PDA

View Full Version : should baseball use "instant replay"


Fenway
10-30-2005, 01:57 PM
some arguments pro and con

CHRIS SNOW
Yes. Why? Check the Aug. 10 Red Sox-Rangers box score. Locate ''doubles," and you'll see Gabe Kapler's name. Kapler hit a ball that cleared the red ''home run" line but kicked off the Green Monster's shelf back into play. Double, according to umpire Derryl Cousins. Realize two things: Cousins is good enough that he worked the plate for the deciding game of the World Series, and he did the right thing, convening his crew. Still, they ruled double. The solution: Replay. But only for safe/out calls; whether a ball was caught/trapped; an ambiguous home run scenario; whether a player was hit by a pitch. And it's the crew chief's call to go upstairs.

NICK CAFARDO
Because there is a 162-game regular season, I feel costly and inaccurate calls against teams balance out. That's not the case in a five-game Division Series or a seven-game League Championship Series or World Series. Therefore, my proposal is to adopt a replay system for the postseason. Balls and strikes (including checked swings) cannot be reviewed, but everything else is fair game. You'd have to limit the number of reviews per game to, say, one or two per team for time's sake. The manager would call time out and ask the crew chief to review the play. A review umpire would be in the press box to observe the TV feed. Might as well get it right at a time when the games really matter.

BOB RYAN
However limited the application, the existing technology must be implemented. Balls and strikes? No. Safe or out? No. But fair or foul? Home run or not? Yes and yes. And didn't we see all we needed to know in the Jermaine Dye did-the-ball-hit-the-bat-or-didn't-it incident? Suppose that took place with the score tied, two outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning of a World Series Game 7? If allowed to stand, the game and Series would have been over. Unjustly. And we could have corrected it. How can anyone object to replay in that context? We don't have to get it right the first time out. We'll have to experiment a while. But we must get started.

DAN SHAUGHNESSY
No. No. A thousand times no. Baseball doesn't need beanbag delays or the sight of Walt Coleman staring into a camera, then changing the course of sports history. It would be nice if the umpires could get together a little more often and help one of their own reverse an obvious incorrect call. This happened with the Red Sox twice in the ALCS last year and that's the best way baseball can handle it.

GORDON EDES
I like the idea floated by White Sox general manager Kenny Williams to give managers one or two challenges, a la the NFL, which would require umpires to review TV replays. I think replay makes sense on only certain types of plays, like whether a home run ball is fair or foul, or hit above or below a line on an outfield wall designating a home run, or a call at first base like the one that ended the World Series, when the first base umpire correctly determined that Orlando Palmeiro was out. But ball/strike calls or judgment calls would be exempt.


Now I have seen replay backfire in hockey. Back in 1999 the Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup but had the NHL applied the same rules they had all season, the cup winning goal would not have counted. Ask any Sabres fan

Chips
10-30-2005, 02:07 PM
No, it would slow down the game too much. And how would it work, if a ball is hit down the line and the ump calls it foul, would the batter and baserunners keep running because it might be close? Every play would have to be played out to see what would happen if the ump blew the call. It would make a long game even longer. No way.

Chips
10-30-2005, 02:09 PM
Now I have seen replay backfire in hockey. Back in 1999 the Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup but had the NHL applied the same rules they had all season, the cup winning goal would not have counted. Ask any Sabres fan

And Brett Hull still would have found a way to win to his first Stanley Cup.

Paulwny
10-30-2005, 02:22 PM
Now I have seen replay backfire in hockey. Back in 1999 the Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup but had the NHL applied the same rules they had all season, the cup winning goal would not have counted. Ask any Sabres fan


" No Goal!!!"--- Cries and bumper stickers in WNY :angry: .

LongLiveFisk
10-30-2005, 02:23 PM
I voted yes, but only in the playoffs when it matters most. I can't see using it throughout a 162-game season. That would be insanity.

Whitesox029
10-30-2005, 02:24 PM
No, No, No. Purity of the game. Was this an option in 1917? If it wasn't, then it shouldn't be now.

Fenway
10-30-2005, 02:30 PM
" No Goal!!!"--- Cries and bumper stickers in WNY :angry: .

Former NHL Ref Bill Friday was the video official that morning in Buffalo and I remember reading that he was heartsick when he saw the replay but was afraid he would have been fired if he called it downstairs after Dallas was out there with the caps on and everything.

buehrle4cy05
10-30-2005, 02:31 PM
Good teams can overcome bad calls. Don't use instant replay.

Paulwny
10-30-2005, 02:35 PM
Former NHL Ref Bill Friday was the video official that morning in Buffalo and I remember reading that he was heartsick when he saw the replay but was afraid he would have been fired if he called it downstairs after Dallas was out there with the caps on and everything.

We here also heard this, the NHL is to blame for allowing the party to start too soon.

Professor
10-30-2005, 02:42 PM
Those in favor of instant replay are the product of a shift in epistemology, one that is contrary to the spirit of baseball (and a humanistic democracy). Baseball is an exercise in human-based democracy. That is, there is a social contract everyone (players, fans, owners, etc.) agrees to in order to play/enjoy/profit (from) the game. It involves putting faith in human judgment, the umpires. Just like we put our trust in judges (who exercise the human faculty of reason) in a democratic legal system, we place our trust in umpires. And just like we frequently second-guess and question judgments made in our judicial system, we do so often during a baseball game (whether it be during the season or postseason). Baseball is a metaphor for democratic society. If you don't like it, don't play/watch/profit from the game. The American philosopher John Dewey noted the quest for certainty is antithetical to humanity as such; we are fallible. We take part in philosophy, governance, and, yes, even sport in order to exercise what is best in humanity. That is what democracy has granted us the freedom to do, and baseball's long tradition which has produced such testaments to human greatness (like our 2005 World Series Championship ballclub!) is based in the same spirit as democracy. That is why baseball is an American sport per se.


