Time for umps to be replaced.

[Three Run Homer]

The human element is what makes the pitcher hitter dynamic the best thing in sports. Lets not bring robots into this. All this will do is make things way easier for hitters and run scoring will skyrocket

I think this is 180 degrees wrong. If the strike zone were enforced to rule by an impersonal technology, scoring would plummet. How many pitches at the letters are ever called strikes? How many curve balls that catch a bit of the zone and then dart out of it are ever called strikes?

[Three Run Homer]

I don't mind the fact that umpires make random mistakes. Sometimes they go our way, sometimes they don't.

What I dislike about the current system is the systematic advantage enjoyed by teams whose catchers are better at "framing pitches". A strike should be a strike should be a strike. O's pitchers get screwed systematically because Matt Wieters is tall and therefore isn't able to sell pitches as well as a shorter catcher.

[El Gordo]

Right now we have an ever shifting strike zone, from game to game, sometimes from inning to inning, and sometimes even within the inning. So what is supposed to be a contest between pitcher and batter, is now a contest between pitcher, batter, and umpire. Using technology to set a constant strike zone only focuses the contest between the two people the game meant it to be. Umpires wouldn't be replaced, they would continue to make the calls augmented by replay. and the home plate umpire would perform all his normal duties except for calling pitches. He would instead relay the calls made by Robo Ump. He could do so as colorfully as he wants if people find that sort of thing entertaining. I have to confess I don't go to game to watch the umpires or see them argue with managers, I like to watch the players play, but I guess that's just me.

[The Wedge]

You know where the first incarnation of on field officials for baseball used to be? There was only one of 'em, and they'd hang around off to the side, sometimes in a chair. They'd make a call if there was a dispute at a bag from the great vantage point of said chair off to the side of home plate, and eventually, they started calling pitches from the side view as basically a deterrent against either side delaying the game, and wouldn't even start sometimes until several pitches had come across the plate. The ever shifting strike zone has always been a part of the game. The more you over think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

[russ snyder]

Wow. I'm not saying they should be allowed to argue. I say it's not fair when the player is 100% right, gets ejected. The player misses x amount.of innings when he shouldnt have and the ump gets nothing wether.he was right or wrong.

I think ppl give umps a pass.more than they should.

Its.hard to see/call xertain fouls in bball...shouldnt be hard to see if a ball is a strike or ball.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. The only time I think it's wrong for a player to be ejected is if the umpire either baits him or engages the player when the player is walking back to the dugout after an exchange. Otherwise, a player is opening himself up for a possible ejection even if he thinks he's 100 per cent right. He can take some solace in being 100 percent right while he's having a sandwich with the clubhouse guy in the sixth inning of a tight game.

For the record, I think some major league umpires are arrogant, unapproachable, and think that they are bigger than the game. These guys need to be weeded out, not replaced by computers.

I think some people like to whine about officiating because it's easy to blame the officiating for their or their team's shortcomings in a game.

Try making calls on several hundred major league pitches in a game and get back to me.

Like I said before, it's tougher than you think. I've never umpired, but I caught in college and umpiring behind the plate is no picnic.

[russ snyder]

Some of these umps been doing this for years. And they still have trouble figuring out wether a pitch was in "their personal" strike zone or not? Give me a break.

You know why that is? Because there isnt a league wide understanding of what an actual strike is.because they get to make their own.

And everyone always brings up the timing of the game "if they were allowed to argue at nauseam, it would add 6 hours to the game" yada yada yada...

If they replaced umps with computers and it was accurate there would be NO arguing to be done. And there would be NO unnecessary ejections. And the game would run SMOOTHER and FASTER.

I mean how can a player argue with a computer?

After reading your posts, you for one would probably question whether or not something was wrong with the computer's software or operating system if a call went against your team.

[PA724_Oriole]

After reading your posts, you for one would probably question whether or not something was wrong with the computer's software or operating system if a call went against your team.

I'm not biased at all if that's what you mean. I haven't barked about any calls this year until the game that this thread was originated from.

I also dislike the fact that Gardner wanet called out against the Sox when he lifted his foot off second after stealing it safely. Not that that had anything to do with strike calls.

I would like to see a trial and error strategy come next spring that has to do with determining balls and strikes electronically.

Would that be so bad?

And once again I will reiterate, I'm not trying to force the umps out of the game. If they all had to go by the same dimensions when calling pitches and they stayed consistent, that would be the BCS, to me.

[PA724_Oriole]

SMOOTHER and FASTER doesn't get me to the ballpark. Richer and more entertaining does. Human umpires are part of that richness. So is the arguing. So is the bile that comes up every time Jeter give the umpire "that look" when he's called out on a third strike right down the heart of the plate. Human judgement and the potential to be wrong is part of the fabric of the game.

Just so it doesn't get out of hand.

