PDA

View Full Version : Another Blown Call (MLB Umpires Suck at What They Do)


RKMeibalane
05-27-2008, 06:36 PM
In tonight's Rockies-Phillies game, Ryan Howard was thrown out while trying to score on a grounder hit by Geoff Jenkins, as Todd Helton elected to throw home rather than take the out at first. Replays showed that Howard was clearly safe on the play, and it wasn't close.

Howard slid nicely around the tag to touch the plate, and only after this happened was he tagged.

Instant replay!

*clap* *clap* *clap-clap-clap*

Instant replay!

*clap* *clap* *clap-clap-clap*

Domeshot17
05-27-2008, 06:38 PM
are we seriously going to complain about every missed call? I mean home runs is one thing, but safe/out calls will NEVER be part of instant replay.

Maybe in the fall we can start a thread everytime an NFL official misses a holding or PI call

RKMeibalane
05-27-2008, 06:39 PM
are we seriously going to complain about every missed call? I mean home runs is one thing, but safe/out calls will NEVER be part of instant replay.

Maybe in the fall we can start a thread everytime an NFL official misses a holding or PI call

I might agree with you were it not for the fact that it prevented a run from scoring.

Daver
05-27-2008, 06:52 PM
In tonight's Rockies-Phillies game, Ryan Howard was thrown out while trying to score on a grounder hit by Geoff Jenkins, as Todd Helton elected to throw home rather than take the out at first. Replays showed that Howard was clearly safe on the play, and it wasn't close.

Howard slid nicely around the tag to touch the plate, and only after this happened was he tagged.

Instant replay!

*clap* *clap* *clap-clap-clap*

Instant replay!

*clap* *clap* *clap-clap-clap*

It wasn't a blown call, the umpires decision is final.

turners56
05-27-2008, 07:04 PM
We can match this with Joe Crede's play on opening day. But we can't do anything about it. They're not going to do replay on these kind of plays. Probably only home runs and fair/foul plays.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 07:10 PM
I disagree with this because if you can use IR at the plate, then you can use it for every base, and theres no way that can happen.

I think IR can be used for HR calls, but thats it.

doublem23
05-27-2008, 07:12 PM
I disagree with this because if you can use IR at the plate, then you can use it for every base, and theres no way that can happen.

Why the hell not?

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 07:13 PM
Why the hell not?because close plays at a base happen at least once an inning. That would slow the game down tremendously.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 07:48 PM
Why the hell not?

Because then you open pandora's box. Every close call at every base would be debated, slowing the game down tremendously. And once you slide down THAT slope, balls and strikes, foul and fair, and checked swings aren't far behind.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 07:50 PM
It wasn't a blown call, the umpires decision is final.

So by this logic, Dave, if a ball is batted to third base, and the third basemen throws it to first 20 feet before the runner, but the call is "safe," it's not a blown call? I think we all understand that you can't overturn an umpire's decision, but that doesn't mean it's not a bad call, or a blown one.

doublem23
05-27-2008, 07:51 PM
because close plays at a base happen at least once an inning. That would slow the game down tremendously.

I still can't figure out why everyone thinks replay would significantly slow the game down. At least 8 out of 10 close plays can be reviewed in literally a couple of seconds by a guy in the booth with access to replay.

Why does everyone assume MLB IR would involve the umps heading to a hood a la football. Just add 1 ump to the crew; a guy who would be upstairs and could over rule the umps if/when they make a mistake, except for balls and strikes.

That *might* add 5 minutes to the game.

Daver
05-27-2008, 07:53 PM
So by this logic, Dave, if a ball is batted to third base, and the third basemen throws it to first 20 feet before the runner, but the call is "safe," it's not a blown call? I think we all understand that you can't overturn an umpire's decision, but that doesn't mean it's not a bad call, or a blown one.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter, the umpire is always right, chalk it up and move on. There won't be an asterisk in the record book noting there was an umpiring mistake.

doublem23
05-27-2008, 07:53 PM
Because then you open pandora's box. Every close call at every base would be debated, slowing the game down tremendously. And once you slide down THAT slope, balls and strikes, foul and fair, and checked swings aren't far behind.

No, they're not. Balls and strikes would not be reviewable. Check swings I could be talked into or out off... Again, that would literally take seconds; what do you think, they need to retrieve the film from a camera and put it in a viewing booth? Half the umps out their mull over their check swing calls, anyway. Not adding much time there at all.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 07:58 PM
I still can't figure out why everyone thinks replay would significantly slow the game down. At least 8 out of 10 close plays can be reviewed in literally a couple of seconds by a guy in the booth with access to replay.

Why does everyone assume MLB IR would involve the umps heading to a hood a la football. Just add 1 ump to the crew; a guy who would be upstairs and could over rule the umps if/when they make a mistake, except for balls and strikes.

That *might* add 5 minutes to the game.It would just ruin the continuity of a game simply because there are too many close calls within a game. If this was implemented, it would have to follow the NFL and managers given a number of challenges.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 08:00 PM
No, they're not. Balls and strikes would not be reviewable. Check swings I could be talked into or out off... Again, that would literally take seconds; what do you think, they need to retrieve the film from a camera and put it in a viewing booth? Half the umps out their mull over their check swing calls, anyway. Not adding much time there at all.

