Does Anyone Else Not Like the Replay Addition?

[El Gordo]

Before replay the manager could always ask the umpires to get help and at their discretion they could get together and discuss it. Requesting a replay is no different IMO. The only way to go back to the "good old days" would be to out law replays on the telecasts, which would never happen.

[jabba72]

For the life of me I can't see how taking 2 or 3 minutes to get a call correct takes away or alters the game of baseball in a negative way. The game should be decided by the players on the field, not by some poor call.

I agree that if done in a timely manner, its a great tool. But 2-3 minutes seems a little long for me.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Before replay the manager could always ask the umpires to get help and at their discretion they could get together and discuss it. Requesting a replay is no different IMO. The only way to go back to the "good old days" would be to out law replays on the telecasts, which would never happen.

Exactly. I get people who miss the arguments and personal interactions with the umpire and manager (I do too), but overall I think the current system (even with its problems) is likely speeding up the game AND getting more calls right.

[Chavez Ravine]

Exactly. I get people who miss the arguments and personal interactions with the umpire and manager (I do too), but overall I think the current system (even with its problems) is likely speeding up the game AND getting more calls right.

I have actually been surprised by the relatively low overturn rate. According to these data:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10797336/in-defense-mlb-new-replay-system

36% of challenged calls have be overturned. Assuming all those reversals are correct, that seems a relatively low return rate considering all those challenges are coming from managers moseying their way out to the ump while their replay intern reviews things. I honestly thought umps were worse than that!

I just want replay for when it really matters and when the ump obviously screwed up. I don't think they have found that sweet spot yet.

[Tryptamine]

I agree that if done in a timely manner, its a great tool. But 2-3 minutes seems a little long for me.

You are clearly a busier person than I am. If I'm going to spend 180 minutes watching a baseball game adding 3 minutes to that doesn't affect my enjoyment in the least.

[Roll Tide]

I dont like the process at all ....My reason is the wasted time when the manager runs out to stall why his guy in the box reviews the play. This lost time needs to be added to the time wasted on challenges. And is much bigger than the 1-2 minutes spent on the phone. Basically every close play results in a stoppage of the game.

[Roll Tide]

You are clearly a busier person than I am. If I'm going to spend 180 minutes watching a baseball game adding 3 minutes to that doesn't affect my enjoyment in the least.

Its not 3 minutes ...Its 3 minutes plus the additional couple minutes on each close play that the managers runs out to argue...When in reality he's just trying to stall.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I have actually been surprised by the relatively low overturn rate. According to these data:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10797336/in-defense-mlb-new-replay-system

36% of challenged calls have be overturned. Assuming all those reversals are correct, that seems a relatively low return rate considering all those challenges are coming from managers moseying their way out to the ump while their replay intern reviews things. I honestly thought umps were worse than that!

I just want replay for when it really matters and when the ump obviously screwed up. I don't think they have found that sweet spot yet.

Yeah, I think some of these are the bang-bang plays at first base and the continuation plays where the manager is thinking this may be worth a shot. Some of those seem to be pretty debatable and inconsistent. Some of that is the issue with the interpretation of the rules and not the replay itself. I'm surprised there hasn't been more catcher blocking the plate calls/challenges.

Quite frankly a lot of games just don't have reviewable plays so the manager/team is thinking that this may be a fair risk to challenge. Heck, I think Buck has only challenged one play so far this year.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I dont like the process at all ....My reason is the wasted time when the manager runs out to stall why his guy in the box reviews the play. This lost time needs to be added to the time wasted on challenges. And is much bigger than the 1-2 minutes spent on the phone. Basically every close play results in a stoppage of the game.

So under the old rules where the manager could go out and argue as many calls as he wanted do you think the time would be quicker than it is now? I don't.

[Old#5fan]

So under the old rules where the manager could go out and argue as many calls as he wanted do you think the time would be quicker than it is now? I don't.

I don't think that happened all that much in the "old" days unless it was a very badly missed call. Now they are doing a replay on borderline calls that are not being overturned anyway. I think it is absurd to waste time to overturn nothing that needed to be reviewed in the first place. Especially in the first inning whether a guy is out at first base on a bang/bang play. It annoys the bejesus out of me..

Also, some managers rarely ran on the field to argue calls. Sam Perlozo comes to mind, he used to catch grief for never complaining about anything, but then again, when he did it bore some weight. Buck doesn't complain often either by going on the field as evidence by his few challenges. I just think this should be only used in playoff games or WS and in regular games only on HR (fair or foul or fan interference) and on plays at the plate or when a fan interferes with a player making a catch, or a trap of a fly ball. Otherwise, forget it.

[ledzepp8]

Yeah, i guess I don't see how getting calls right is dumb. I get that there are some issues but they seem pretty minor to me.

Yeah but that's the point...just don't have challenges then. If a manager thinks an ump got the call wrong, then just review it. But if there's going to be a challenge system then leave it to that, not an umpire discretion situation.

[ledzepp8]

How is it condescending? I don't see how it is "dumb". Dumb was your word. You didn't provide any nuance to it. Yes, limited challenges are in place to speed up the game, but in the late innings the game may be close and one crucial play has a very high probability of influencing the outcome of a close game. There is an option (i.e. rule) that the manager can REQUEST a replay review. Requests for a replay have a very limited window and that request is totally at the umpires discretion. Speeding up the game and getting calls right have a balance and I'm not seeing any real issues with it.

Similar late game replay rules are in effect for both Basketball and Football.

Unless it's completely frivolous, do you see an instance where a managers request will be denied? I doubt it.

[blid]

I love the idea of getting the call right, but I hate the way that managers mosey on out to the umpire to waste time until someone can watch the replay.

Yeah, I agree with this. I will say that Buck frequently came out the last few seasons for a quick word, and then ran back in to the dugout, so maybe it's not as bad as it seems and these managers would be trotting out there anyway, but it's always pretty apparent how they come out there first, and then buy some time, and then issue the challenge.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yeah but that's the point...just don't have challenges then. If a manager thinks an ump got the call wrong, then just review it. But if there's going to be a challenge system then leave it to that, not an umpire discretion situation.

Other than you don't like it, what is the point then? You guys seem to be saying the rule/system is something that it's not:

There are 2 stages to the new system:

1. One challenge and another one if you got the first call right.

2. A manager may request an umpire to review call after the 7th inning if his challenges(s) have been expended. Technically, the manager doesn't need the manager to ask. They could just do it if there was some doubt. The request is a formality that for all practical purposes replaces a longer drawn out argument and/or discussion anyways.

I really don't see any issue with it. Would a manager come out and debate a frivolous call if there was no replay system, probably not. If it's requested it's probably for a good reason (especially considering each team has it's own analysts in place).

The new system is more accurate and probably less time consuming imo.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yeah, I agree with this. I will say that Buck frequently came out the last few seasons for a quick word, and then ran back in to the dugout, so maybe it's not as bad as it seems and these managers would be trotting out there anyway, .

Exactly.

but it's always pretty apparent how they come out there first, and then buy some time, and then issue the challenge

Yeah, and that is how it's different, but probably not anymore time consuming imo.

Also, other than the 1 (maybe 2 challenges) and the the late game challenge/request there are also no other on field arguments/discussions allowed. I don't have the data, but I'm guessing challenges are averaging less than one per game.