but I have to agree with what Peter Gammons and Joe Morgan were saying on Sunday. I am not in favor of it, but if the umpires say, "hey, we could use some help on certain calls" then that would be okay.

That's not a bad idea--to have replay as an available resource to umpires on HR calls.

I mean, if they feel their only alternative is to ask ****ing Derek Jeter if he saw the play, I agree they should have the option.

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 01:21 PM
I mean, if they feel their only alternative is to ask ****ing Derek Jeter if he saw the play, I agree they should have the option.

Hey man, Derek Jeter sees and knows all.

But isn't that what the MLB is trying to do? Aren't they trying to institute IR for HR's as an aide to umpires? Even if the IR is called for by a manager or someone upstairs, is it not still aiding the umpires? Of course these guys could use some help in determining those calls, just look at the quote from the ump who blew Delgado's HR.

Can we also please stop using the slippery slope argument? Even if it is feasible, there is no indication that it would actually happen. When IR was being introduced into the NFL, people were scared that it would soon be used to challenge every penalty, be it holding or offsides or whatever, and the same goes for NBA. Have there been people calling for an expansion of the powers of IR in those sports? Surely there have been, but professional sports as a whole have done a good job of separating the practical uses of technology from simple fan outcry, and there is no reason to believe that MLB would be any different.

fquaye149
05-27-2008, 01:42 PM
Hey man, Derek Jeter sees and knows all.

But isn't that what the MLB is trying to do? Aren't they trying to institute IR for HR's as an aide to umpires? Even if the IR is called for by a manager or someone upstairs, is it not still aiding the umpires? Of course these guys could use some help in determining those calls, just look at the quote from the ump who blew Delgado's HR.

Can we also please stop using the slippery slope argument? Even if it is feasible, there is no indication that it would actually happen. When IR was being introduced into the NFL, people were scared that it would soon be used to challenge every penalty, be it holding or offsides or whatever, and the same goes for NBA. Have there been people calling for an expansion of the powers of IR in those sports? Surely there have been, but professional sports as a whole have done a good job of separating the practical uses of technology from simple fan outcry, and there is no reason to believe that MLB would be any different.

If IR is instituted as a direct-action measure, which it seems to be, it will be an option with an asterisk as in "it's an option, but since we put it in, you better use it"

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 02:21 PM
If IR is instituted as a direct-action measure, which it seems to be, it will be an option with an asterisk as in "it's an option, but since we put it in, you better use it"

Exactly, they better use it. Is there something wrong with getting the correct call on a HR, or at least attempting to get the call right?

Daver
05-27-2008, 02:36 PM
because it would not be used on a largescale level in baseball as it is in the NFL.

I have no problem with IR in the NFL (or any sport) becuase overall, I think IR does help to get the call accurate. I'm sure you will point me to a few times it didn't work. I understand its not perfect, but I think it does help.

I really do not understand why this is such a concern for people. Show me where this has happened before in any other sport. It is used now on a limited bais in the NBA and NHL and I have yet to read once that fans want to push for more use of it.

And I'll say this again, you'll never find a fan, player or owner who wants to use IR for balls and strikes. It will never happen. never.

The call on the field is always right, because the umpires decision is final. If you question that in one area what is to stop questioning it in all areas?

Leave the decision where it should be, on the field.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 02:37 PM
That's not a bad idea--to have replay as an available resource to umpires on HR calls.

I mean, if they feel their only alternative is to ask ****ing Derek Jeter if he saw the play, I agree they should have the option.

Thats exactly what I have been arguing all along - if it will help umpires make certain calls, why not use it? Glad you're finally seeing it my way. :tongue:

VeeckAsInWreck
05-27-2008, 02:41 PM
I bet the Angels wish instant replay was in baseball during game 2 of the 2005 ALCS.

Anyway, I voted in favor of instant replay. The technology is there, let's use it.

For those who want to be baseball "purist" I say this. You're on a message board for an AL team which uses the designated hitter. Enough said.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 02:42 PM
The call on the field is always right, because the umpires decision is final. If you question that in one area what is to stop questioning it in all areas?

Leave the decision where it should be, on the field.I respectfully disagree. It can't be used for all calls for the same reasons its not used for all calls in other sports. The call on the field is most definitely not always right.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 02:43 PM
The call on the field is always right, because the umpires decision is final. If you question that in one area what is to stop questioning it in all areas?