Doubleem, I'm all for IR under limited circumstances. However, if you want to open this up to close calls, it would slow it down. Think about how long it takes in football. Umps CAN'T screw IR up. If they do, it would be their jobs. They have to scrutinize every angle.

And why do you think it would take seconds? How would umps instantly check replays? Would you want to rely on the hometown team's scoreboard video? You don't think THAT opens up a can of worms, with "homers" not showing certain angles that would go against the home team?

Don't insult my intelligence. I understand that technology has made reviewing plays easier than film. But don't simply overlook the logistics about this. What sport sees "instant replays" that only take " a few seconds" as you suggest? With "8-10" calls a game debated, you're adding at bare minimum 10 minutes, with an opportunity for 20 or 30 in big games when the scrutiny is high.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 08:01 PM
The bottom line is it doesn't matter, the umpire is always right, chalk it up and move on. There won't be an asterisk in the record book noting there was an umpiring mistake.

I understand there is no asterik, but how can you be so simplistic in stating an umpire is never wrong? Umps even admit they're wrong.

Did you parents never committ a mistake? Teachers? Cops?

Daver
05-27-2008, 08:09 PM
I understand there is no asterik, but how can you be so simplistic in stating an umpire is never wrong? Umps even admit they're wrong.

Did you parents never committ a mistake? Teachers? Cops?

Where did I say they are never wrong?


Do not put words in my mouth, nothing good will come of it.


I said the bottom line is that their decision is final, nothing changes that.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 08:14 PM
Where did I say they are never wrong?no, you said they are always right. However its shown (by IR) that that are not always right.

Jjav829
05-27-2008, 08:18 PM
Doubleem, I'm all for IR under limited circumstances. However, if you want to open this up to close calls, it would slow it down. Think about how long it takes in football. Umps CAN'T screw IR up. If they do, it would be their jobs. They have to scrutinize every angle.

And why do you think it would take seconds? How would umps instantly check replays? Would you want to rely on the hometown team's scoreboard video? You don't think THAT opens up a can of worms, with "homers" not showing certain angles that would go against the home team?

Don't insult my intelligence. I understand that technology has made reviewing plays easier than film. But don't simply overlook the logistics about this. What sport sees "instant replays" that only take " a few seconds" as you suggest? With "8-10" calls a game debated, you're adding at bare minimum 10 minutes, with an opportunity for 20 or 30 in big games when the scrutiny is high.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The NFL has a very good system in place that allows for the review of plays, but limits the numbers of reviews. If MLB wanted to implement something similar, they could make all HR calls reviewable based on umpire's discretion, and then give each manager one challenge per game to be used on fair/safe calls involving a runner at a base.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 08:18 PM
Where did I say they are never wrong?


Do not put words in my mouth, nothing good will come of it.


I said the bottom line is that their decision is final, nothing changes that.


It wasn't a blown call,


Pardon me for "putting words in your mouth," but saying that it's not a blown call is pretty damn close to saying they aren't wrong. I asked you a specific question to clarify your stance, and that's the response I got. I'm not putting words in your mouth; if it's not a blown call, it can't be wrong.

Through 2 threads, I've repeatedly said that I understand an umpire's decision is final. I think we all do, but does that not mean they could have made a better call? And does that not mean some help could be given to the umps to make a better call?

Daver
05-27-2008, 08:19 PM
no, you said they are always right. However its shown (by IR) that that are not always right.

No, they are right, but because their call is final. When all is said and done right and wrong are immaterial to the result.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 08:27 PM
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The NFL has a very good system in place that allows for the review of plays, but limits the numbers of reviews. If MLB wanted to implement something similar, they could make all HR calls reviewable based on umpire's discretion, and then give each manager one challenge per game to be used on fair/safe calls involving a runner at a base.I'd be fine with that.

When all is said and done right and wrong are immaterial to the result.but how can you be OK with that? If someone hits a HR, I'd like to see that HR counted.

Hokiesox
05-27-2008, 08:28 PM
They could have made a better call? Seriously. Get in there and umpire a ****ing game. Then come back and tell me you'd get it right every ****ing time. I don't know what play you're talking of, nor have I seen any baseball this weekend, having been on vacation, but I imagine the umpire had a good reason for making the call. Quit attacking the umpires for everything. It's useless and bad calls are part of the game. get over it.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 08:28 PM
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The NFL has a very good system in place that allows for the review of plays, but limits the numbers of reviews. If MLB wanted to implement something similar, they could make all HR calls reviewable based on umpire's discretion, and then give each manager one challenge per game to be used on fair/safe calls involving a runner at a base.

Hell, I'm fine with something like that. That even seems rational, so I wonder if it would fly. I venture to think that HR calls would be a trial run, then MLB would expand it. But the only thing that sticks with me is what MLB would expand to. What's good? What's not? I just don't know if the owners could all agree over what's reviewable and what's not.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 08:30 PM
They could have made a better call? Seriously. Get in there and umpire a ****ing game. Then come back and tell me you'd get it right every ****ing time. I don't know what play you're talking of, nor have I seen any baseball this weekend, having been on vacation, but I imagine the umpire had a good reason for making the call. Quit attacking the umpires for everything. It's useless and bad calls are part of the game. get over it.I dont think anybody is really attacking umpiring here. Sometimes they simply cant get out to the outfield in time or get the right angle on a ball to see it correctly, so they do they best they can, but they're human. They can make mistakes that video could easily see when slowed down to a 1000 frames a second.