Most people would agree that strike zone consistency from umpire to umpire could be improved. So do I. I don't know too many people other than yourself and a few others here who maintain that the umpiring system is inherently so broken that it's beyond repair. The umpires are in a difficult place because technology poses a real threat to at least part of what they do. They're also perceived by many including myself to be too arrogant for their own good. IMO neither of those things, individually or taken together, is a sufficient basis for eliminating such a fundamental part of the game experience. Far worse would be to turn plate umpires into mere figureheads. That would be insulting and a disservice to a group of highly skilled professionals. Worse it would be an insult to the fan's intelligence.

If the umps don't get ahead of this and start using technology to improve and maintain their traditional skills, then people with views such as your own will ultimately win out. That would be a shame.

You're the first person that I ever heard from that goes to the game to be entertained by umps.

If you can actually go ti the game, you go to enjoy the atmosphere and the ability ti see your favorite players up close and personal. Not ti see aump make his strikeout dance.

But the MLB wants money and they feel their tv ratings should be higher. Smoother and faster helps tv ratings. Ppl are always going to go to games whether a ump makes bad calls or not and wether there are arguments/ejections or not.

[russ snyder]

I'm not biased at all if that's what you mean. I haven't barked about any calls this year until the game that this thread was originated from.

I also dislike the fact that Gardner wanet called out against the Sox when he lifted his foot off second after stealing it safely. Not that that had anything to do with strike calls.

I would like to see a trial and error strategy come next spring that has to do with determining balls and strikes electronically.

Would that be so bad?

And once again I will reiterate, I'm not trying to force the umps out of the game. If they all had to go by the same dimensions when calling pitches and they stayed consistent, that would be the BCS, to me.

I'm not saying that you are biased, I believe that you would find fault with any system that was less than perfect.

I agree with one of the earlier posters that taking an umpire out of the confrontational dynamic that exists between the pitcher and hitter would take something away from what i think is a beautiful game. It's not perfect, but to me that's part of the beauty.

Once again, I have no problem with using computers to grade and to perhaps tweak an umpires' strike zone. However, I do not want to see electronics playing a part in calling balls and strikes because of the reasons that i listed above.

[PA724_Oriole]

Like I said before, it's tougher than you think. I've never umpired, but I caught in college and umpiring behind the plate is no picnic.

I used to catch in my youth days as well. The only time I'd give an ump the benefit of the doubt are on low pitches. Around the knees/shins area because it could be hard to see over the catcher. Otherwise, it shouldn't be that hard to tell what's a strike.

Refs/umps Is the only profession I know where you get paid 6 figures to be consistently inconsistent.

[PA724_Oriole]

More than anything I want the umps to be held liable for making bad, game altering calls. And they aren't.

[PA724_Oriole]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/crew-chief-suspension-appropriately-ends-bad-couple-days-for-mlb-umpires-232120200.html

So umps get paid how much again? And stuff like this happens far too much. They don't even know the rule book, can't make consistent calls, yet we keep making excuses for then about how hard their job is.

[The Wedge]

Refs/umps Is the only profession I know where you get paid 6 figures to be consistently inconsistent.

You're not looking hard enough.

[24fps]

You're the first person that I ever heard from that goes to the game to be entertained by umps.

If you can actually go ti the game, you go to enjoy the atmosphere and the ability ti see your favorite players up close and personal. Not ti see aump make his strikeout dance.

But the MLB wants money and they feel their tv ratings should be higher. Smoother and faster helps tv ratings. Ppl are always going to go to games whether a ump makes bad calls or not and wether there are arguments/ejections or not.

Sadly you're not the only person I've ever encountered who finds it convenient to willfully misunderstand plain English in order to pursue an agenda. The issue of technology's potential impact on baseball is very timely right now. Your apparent inability to recognize that there might be unintended consequences makes you a poor advocate for what could be a reasonable point of view.

IMO of course.

On the subject of opinion, I'm of the opinion that smoother and faster has had some success in the realm of promotion and advertising but was already becoming stale when I began in the television business almost 40 years ago. That it still dominates creative choice is a testament to both the overwhelming amount of media that needs to be generated and the extraordinary technological advances in the last 15 years - especially in post production. Oh, and all too often a lack of imagination as well. Technology has changed the language of storytelling and has altered our brains and I've had a front row seat while it's taken place. Forgive me if I'm not as confident as you about what drives TV ratings in such a fast moving environment. The notion that people will always remain loyal to a product regardless of its quality would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

What seems to be evergreen in programming is genuine human drama, but it better be organic. If you want to introduce a machine as main character then it better lose in the end. Do you want to know what people will always do? They will always become frustrated when authority can't be reasoned with and nothing embodies implacable authority better than a machine.

Be careful what you wish for.

[tntoriole]

I used to catch in my youth days as well. The only time I'd give an ump the benefit of the doubt are on low pitches. Around the knees/shins area because it could be hard to see over the catcher. Otherwise, it shouldn't be that hard to tell what's a strike.

Refs/umps Is the only profession I know where you get paid 6 figures to be consistently inconsistent.

Know any stock brokers? lol.