Leave the decision where it should be, on the field.

Balls and strikes, check swings - these are all at an umpires descretion. There is no fair or logical way to enforce it uniformally, as Questec shows. Every umpire interprets and calls the zone a little bit differently. I don't think many of us are suggesting IR be used for that. There's no way to call it correcty - there is no "line," and each pitches location is debatable.

With HR calls, there is a 4 inch yellow line. Either it's over/on it, or it's not. Either it's a homerun, or its not. While balls/strikes are debatable for eternity, a HR call is not. Just because an ump makes a decision regarding HR's does not make it right. It might make it final, but it does not make it right.

TDog
05-27-2008, 02:43 PM
I did a search and couldn't find any polls you claim exist. And by "no one" I mean the overwhelming minority. ....

I heard there was a survey reported on Sunday Night Baseball. I also heard that favoring balls and strikes being reviewed were something like 18 percent. For something like one in seven people to favor something as extreme as balls and strikes being reviewed I think would not be insignificant.

I don't want to draw any political analogies, but replay is a matter of politics in the broadest sense of the word. Without drawing any specific political comparison, I would be opposed to the "creeping" replay that would be rarely used while the fact that it is in place would incite people to favor expansion in other more frequently and more pivotal baseball situations.

Allowing umpires to have access to instant replay at their own discretion if they believe it would help them make the correct call would be a different situation entirely, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I don't believe that is what people are calling for. Umpire discretion would only invoke replay if umpires believed they needed more help on the call, not if they believed they got the call right, regardless of whether replays provide evidence that they missed it.

There are things teams can do to prevent most blown home run calls -- which are probably the least frequent and least pivotal of all blown calls -- that would serve the game better than instant replay.

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 02:50 PM
The call on the field is always right, because the umpires decision is final. If you question that in one area what is to stop questioning it in all areas?

Leave the decision where it should be, on the field.

That is a bit of a false dilemma. Just because there is the use of IR to assure the correct call is made in one aspect of the game certainly does not mean that it will automatically be applied to all aspects. It could be (and should be, IMO) used only as the MLB says it will be used. There is no reason to believe that the institution of IR for HR calls will lead to the abolishment of umpiring as we know it, or even its use in other on-the-field calls.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 02:51 PM
Allowing umpires to have access to instant replay at their own discretion if they believe it would help them make the correct call would be a different situation entirely, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I don't believe that is what people are calling for.

That's EXACTLY what I'm calling for. Put an "official" in the booth who's available for such plays, and let him make the call. Or clone Jeter and put him in all booths for such occasions. Plus, you've always got a crafty clutch hitter/defender at your disposal.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 02:51 PM
There are things teams can do to prevent most blown home run calls -- which are probably the least frequent and least pivotal of all blown calls -- that would serve the game better than instant replay.


Like what? Just curious.

Daver
05-27-2008, 03:07 PM
That is a bit of a false dilemma. Just because there is the use of IR to assure the correct call is made in one aspect of the game certainly does not mean that it will automatically be applied to all aspects. It could be (and should be, IMO) used only as the MLB says it will be used. There is no reason to believe that the institution of IR for HR calls will lead to the abolishment of umpiring as we know it, or even its use in other on-the-field calls.

The argument about baseball and technology is not new, and some believe that Questec plays a larger role in how games are called than many people think. The burden of proof is a bit difficult since the umpires union is completely controlled from Bud Selig's office, but if it is true then MLB has already altered how games are called. What stops them from taking the next step?

The call on the field is always right because the umpires decision is final.

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 03:21 PM
The call on the field is always right because the umpires decision is final.

Have you been reading Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan lately?

Anyway, MLB alters the way the games are called all the time, mostly because they make the rules. And isn't the purpose of Questec supposed to be that it keeps umpires in line with calling the strike zone as defined by the MLB? Also, look at the new speed-up rules that are playing a big role in games this season, is that not altering the way the game is called?

And what is this phantom 'next step'? If you mean using existing technology to ensure that calls on the field are made correctly and to ensure the game is called in accordance with MLB rules, then the only thing stopping "them" is "themselves". That argument is made out of pure speculation without any real proof or evidence, and is not sufficient to bolster the slippery slope argument. Nice try.

Daver
05-27-2008, 03:32 PM
Have you been reading Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan lately?