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 08:39 PM
I dont think anybody is really attacking umpiring here. Sometimes they simply cant get out to the outfield in time or get the right angle on a ball to see it correctly, so they do they best they can, but they're human. They can make mistakes that video could easily see when slowed down to a 1000 frames a second.

I believe he was referring to the (erroneous) topic title - MLB Umpires Suck at What They Do.

A little too provacative, and not very correct. They make the correct call a clear majority of the time, and have a difficult job. I understand the frustration, but calm down, RKM. Go have a beer!:gulp:

Jjav829
05-27-2008, 08:40 PM
I dont think anybody is really attacking umpiring here. Sometimes they simply cant get out to the outfield in time or get the right angle on a ball to see it correctly, so they do they best they can, but they're human. They can make mistakes that video could easily see when slowed down to a 1000 frames a second.

Seriously. We're not saying umpires are awful. They have a ton of calls to make each game and they get one look in a split-second to make a call. And they usually get it right. But sometimes they don't. And sometimes those wrong calls can cost a team.

Bad calls are part of the game only because that's the way the game began. But times have changed. We now have a bunch of newfangled technology that can be used to try to take away some of the egregious mistakes. And before it's even said, no one is advocating using technology to make every call, but rather on the occasional calls which replay can show were clearly wrong.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 08:41 PM
I believe he was referring to the (erroneous) topic title - MLB Umpires Suck at What They Do.

A little too provacative, and not very correct. They make the correct call a clear majority of the time, and have a difficult job. I understand the frustration, but calm down, whomever started this thread. Go have a beer!:gulp::D: yeah didnt even notice that. yeah the thread title is way off. There are many times I thought for sure an ump blew a call and IR showed how wrong I was. They are usually pretty good at what they do.

Daver
05-27-2008, 08:42 PM
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The NFL has a very good system in place that allows for the review of plays, but limits the numbers of reviews. If MLB wanted to implement something similar, they could make all HR calls reviewable based on umpire's discretion, and then give each manager one challenge per game to be used on fair/safe calls involving a runner at a base.

The NFL has no interest in getting the call right, and every interest in appeasing the coaches.

Frater Perdurabo
05-27-2008, 08:56 PM
The NFL has no interest in getting the call right, and every interest in appeasing the coaches.

That doesn't change the fact that replay has helped the NFL get more calls "correct."

And it doesn't change the fact that replay could help MLB umpires get more calls correct.

Just because the rules say the umpire is always "right," does not mean his call is correct.

Let's stop hiding behind outdated rules and traditions and take obvious steps to improve the game.

ondafarm
05-27-2008, 09:05 PM
It wasn't a blown call, the umpires decision is final.

The umpire, I mean Mike Estabrook, is an idiot.

Daver
05-27-2008, 09:07 PM
That doesn't change the fact that replay has helped the NFL get more calls "correct."


Has it?

If it is that much better why isn't it used on every questionable play?

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 09:35 PM
Has it?

If it is that much better why isn't it used on every questionable play?Because fans are willing to sacrifice not reviewing every questionable play, for the sake of not dragging out games. And limiting the number to a few challenges is a perfect compromise.

But in this context we are talking specifically about HR calls, and since this rarely happens more than one time in a game, it would be used for every questionable call.

Daver
05-27-2008, 09:56 PM
Because fans are willing to sacrifice not reviewing every questionable play, for the sake of not dragging out games. And limiting the number to a few challenges is a perfect compromise.

But in this context we are talking specifically about HR calls, and since this rarely happens more than one time in a game, it would be used for every questionable call.

Since when do fans have any part of officiating a game?

You're getting downright ridiculous now.

cbotnyse
05-27-2008, 10:00 PM
Since when do fans have any part of officiating a game?

You're getting downright ridiculous now.because fans bring in billions of dollars to their sport. If every play was reviewable and games were dragged out for hours and hours nobody would go to, or bother watching games. Plus, it doesnt make much sense to do that.

Daver
05-27-2008, 10:19 PM
because fans bring in billions of dollars to their sport. If every play was reviewable and games were dragged out for hours and hours nobody would go to, or bother watching games. Plus, it doesnt make much sense to do that.

That did not answer the question.

Gavin
05-27-2008, 11:23 PM
Since when do fans have any part of officiating a game?

You're getting downright ridiculous now.

They are the customer. They have everything to do with every single part of professional sports.

Elephant
05-27-2008, 11:28 PM
In tonight's Rockies-Phillies game, Ryan Howard was thrown out while trying to score on a grounder hit by Geoff Jenkins, as Todd Helton elected to throw home rather than take the out at first. Replays showed that Howard was clearly safe on the play, and it wasn't close.

Howard slid nicely around the tag to touch the plate, and only after this happened was he tagged.

Instant replay!

*clap* *clap* *clap-clap-clap*

Instant replay!

*clap* *clap* *clap-clap-clap*

:rolleyes:

It happens, deal with it. Instant replay makes football suck. It's absolutely ridiculous what goes on there.

Home run calls are botched once every two years. *****.

rdwj
05-27-2008, 11:29 PM
:rolleyes:

It happens, deal with it. Instant replay makes football suck. It's absolutely ridiculous what goes on there.

Amen!