My apologies for such an academic response. However, the talk about instant replay in baseball makes my stomach queasy as I imagine what that discloses about where we stand in relation to the democratic mindset.

OEO Magglio
10-30-2005, 03:16 PM
NO

bigfoot
10-30-2005, 03:48 PM
Perhaps a compromise solution to the problems, HR areas/fair/foul disputes, would be to alter the surrounding areas in question(soft/permeable=HR/out of play vs hard surface=in-play). The reaction of the ball hitting two distinct surfaces could aid the umpires in making those distant/instant decisions. Replay would become another source of controversy, leading to ball/strike arguements and further delays and commercial ad breaks......oops, it sure to be adopted now!

JUribe1989
10-30-2005, 03:53 PM
It would be ridiculously overused.

NO

doublem23
10-30-2005, 05:53 PM
Only for fair or foul on a home run. On just about every other call, there's at least one ump with a decent view, but when you're trying to tell if a ball is fair or foul from 300 feet away, that's just ludicrous and a lot of those times those calls are just guesses anyway. Ball or strike? No. Safe or out? No.

eastchicagosoxfan
10-30-2005, 06:59 PM
No. I don't know if this will make much sense, but here goes: Journalist and reporters aren't suppossed to impact the outcome of a contest. In my opinion, the cameras, and directors, and instant replay editors, are similar to the typewriter the reporter had. Their job is to report on the action on the field, and leave it at that.

Professor
10-30-2005, 10:42 PM
No. I don't know if this will make much sense, but here goes: Journalist and reporters aren't suppossed to impact the outcome of a contest. In my opinion, the cameras, and directors, and instant replay editors, are similar to the typewriter the reporter had. Their job is to report on the action on the field, and leave it at that.

Well said! Thanks for sharing this insight.

Fenway
11-04-2005, 08:13 AM
A good article that points out the problems with replay in baseball.

SPORTVIEW: Baseball replay worth reviewing? (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2005/11/04/baseball_replay_worth_reviewing)
(By Bill Griffith, Globe Staff) Last Sunday, The Globe asked five staff reporters: ''Should baseball use instant replay?" There were four yes votes, in various limited scenarios, from Nick Cafardo, Gordon Edes, Bob Ryan, and Chris Snow; there was one no vote, from baseball traditionalist Dan Shaughnessy.Those responses begged another question: Could the replay system, which has worked well in the National Football League, be as successful in baseball?
Television people say it could be done on a limited basis but neither they nor former Red Sox executive Mike Port, Major League Baseball's new vice president for umpiring, is in any hurry to implement a system. One major difference between the sports was immediately pointed out by Fox senior producer Bill Brown. ''The NFL has 254 regular-season games, all on a rectangular field. At minimum, there are eight cameras at every game. Baseball has almost 10 times as many games -- 2,400-plus -- and they're played in ballparks with all sorts of idiosyncrasies. In addition, the amount of TV equipment available at any game varies.''Then you have the other big question. What would be reviewable? Just safe/out calls and fair/foul? Or everything?"

Knoxville Sox
11-04-2005, 09:07 AM
No. Next thing you know we'll have a 25 second pitch clock.

I'm tired of gimmicks and graphics on the broadcasts. I'd hate to see the same things seep into the game itself.

I appreciate the consistency of the game. The rules are largely the same as they were when your Great-Grandfather was a child. Letting something like instant replay in will open a pandora's box of gimmicks and rule-changes that would debase the sport.

Part of the problem I have with the NFL, for example, is the fact that they always change the rules in some misguided effort to protect offensive skill position players. It really is too bad that the NFL doesn't have true enforcers in the defensive backfield like a Night Train Lane or a Jack Tatum. That was a vital part of the game when I was a kid. Now, you can't really touch a wide receiver without that clown Gene Washington fining you $100,000.

In baseball, you can compare a Ted Lyons to a Phil Niekro and know that you can judge their relative abilities based on the fact that they played the game under largely the same rules. With football, you can't compare a Ray Lewis to a Dick Butkus or a Chuck Bednarik because they played under a completely different set of rules.

skobabe8
11-04-2005, 10:08 AM
No....the umps do a great job. I'll admit that and I bitch and moan about them as much as anybody during the year. Leave the game alone.

Gosox1917
11-04-2005, 11:45 AM
Only for fair or foul on a home run. On just about every other call, there's at least one ump with a decent view, but when you're trying to tell if a ball is fair or foul from 300 feet away, that's just ludicrous and a lot of those times those calls are just guesses anyway. Ball or strike? No. Safe or out? No.

Agree 99%. Only addition is I would also use it on balls that clear the outfield fence but are questionable. One example is the left field wall at Jacobs Field where there is a railing basically right along the top of the fence and just beyond it. I've seen balls hit that railing, bounce back in to play, and not called a homer like it should have been. Replay would have gotten the call right. I think this happened to Magglio a few years back, IIRC.

mccoydp
11-04-2005, 12:52 PM
Big, Fat, NO!

Fenway
11-04-2005, 12:54 PM
just curious

How would you feel if all the calls went AGAINST the Sox?

Deuce
11-04-2005, 02:04 PM
No. It's not necessary and would only slow down an already slow game. Umpire mistakes are a part of the game, plain and simple. It sucks when they go against us, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.

Deuce

Deuce
11-04-2005, 02:06 PM
just curious

How would you feel if all the calls went AGAINST the Sox?
They usually do. It doesn't change my opinion though.

Deuce