Anyway, MLB alters the way the games are called all the time, mostly because they make the rules. And isn't the purpose of Questec supposed to be that it keeps umpires in line with calling the strike zone as defined by the MLB? Also, look at the new speed-up rules that are playing a big role in games this season, is that not altering the way the game is called?

And what is this phantom 'next step'? If you mean using existing technology to ensure that calls on the field are made correctly and to ensure the game is called in accordance with MLB rules, then the only thing stopping "them" is "themselves". That argument is made out of pure speculation without any real proof or evidence, and is not sufficient to bolster the slippery slope argument. Nice try.

Questec started it's life as a possible way to replace the umpire behind the plate, not as a tool to punish umpires for bad calls, as it is being used now. It failed to work as a replacement because every player has a different strike zone, but instant replay would be a much better way to punish umps for bad calls if MLB makes it legal. Combine the two and MLB could do away with the umps entirely.

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 04:36 PM
Questec started it's life as a possible way to replace the umpire behind the plate, not as a tool to punish umpires for bad calls, as it is being used now. It failed to work as a replacement because every player has a different strike zone, but instant replay would be a much better way to punish umps for bad calls if MLB makes it legal. Combine the two and MLB could do away with the umps entirely.

You are taking a GIANT leap from "MLB activating IR cameras for HR's" to "MLB does away with umpires due to technology advancements...grrrr". To my knowledge, there has been nothing, other than speculation and fear of technology, that would lead people to believe that QuesTec was meant for anything other than the current UIS (thank you, Wikipedia). And even if (a pretty big "if") the MLB decides to allow managers to challenge fair/foul hits, safe/out tags at the plate and the like, does anyone here think that there would not be a set system in place to limit the amount of challenges per game? Also, the MLB should have little to no interest in eliminating umpires. As so many of you have said, the human error that comes with umpiring is part of the game, from the players getting tossed to managers exchanging pleasantries with umpires, there is no denying that it is part of the game. Why take that away? Why would the MLB (the owner of a multi-billion dollar business, by the way) alienate the fans by taking away one of the aspects of the game they love most? Who here hasn't gone into work the day after a game and complained about the officiating the previous game, and furthermore, how many threads have been posted on this very forum about umpire conspiracies and how many posts have been made to that tune.

Get real, the MLB knows that fans like to see managers and players jawing with the umpire, and the MLB knows the fans love screaming at their television. Just because the technology to replace umpires is available does not mean that the MLB will automatically do away with them, because it is not in the best interest of baseball. So still, there is no reason to make the jump from "HR call IR" to "Umpires Union Dismantled".

Daver
05-27-2008, 04:52 PM
You are taking a GIANT leap from "MLB activating IR cameras for HR's" to "MLB does away with umpires due to technology advancements...grrrr". To my knowledge, there has been nothing, other than speculation and fear of technology, that would lead people to believe that QuesTec was meant for anything other than the current UIS (thank you, Wikipedia). And even if (a pretty big "if") the MLB decides to allow managers to challenge fair/foul hits, safe/out tags at the plate and the like, does anyone here think that there would not be a set system in place to limit the amount of challenges per game? Also, the MLB should have little to no interest in eliminating umpires. As so many of you have said, the human error that comes with umpiring is part of the game, from the players getting tossed to managers exchanging pleasantries with umpires, there is no denying that it is part of the game. Why take that away? Why would the MLB (the owner of a multi-billion dollar business, by the way) alienate the fans by taking away one of the aspects of the game they love most? Who here hasn't gone into work the day after a game and complained about the officiating the previous game, and furthermore, how many threads have been posted on this very forum about umpire conspiracies and how many posts have been made to that tune.

Get real, the MLB knows that fans like to see managers and players jawing with the umpire, and the MLB knows the fans love screaming at their television. Just because the technology to replace umpires is available does not mean that the MLB will automatically do away with them, because it is not in the best interest of baseball. So still, there is no reason to make the jump from "HR call IR" to "Umpires Union Dismantled".

MLB already dismantled the umpires union once in case you fail to remember, and fired a whole bunch of umpires that would not agree to a union controlled by Bud Selig's office. Then Bud did away with the league president's so that their was no threat to his power or objection to his decisions in the MLB offices in New York. These things happened, you can't ignore it. Bud's biggest problem is he never knows when it's gone far enough, the Mitchell Report is a fine example of this, he spent tens of millions of dollars to achieve nothing. If Bud starts down the path of IR the bus will go out of control so fast it will make your head spin.