I HATE instant replay

Elephant
05-27-2008, 11:49 PM
There's no pressing need to "get it right," because it's just a stupid game. Every once in a blue moon you get screwed. That's life. 99% of the time they do get it right. Hopefully it doesn't happen when it really counts, and it basically never does happen that way. Sometimes you're on the other side of things, too.

It's just a part of the game you have to deal with because the alternative does not help the game at all. Should we appease a small group of fans here and there and ultimately make the game itself worse overall? That's absolutely stupid.

You want a real solution, take the umpires egos down a notch and enforce better play reviewing among the crew members.

For instance, Crede's check swing the other night against K Rod that was called for a strike? He wasn't 6 inches from breaking the plane and the home plate ump didn't even appeal to first. That made a 2-1 count 1-2 and changed the whole dynamic of the at-bat. We all know what happened. There's gotta be a way to have the other guy say "hey, you missed that one bad, let's turn that one over." Make the calls a little less "final" you know? I always thought there was too much infallibility there (and it is there for a reason, but we can probably compromise that somehow).

But you're talking about pausing the game, throwing yellow flags, cutting to commercials, endless semantic bull**** about the meaning of "indisputable" and using technology? Again, absolutely stupid.

doublem23
05-27-2008, 11:58 PM
It's just a part of the game you have to deal with because the alternative does not help the game at all. Should we appease a small group of fans here and there and ultimately make the game itself worse overall? That's absolutely stupid.

Just like the poll during Sunday Night Baseball last week that had at least 2/3 in favor of some kind of Instant Replay system. Your opinion is the minority.

As for "slowing the game down," I honestly can think of maybe 3-4 calls I've ever seen in my life that would take more than a few seconds to correct. This isn't football, there's not a ridiculous checklist of things you need to look at and vague rules that need to be interpretted on the field. In baseball, you need to know where the ball is and where the runner is. Wow. Almost every blown call can be corrected in the same amount of time it takes a pitching coach to run out to the mound. And if you're so confident the umps get it right so often, then we're talking an additional minute or so to the game (and probably less time than it now takes for umps to congregate and discuss a play that none of them got a good look at in the first place. What a remarkably brilliant system we have in place).

Yeah, I know, it's sports and "getting it right" is somewhere in the 1st percentile of things that actually matter in the world. But to ignore technology that would make the game better simply because "that's not the way the did it in the 60's, when the game was a game" is, to use your own words "absolutely stupid."

Frater Perdurabo
05-28-2008, 06:51 AM
You want a real solution, take the umpires egos down a notch and enforce better play reviewing among the crew members.

For instance, Crede's check swing the other night against K Rod that was called for a strike? He wasn't 6 inches from breaking the plane and the home plate ump didn't even appeal to first. That made a 2-1 count 1-2 and changed the whole dynamic of the at-bat. We all know what happened. There's gotta be a way to have the other guy say "hey, you missed that one bad, let's turn that one over." Make the calls a little less "final" you know? I always thought there was too much infallibility there (and it is there for a reason, but we can probably compromise that somehow).

I definitely would support that.

But we still need some mechanism to determine whether a HR ball is fair or foul. It would be used, on average, less than once per game.

Daver
05-28-2008, 09:17 AM
They are the customer. They have everything to do with every single part of professional sports.

Then you don't need umpires or referees at all, just have a drawing before every game amongst the fans and let the chosen few officiate.


That statement was no less ridiculous than your answer.

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 10:43 AM
Then you don't need umpires or referees at all, just have a drawing before every game amongst the fans and let the chosen few officiate.


That statement was no less ridiculous than your answer.come on Daver, you're really not helping the conversation here. IR and how its implemented is done to make the game as fair as possible without ruining the experience for the fan. I know you understand the context here.

ondafarm
05-28-2008, 10:46 AM
There's no pressing need to "get it right," because it's just a stupid game. Every once in a blue moon you get screwed. That's life. 99% of the time they do get it right. Hopefully it doesn't happen when it really counts, and it basically never does happen that way. Sometimes you're on the other side of things, too. . .

Anybody who's seen more than a handful of Questec game reports would have a hearty laugh at your ignorance.

Daver
05-28-2008, 10:47 AM
come on Daver, you're really not helping the conversation here. IR and how its implemented is done to make the game as fair as possible without ruining the experience for the fan. I know you understand the context here.

Baseball is perfectly fair as it is right now, because mistakes happen for both teams equally.

ondafarm
05-28-2008, 10:50 AM
Baseball is perfectly fair as it is right now, because mistakes happen for both teams equally.

You forgot your teal.

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 10:52 AM
Baseball is perfectly fair as it is right now, because mistakes happen for both teams equally.granted, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

TDog
05-28-2008, 11:39 AM
It would just ruin the continuity of a game simply because there are too many close calls within a game. If this was implemented, it would have to follow the NFL and managers given a number of challenges.

That is exactly why replay in he NFL is a farce -- not just a joke, but an over-the-top joke. Once he umpires blow a certain number of calls, which may or may not be overturned whether or not the call was actually blown, umpires can blow numerous calls and there is nothing that can be done. The NFL rule is downright absurd. Should a coach not challenge blatantly bad calls because of the potential of bad calls that could decide the game in its late stages?

