Does Anyone Else Not Like the Replay Addition?

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Well, as I already stated, I do agree that what we are seeing (in some respects) is a shot at an overturn of some borderline calls and some inconsistencies in those calls. Some of that, quite frankly is more a league rules/interpretation issue though (i.e. the continuation play and when the catch is a catch etc.). That's just something they are going to have to clarify and are aware of.

I disagree that the manager coming on to the field to argue/discuss calls was a rare occurrence though and the new rules limit that type of thing pretty severely outside of the replay challenge opportunities. I still say the current system is likely more time efficient in addition to being more accurate.

[Roll Tide]

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.

They are not necessarily going out to argue a call...They didnt argue every call! They are going out to buy time.

[CA-ORIOLE]

They are not necessarily going out to argue a call...They didnt argue every call! They are going out to buy time.

Come on Johnny. You really don't think I understand that from reading my posts. I'm saying the overall time is the same or less and that the new system is likely more time efficient overall.

[Roll Tide]

Come on Johnny. You really don't think I understand that from reading my posts. I'm saying the overall time is the same or less and that the new system is likely more time efficient overall.

I can't see how! How many times did a manager league manager come out of the dug out to argue a call pre instant replay? I bet the number on average isn't equivalent to 1visit in half the games (82 tines).

That said the Orioles have been in games with manager that have came out of the dugout 3-4 tines. It happened in the Toronto series twice I believe ...in the one game the manager came out and challenged a call on like the third try. So he wasted 2-3 minutes each visit deciding whether to challenge....then add the time to actually review the call.

In the other game he challenged Nicks double and lost. He then argued a second call and even talked the umpires into reviewing a call when his challenge was already burned.

[crawjo]

I hate instant replay. The most important thing is NOT to get the call right. The most important thing is to maintain the flow of the game. In a 162-game season, keeping things moving is paramount. I hate that MLB is now copying the NFL. I hate that I have to watch the umpires standing around with headsets waiting for a ruling. Baseball really was quite fine for the 140 years or so where there wasn't any instant replay.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I can't see how! How many times did a manager league manager come out of the dug out to argue a call pre instant replay? I bet the number on average isn't equivalent to 1visit in half the games (82 tines).

That said the Orioles have been in games with manager that have came out of the dugout 3-4 tines. It happened in the Toronto series twice I believe ...in the one game the manager came out and challenged a call on like the third try. So he wasted 2-3 minutes each visit deciding whether to challenge....then add the time to actually review the call.

In the other game he challenged Nicks double and lost. He then argued a second call and even talked the umpires into reviewing a call when his challenge was already burned.

Old system:

If it was a close call, the manager usually comes out and argues the play under the old system. These often result in pretty lengthy discussions between the manager and sometimes multiple umpires. These can occasionally occur more than once per game.

New System

Now the manager may challenge and/or come out and give his analyst some time to review the play and then make the challenge call. I don't really think it takes anywhere near 2-3 minutes (on average) to get the signal from the in-house analyst to make a challenge. Most go a lot quicker. If he loses the challenge he cannot make another challenge. He also cannot argue another call. Doing so results in immediate ejection. After the 7th inning the manager may ASK the ump to review a play.

Now if you want to say that you think the old system is more time efficient than the new one, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I doubt there is much difference at all and if there is any, the new system would probably be more efficient (even with its issues).

[The Wedge]

If there's one thing you can count on some baseball fans to do, it's to kick and scream about any sort of innovation.

The system needs to get a lot of kinks worked out. But I sure as hell wish it'd existed in 96.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I hate instant replay. The most important thing is NOT to get the call right. The most important thing is to maintain the flow of the game. In a 162-game season, keeping things moving is paramount. I hate that MLB is now copying the NFL. I hate that I have to watch the umpires standing around with headsets waiting for a ruling. Baseball really was quite fine for the 140 years or so where there wasn't any instant replay.

So managers arguing with umpires is part of the flow of the game? I'm perfectly fine with that if you think it is. I miss it.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I will say that growing up watching guys like Earl Weaver, Leo Durocher and Billy Martin talking to the umpire about their wife and kids while waiting for the instant replay review (instead of calling them names while kicking dirt on their shoes) likely would have made a totally different, and perhaps long lasting impression on my childhood baseball experience and baseball fandom.

I might be a soccer fan.

[El Gordo]

Just timed todays instant replay reversal. It took Buck less than 30 seconds from the moment the play ended to make the challenge, and one minute for the umps to get the ruling from NY. 90 seconds total.

[Il BuonO]

If there's one thing you can count on some baseball fans to do, it's to kick and scream about any sort of innovation.

The system needs to get a lot of kinks worked out. But I sure as hell wish it'd existed in 96.

:agree: This is one that's is long overdue.

[Rene88]

Love it, just needs some fine tuning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[russ snyder]

While I can live with MLB expanding replay, I'm not a fan of using the "command center". I think MLB would be better served to have a fifth umpire assigned to all the crews who could review the plays in the venue's press box. I think that the replays would be reviewed more quickly and the reveiws would be reviewed by a MLB umpire. I do like the approach of getting the call right, I'm just not a fan of the mechanics of the system as they are set up right now.

[nevadaO]

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.

Yes, thank you! That's what I'm trying to say here. Either way it's beating a dead horse at this point. Everyone has explained their viewpoint and no one is going to change anyone's mind.

[nevadaO]

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.

I didn't say you were being rude I said your tone was condescending, which it was and there is a distinct difference. I think I've made my point quite clear but you just seem to want to argue.

I've said it already that the manager who has failed his challenge earlier in the game shouldn't be able to REQUEST a replay review. We are debating different things here. You are talking the speed of the game while I am talking about how fair it is to let a manager who has already failed once at a challenge the ability to go REQUEST a replay review. If he hasn't used his challenge yet, fine. If he has used his challenge and won, fine. But if you already lost you should be one and done, not able to challenge again (which is the rule for the first six innings) or even ask the umpires to review it. How is this not clear? Either way it's a moot point, this entire thread is a stalemate so I'm done with it.