Lefty34
05-27-2008, 05:06 PM
MLB already dismantled the umpires union once in case you fail to remember, and fired a whole bunch of umpires that would not agree to a union controlled by Bud Selig's office. Then Bud did away with the league president's so that their was no threat to his power or objection to his decisions in the MLB offices in New York. These things happened, you can't ignore it. Bud's biggest problem is he never knows when it's gone far enough, the Mitchell Report is a fine example of this, he spent tens of millions of dollars to achieve nothing. If Bud starts down the path of IR the bus will go out of control so fast it will make your head spin.

What evidence does anyone have in support of this? IR in professional sports has NOT gotten out of control in recent years, in spite of calls from fans and announcers alike to expand the powers of review. Your statement about a Bud Selig-commanded IR bus going out of control is almost the definition of arbitrary and pointless. With HR IR instituted there will definitely be an outcry for traps and plays at the plate to be reviewed, I am not doubting this. But since when does public outcry lead immediately to results? For how long have people in the NFL been bitching about holding calls and pass interference calls and the like, and for how long has the NFL allowed replay on those types of plays?

Daver
05-27-2008, 05:11 PM
What evidence does anyone have in support of this? IR in professional sports has NOT gotten out of control in recent years, in spite of calls from fans and announcers alike to expand the powers of review. Your statement about a Bud Selig-commanded IR bus going out of control is almost the definition of arbitrary and pointless. With HR IR instituted there will definitely be an outcry for traps and plays at the plate to be reviewed, I am not doubting this. But since when does public outcry lead immediately to results? For how long have people in the NFL been bitching about holding calls and pass interference calls and the like, and for how long has the NFL allowed replay on those types of plays?

The NFL isn't using replay to get the calls right, it's doing it to appease the coaches.

That and Bud Selig is not the commissioner of the NFL.

RedHeadPaleHoser
05-28-2008, 02:51 PM
For HR calls, I'm all for it.

It will drag games into oblivion. No one will agree to what a challenge will be, and with incentive laden contracts based on BP, slugging %, etc., soon it will be used for balls and strikes.

Blown saves in a game has been going on for over 100 years; this is an original, pre-TV sport. Let the umps call the games, good and bad, and live with it. I say NO to replay....and I know it will happen anyway.

Red Barchetta
05-28-2008, 03:17 PM
Based on the poll results so far, I know I'm in the minority, however the human umpire element is one of the great things about baseball. It literally is a game of inches and it's fun having that element be so important.

As to blown calls, I agree that the umpires need to get better. Not balls/strikes, but missed HR/foul balls etc. Perhaps permanently adding outfield line umpires similar to the playoffs. (The umpires union should like that idea).

We've already lived through the steroid era, I hope we don't have to live through an instant replay era. :tongue:

Lefty34
05-29-2008, 03:11 PM
It will drag games into oblivion. No one will agree to what a challenge will be,


If you mean that the length of games will be increased, I disagree. You are incorrectly assuming that the MLB will arbitrarily let managers challenge as many plays as they want, when in reality the MLB is aware of the length-of-game problem and is doing things to stop it (see: the speed-up rules instituted on pitchers and batters alike this season).


and with incentive laden contracts based on BP, slugging %, etc., soon it will be used for balls and strikes.


So incentives in contracts will lead to the downfall of the umpire? How is this possible? Since when will A-Rod's SLG change Mike Winters' (http://www.foxnews.com/images/309922/0_61_092607_MikeWinters.jpg) job description? You just tried to equate two things that have NOTHING to do with each other.

Blown saves in a game has been going on for over 100 years; this is an original, pre-TV sport.

Again, this has nothing to do with the IR v. No-IR debate, and does nothing to bolster the argument that technology should be kept out of sports, especially baseball. Also, out of all the statistics in baseball, why go with the blown save? I mean you have Wins/Losses, AVG, Balls/Strikes, but the blown save?

Let the umps call the games, good and bad, and live with it. I say NO to replay....and I know it will happen anyway.

Okay, so this is your point. I respect that. I disagree with you and I think that the argument used by anti-IR people is flawed and out-dated, but I respect your belief. But, again, the blown save?

Sockinchisox
05-30-2008, 12:03 PM
An ump in a chat with the Houston Chronicle says that replay is definitely coming to baseball.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3418530

RichH55
05-31-2008, 01:39 PM
I am for...I'm sure that is the tipping point:)