What I find most hilarious about this thread is that posters in the for-or-against replay thread insisted baseball could stop at the home run thing. I don't think that would be possible.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 11:43 AM
Just like the poll during Sunday Night Baseball last week that had at least 2/3 in favor of some kind of Instant Replay system. Your opinion is the minority.

I didn't realize that the people who log into ESPN.com to vote on a poll represented the actual demographic of baseball fans.

:shrug:

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 11:44 AM
Anybody who's seen more than a handful of Questec game reports would have a hearty laugh at your ignorance.


Questec is a joke.

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 11:47 AM
That is exactly why replay in he NFL is a farce -- not just a joke, but an over-the-top joke. Once he umpires blow a certain number of calls, which may or may not be overturned whether or not the call was actually blown, umpires can blow numerous calls and there is nothing that can be done. The NFL rule is downright absurd. Should a coach not challenge blatantly bad calls because of the potential of bad calls that could decide the game in its late stages?I completely understand your reasoning, but I simply disagree. I like IR and I largely think it works. And using it on a limited basis is far better than reviewing every questionable call.
What I find most hilarious about this thread is that posters in the for-or-against replay thread insisted baseball could stop at the home run thing. I don't think that would be possible.I think its very possible. Its worked fine for the NBA and NHL, and I believe the NFL too. I dont know for sure, but I dont think what is reviewable has changed in the NFL, just the number of challenges has changed. (again, not sure about that)

doublem23
05-28-2008, 12:22 PM
I didn't realize that the people who log into ESPN.com to vote on a poll represented the actual demographic of baseball fans.

:shrug:

When you can provide betteer numbers, I'll glady look at them and incorporate them in my argument.

TDog
05-28-2008, 12:24 PM
Right now, people are clamouring for instant replay in baseball on a limited basis because umpires have missed a few calls recently that actually occur rarely, and an easier way to address the issue would be to make physical changes at ballparks.

Add instant replay for this limited basis, and people will be clamouring for "just a little extension" of replay review on disputes that happen more frequently. No matter what how limited replay is, you will hear people clamouring for more.

Putting the burden on the allegedly wronged team to challenge a bad call and limiting the number of challenges is the antithesis of the idea of "getting the call right." First, I can't believe people have bought into this. Second, I don't want people who have bought into this messing with baseball.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 12:24 PM
When you can provide betteer numbers, I'll glady look at them and incorporate them in my argument.

How about since I don't have any numbers and all you have is a bull**** ESPN sportsnation poll, neither of us pretend we have any valid numbers? :rolleyes:

doublem23
05-28-2008, 12:34 PM
How about since I don't have any numbers and all you have is a bull**** ESPN sportsnation poll, neither of us pretend we have any valid numbers? :rolleyes:

This isn't government and law, it's sports banter. I'm not claiming that 67 percent of actual baseball fans want IR, but a percentage that staggering makes me believe fans won't abandon the sport when instant replay destroys baseball (which is always the only argument anti-IR people make (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/364785_voices28.html)).

downstairs
05-28-2008, 12:35 PM
Baseball is perfectly fair as it is right now, because mistakes happen for both teams equally.

Agreed. Which is why IR shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is.

That being said, if asked, I do support IR. Everyone complains that it will slow down the game. But why not go with something like the NFL... manager gets 1 (maybe 2, I don't know) challenges per game. Use them, lose them.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 12:37 PM
This isn't government and law, it's sports banter. I'm not claiming that 67 percent of actual baseball fans want IR, but a percentage that staggering makes me believe baseball will somehow find a way to survive if IR is implemented.

That sportsnation poll is almost certainly made up of ESPN sheep who probably first realized Home Wuns is bad called by da stoopid refs after the Yankees/Mets game was pushed down their throat by the East-Coast obsessed media.

In two weeks, this controversy could easily go away and people will no longer care about IR...if ESPN stops pushing it at their moron sheep sportsnation :shrug:

pierzynski07
05-28-2008, 02:05 PM
That sportsnation poll is almost certainly made up of ESPN sheep who probably first realized Home Wuns is bad called by da stoopid refs after the Yankees/Mets game was pushed down their throat by the East-Coast obsessed media.

In two weeks, this controversy could easily go away and people will no longer care about IR...if ESPN stops pushing it at their moron sheep sportsnation :shrug:
:rolleyes:

Daver
05-28-2008, 02:12 PM
This isn't government and law, it's sports banter. I'm not claiming that 67 percent of actual baseball fans want IR, but a percentage that staggering makes me believe fans won't abandon the sport when instant replay destroys baseball (which is always the only argument anti-IR people make (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/364785_voices28.html)).

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull****.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 02:17 PM
:rolleyes:

Roll your eye all you want, but blown HR calls have been a part of baseball for years. The Mets/Yankees game was not the first blown HR call in baseball history

Did people want IR a month ago? No. If ESPN would just let this go away would they care one way or another two months from now? Probably not.

Since it was a Yankees game, on ESPN, ESPN is blowing this out of proportion, and the sportsnation voters (aka moron sheep) are parading the company line (i.e. IR GOOD)

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

kevingrt
05-28-2008, 02:21 PM
are we seriously going to complain about every missed call? I mean home runs is one thing, but safe/out calls will NEVER be part of instant replay.

Maybe in the fall we can start a thread everytime an NFL official misses a holding or PI call

Just saw this thread. But there is a major difference between an out/safe call in baseball and holding/pass interference call in football. The latter is an opinion call and the former is not.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 02:26 PM
Just saw this thread. But there is a major difference between an out/safe call in baseball and holding/pass interference call in football. The latter is an opinion call and the former is not.

Holding and Pass Interference are no more "opinion" calls than out/safe

It's a JUDGMENT call...all of them

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 02:41 PM
Roll your eye all you want, but blown HR calls have been a part of baseball for years. The Mets/Yankees game was not the first blown HR call in baseball history

Did people want IR a month ago? No. If ESPN would just let this go away would they care one way or another two months from now? Probably not.

Since it was a Yankees game, on ESPN, ESPN is blowing this out of proportion, and the sportsnation voters (aka moron sheep) are parading the company line (i.e. IR GOOD)

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.thats a pretty big blanket you're trying to cover this discussion with. I dont watch ESPN and I've always thought IR for HR calls was a good idea. And I think the fact that it has happened so much last week, thats why its being brought up. However I dont doubt ESPN is wetting their pants that it happened to the almighty Yankees.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 02:56 PM
thats a pretty big blanket you're trying to cover this discussion with. I dont watch ESPN and I've always thought IR for HR calls was a good idea. And I think the fact that it has happened so much last week, thats why its being brought up. However I dont doubt ESPN is wetting their pants that it happened to the almighty Yankees.

So why is it a big deal right now? We weren't talking about it a month ago

I would suggest to you that just because you don't watch ESPN doesn't mean you're immune to their machinations

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 02:59 PM
So why is it a big deal right now?because its happened 4-5 times in the last week.

I would suggest to you that just because you don't watch ESPN doesn't mean you're immune to their machinationsI dont know what this means.

doublem23
05-28-2008, 03:05 PM
Holding and Pass Interference are no more "opinion" calls than out/safe

It's a JUDGMENT call...all of them

On the field, yes, but an out/safe call is pretty simply determined in IR... where's the runner and where's the ball? Football has written rules but many times they are not alwasy so easily interpretted on the field... Most players acknowledge that holding occurs on just about every play in some form or another. Even when slowed down with IR, many calls can go either way, because of the nature of football and some of its more ambiguous rules (a "football move?")

As for IR in baseball, I think your underestimating the amount of people that want it. Yeah, it's been thrust to the forefront because the Delgado HR was in a Subway Series game on ESPN, but ask Oriole or Padre fans and they'll probably tell you they've wanted at least some form of IR for a while. I agree the poll from Sunday Night Baseball isn't scientific in any way, but I think you're being a little too cynical in asserting that this is just a flavor of the week issue. Maybe in June ESPN and its cronies will find something else to harp on, but there will still be plenty of fans who will want baseball to embrace the technology available to it to eliminate blatant human error as much as possible.

BadBobbyJenks
05-28-2008, 03:10 PM
So why is it a big deal right now? We weren't talking about it a month ago

I would suggest to you that just because you don't watch ESPN doesn't mean you're immune to their machinations

Or it was a nationally televised game that clearly pointed out how a blown home run call could be overturned.

Or the sheep thing.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 03:29 PM
On the field, yes, but an out/safe call is pretty simply determined in IR... where's the runner and where's the ball? Football has written rules but many times they are not alwasy so easily interpretted on the field... Most players acknowledge that holding occurs on just about every play in some form or another. Even when slowed down with IR, many calls can go either way, because of the nature of football and some of its more ambiguous rules (a "football move?")

As for IR in baseball, I think your underestimating the amount of people that want it. Yeah, it's been thrust to the forefront because the Delgado HR was in a Subway Series game on ESPN, but ask Oriole or Padre fans and they'll probably tell you they've wanted at least some form of IR for a while. I agree the poll from Sunday Night Baseball isn't scientific in any way, but I think you're being a little too cynical in asserting that this is just a flavor of the week issue. Maybe in June ESPN and its cronies will find something else to harp on, but there will still be plenty of fans who will want baseball to embrace the technology available to it to eliminate blatant human error as much as possible.

I'm not necessarily againt it as I am not for it.

IF they can handle it the way the NHL handles objects in the crease/the buzzer etc. on replay, fine.

I just seriously doubt that they can

doublem23
05-28-2008, 03:38 PM
I'm not necessarily againt it as I am not for it.

IF they can handle it the way the NHL handles objects in the crease/the buzzer etc. on replay, fine.

I just seriously doubt that they can

Fair enough... If baseball were to introduce a bloated behemoth IR policy like the NFL does, I would be against it, but I think there's a simple IR strategy that can be adopted that can add on minimal extra time to the game while ensuring calls are made correctly on the field.

The main difference between football and baseball is that there's so much more to look at in a football play. Where's the ball? Does he have possession and did he stop rotation? Where are his knees, elbows, etc.? Where are his feet? Added there are 21 other guys on the field that may be blocking a view? Or maybe you can see the guys feet on one camera angle and the ball at another, so where is this footage relative to the other?

I 100% believe IR should be used for controversial HR calls. First, the new wave of "retro" ballparks has plenty of crazy dimensions that may interfere with HR calls more than the parks they replaced 15-20 years ago. Second, you can't have your umpires sprinting out to the OF for every deep fly ball and abandon their post at the bases. Even then, most umps would still be over 100 feet from the wall, so their calls are still just a guess.

pierzynski07
05-28-2008, 03:53 PM
Roll your eye all you want, but blown HR calls have been a part of baseball for years. The Mets/Yankees game was not the first blown HR call in baseball history

Did people want IR a month ago? No. If ESPN would just let this go away would they care one way or another two months from now? Probably not.

Since it was a Yankees game, on ESPN, ESPN is blowing this out of proportion, and the sportsnation voters (aka moron sheep) are parading the company line (i.e. IR GOOD)

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.
You'd have a point if all these discussions about the issue were based on that one game and one game only.

But it's not. It's an entire week of games, in which all of the calls were wrong.

You just seem to have an agenda here. And if you can't see that, well then I feel sorry for you.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 04:28 PM
Fair enough... If baseball were to introduce a bloated behemoth IR policy like the NFL does, I would be against it, but I think there's a simple IR strategy that can be adopted that can add on minimal extra time to the game while ensuring calls are made correctly on the field.

The main difference between football and baseball is that there's so much more to look at in a football play. Where's the ball? Does he have possession and did he stop rotation? Where are his knees, elbows, etc.? Where are his feet? Added there are 21 other guys on the field that may be blocking a view? Or maybe you can see the guys feet on one camera angle and the ball at another, so where is this footage relative to the other?

I 100% believe IR should be used for controversial HR calls. First, the new wave of "retro" ballparks has plenty of crazy dimensions that may interfere with HR calls more than the parks they replaced 15-20 years ago. Second, you can't have your umpires sprinting out to the OF for every deep fly ball and abandon their post at the bases. Even then, most umps would still be over 100 feet from the wall, so their calls are still just a guess.


That seems to me to be an argument why IR might be necessary in football, but is really not necessary in baseball.

Like I've said before, I would be in favor of IR as a resource for umpires to consult on HR. If they just don't see it right and have no one else to turn to, sure, go to the booth.

But to institute a POLICY on IR, where, for instance, coaches could demand an IR?

I really don't like that at all, even if I COULD be assured that it wouldn't spread to non-HR calls (which I can't)

Frater Perdurabo
05-28-2008, 06:13 PM
The main difference between football and baseball...

Is this an invitation to quote a little bit of a George Carlin routine? :wink:

Daver
05-28-2008, 06:18 PM
Is this an invitation to quote a little bit of a George Carlin routine? :wink:

Why not, the pro IR crowd has tried every other nonsensical argument they could think of.

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 06:29 PM
the umpire is always right

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 06:31 PM
the umpire is always right

I mean, it's true.

St. Louis didn't win the 1986 WS just because Denkinger almost 100% made the "wrong" call.

That's not to say that we shouldn't hold umpires accountable....but still...

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 06:47 PM
I mean, it's true.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3402805

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/026830.php

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Alex-Rodriguez-Home-Run-Another-Missed-Call-at-Yankee-Stadium-MLB-WalkOff-Blog-9026

yeah it is true, the umpire is always right.

Daver
05-28-2008, 06:55 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3402805

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/026830.php

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Alex-Rodriguez-Home-Run-Another-Missed-Call-at-Yankee-Stadium-MLB-WalkOff-Blog-9026

yeah it is true, the umpire is always right.

Perception is reality, the umps decision is final, therefore he is always right.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 07:53 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3402805

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/026830.php

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Alex-Rodriguez-Home-Run-Another-Missed-Call-at-Yankee-Stadium-MLB-WalkOff-Blog-9026

yeah it is true, the umpire is always right.

Oh, my bad, I didn't realize that those balls had been reversed in record and actually count as home runs now

my bad!!!!

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 08:06 PM
Oh, my bad, I didn't realize that those balls had been reversed in record and actually count as home runs now

my bad!!!!They should have been reversed!!! :gah:

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 08:07 PM
They should have been reversed!!! :gah:

i agree

chaerulez
05-28-2008, 08:17 PM
No, they're not. Balls and strikes would not be reviewable. Check swings I could be talked into or out off... Again, that would literally take seconds; what do you think, they need to retrieve the film from a camera and put it in a viewing booth? Half the umps out their mull over their check swing calls, anyway. Not adding much time there at all.

Regardless the game would be really silly if we stopped 8 or 10 times on average to review every play. Umpires make mistakes, that's worked for 100+ years. I'm all for home run reviews since they are so important, but other than that, it just gets to be too much.

Jjav829
05-28-2008, 08:26 PM
Roll your eye all you want, but blown HR calls have been a part of baseball for years. The Mets/Yankees game was not the first blown HR call in baseball history

Did people want IR a month ago? No. If ESPN would just let this go away would they care one way or another two months from now? Probably not.

Since it was a Yankees game, on ESPN, ESPN is blowing this out of proportion, and the sportsnation voters (aka moron sheep) are parading the company line (i.e. IR GOOD)

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

Are you serious, fquaye? Come on. I can prove this wrong with a simple google search. Go google "instant replay" and baseball. You get 324,000 results. The 3rd of those is an article from from 2001 titled "Should Baseball Consider Instant Replay?" And there are many other articles scattered over every year since then.

The instant replay debate has been going on for years. Has it flared up recently because of the large number of bad calls, including one in a game featuring two high-profile teams? Sure, in the same way that the release of the release of the Mitchell report brought the steroids controversy to the forefront. It was talked about endlessly for days. Now? Not so much. It's quieted down. Does that mean people still don't want to see baseball crack down on steroids? No, of course not! It's just lost some of its' relevance as other issues have come up. And just the same, something else will happen soon and the instant replay debate will fade into the background. That doesn't mean people changed their mind.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 09:02 PM
Are you serious, fquaye? Come on. I can prove this wrong with a simple google search. Go google "instant replay" and baseball. You get 324,000 results. The 3rd of those is an article from from 2001 titled "Should Baseball Consider Instant Replay?" And there are many other articles scattered over every year since then.

The instant replay debate has been going on for years. Has it flared up recently because of the large number of bad calls, including one in a game featuring two high-profile teams? Sure, in the same way that the release of the release of the Mitchell report brought the steroids controversy to the forefront. It was talked about endlessly for days. Now? Not so much. It's quieted down. Does that mean people still don't want to see baseball crack down on steroids? No, of course not! It's just lost some of its' relevance as other issues have come up. And just the same, something else will happen soon and the instant replay debate will fade into the background. That doesn't mean people changed their mind.

I'm not saying no one wanted it before this. But I'm saying if you think 2/3 of baseball fans "wanted it" before this past week...you're crazy

Daver
05-28-2008, 09:06 PM
Are you serious, fquaye? Come on. I can prove this wrong with a simple google search. Go google "instant replay" and baseball. You get 324,000 results. The 3rd of those is an article from from 2001 titled "Should Baseball Consider Instant Replay?" And there are many other articles scattered over every year since then.

The instant replay debate has been going on for years. Has it flared up recently because of the large number of bad calls, including one in a game featuring two high-profile teams? Sure, in the same way that the release of the release of the Mitchell report brought the steroids controversy to the forefront. It was talked about endlessly for days. Now? Not so much. It's quieted down. Does that mean people still don't want to see baseball crack down on steroids? No, of course not! It's just lost some of its' relevance as other issues have come up. And just the same, something else will happen soon and the instant replay debate will fade into the background. That doesn't mean people changed their mind.

I guarantee that without sportstalk radio, and 24 hour sportsnews channels, this issue would be a non story. Baseball worked just fine for a hundred years without it, but now that there is someone that is being paid to criticize pro sports it is an issue.

Perception is reality.

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 09:07 PM
I guarantee that without sportstalk radio, and 24 hour sportsnews channels, this issue would be a non story. Baseball worked just fine for a hundred years without it, but now that there is someone that is being paid to criticize pro sports it is an issue.

Perception is reality.

Exactly!

cbotnyse
05-28-2008, 09:11 PM
I guarantee that without sportstalk radio, and 24 hour sportsnews channels, this issue would be a non story. Baseball worked just fine for a hundred years without it, but now that there is someone that is being paid to criticize pro sports it is an issue.

Perception is reality.For a hundred years we also didn't have super high speed cameras capable of slowing down reality to 1000 frames a second.

Daver
05-28-2008, 09:44 PM
For a hundred years we also didn't have super high speed cameras capable of slowing down reality to 1000 frames a second.

Nor did we have twenty four hour sportsnews stations.

What's your point?

fquaye149
05-28-2008, 09:54 PM
For a hundred years we also didn't have super high speed cameras capable of slowing down reality to 1000 frames a second.

And most of the time, they show nothing conclusive.

Especially when taken frame by frame.

soxfanatlanta
05-29-2008, 05:43 AM
I guarantee that without sportstalk radio, and 24 hour sportsnews channels, this issue would be a non story. Baseball worked just fine for a hundred years without it, but now that there is someone that is being paid to criticize pro sports it is an issue.

Perception is reality.

And we were always at war with Eastasia.

Although the onslaught of media coverage is way over the top; the presence of criticism presents opportunities for improvement. I think that replay could help make some calls right.

If Houston won game three back in '05, I bet Jason Lane's HR would still be maligned around here.

cbotnyse
05-29-2008, 06:32 AM
Nor did we have twenty four hour sportsnews stations.

What's your point?my point is, nobody talked about IR because IR wasn't possible. 24 hour sports news stations have nothing to do with anything.

cbotnyse
05-29-2008, 06:54 AM
And most of the time, they show nothing conclusive.

Especially when taken frame by frame.most of the time? on HRs? um, no.

fquaye149
05-29-2008, 09:12 AM
most of the time? on HRs? um, no.

You're of the opinion that IR is a good thing, so of course you're going to be inclined to say they show conclusively that foul balls are HR or vice versa.

I'm not convinced, and I'm not sure umps will be either.

Realize this is not objective

cbotnyse
05-29-2008, 11:32 AM
Realize this is not objectiveno doubt about it, but at least concede its much easier to spot where a baseball lands than say, where a football should be spotted when there are 22 people in the frame.

fquaye149
05-29-2008, 11:41 AM
no doubt about it, but at least concede its much easier to spot where a baseball lands than say, where a football should be spotted when there are 22 people in the frame.

Sure. I just remember, from watching myriad replays of questionable HR calls through the years, that I have a difficult time telling with any degree of certainty whether ball is a foul ball or a HR, even with the announcers trying to break down the replay frame by frame

I suppose if they specifically set up two cameras which had no purpose but to provide a view of whether a ball is fair or foul, that might be helpful, but the current camera angles seem to me to be deficient in this respect