The Challenge Rule, and "Reviews"

[Frobby]

Wow the Yankees with 75% accuracy?! I'm not sure if that's impressive or disheartening.

By the way, it was 82% in 2014. The Yankees, like the O's, don't challenge a lot of calls.

[Chavez Ravine]

You know, my first thought about replay was "good, all that matters is getting the call right". Now I think I would like to live in a world without replay. I can't get excited when a catcher throws out a stealing base runner because I'm not sure he is really out. So I wait 2 minutes, and by then the excitement is over.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and I don't see how you have a world where a million people watching on TV and the press box, and the luxury boxes and the folks waiting to get a hot dog all know the call was wrong 10 seconds after it was made.

For me, a perverse pleasure of baseball was railing against profound injustices inflicted by umpires, or arguing endlessly with someone about a call using fuzzy low-def replay from the center field camera as our evidence.

I understand that times change, but I think the goal for replay should be to get obvious boneheadedly wrong calls fixed, not to achieve perfect truth all the time. Give teams unlimited challenges, but also only give them ten seconds after the call was made to make them. To prevent the John Gibbons's of the world going nuts, impose some penalty after some number of wrong challenges....like three wrong calls: lose the DH.

[Morgan423]

I think we need to be done with challenges in replays altogether, yet keep the replays to catch the calls clearly missed.

Have a fifth umpire at the game in a booth with video access. He controls a red/green light on the field or scoreboard where he indicates play praised for quick review. He takes 15 - 20 seconds and looks at EVERY close play (not just challenged ones) to see if there is clear evidence that a call should be overturned. He can take longer if needed (really, really close play, or a play that is game critical to get absolutely correct) but normally if he doesn't see overturn evidence in 15 or 20 seconds, call stands, and the game moves on.

The current system and its 2 or 3 minute stoppages of play just kill momentum, and we already have these 15 - 30 second pauses on close plays ANYWAY with the managers doing their "wait, let's see if we want to challenge this" thing.

[The Wedge]

I'm pretty sure the challenges have gotten in to the umps heads. They're wrong just enough that when a manager asks them for a second look when they're out of challenges they're of a mind of "well, we just might have gotten that one wrong." I think if the first tweak they made was to say that an umpire review can be asked for by a manager, but only initiated if another umpire with a different view from the initial call-maker also thinks its warranted they'd get a bit more assertive.

[OFFNY]

Unlike football, managers are never really out of challenges in baseball, even if they officially are.

This is because managers are allowed to ask umpires to "review" a questionable call after they have lost their challenge. And in the 1-plus years that I have been watching baseball with challenges under the current system, I have NEVER seen an umpire deny a manager when he requests a "review" of a call ...... although I finally saw it for the first time when we played the Blue Jays, but I'm giving that a mulligan, and I'll tell you why ......

Blue Jays manager John Gibbons was out of challenges, and he asked for a review. He got it. LATER THAT SAME INNING, he came out and asked for another review. The umpires promptly told the Orioles to stay on the field. They were about to give Gibbons a second review IN THE SAME INNING !!! Only when they realized how egregious this was in regard to managers being out of challenges did they finally tell the Orioles that they could leave the field without them reviewing the call.

So ...... technically, did I FINALLY see a manager denied a "review" when he was out of challenges ??? Yes, technically, they I did finally see it ...... but only because it was the manager's 2nd "review" request of the inning, and only after they initially told the opposing team (the Orioles) to stay on the field until they finally thought better of it.

So in my rat's ass of an opinion, managers essentially are never really out of challenges ...... so there really is not much risk of asking for one, even very early in the game, because you can always get another one by asking for a review.

Today's game against the Blue Jays was the quintessential example of this.

For all intents and purposes, managers are never out of challenges in MLB.

[MagicBird]

Today's game against the Blue Jays was the quintessential example of this.

For all intents and purposes, managers are never out of challenges in MLB.

At least Gibbons never seems to be out of them

[crawjo]

I hate this whole system. Hate it. It used to be that the call you saw on the field pretty much always stood. You never had to put an asterisk next to every play to see if it would really count following a review. Now watching baseball is like watching football, and I don't mean that as a compliment. I wish they'd get rid of the whole thing, but that will never happen because most of the world actually seems to favor it.

[FanSince88]

The current system is fine....for the playoffs!

There should be one challenge per game per team in the regular season.

There should be zero challenges initiated by umps in the regular season.

The games need to move faster. Baseball is losing young fans left and right because of exactly these sorts of stall tactics. It's already bad enough every team uses at least 2 or 3 relievers a game.

Please, for the love of the game, end this madness during the regular season. There's 162 games. We don't have time for this crap.

[scottbbfm]

I think we need to be done with challenges in replays altogether, yet keep the replays to catch the calls clearly missed.

Have a fifth umpire at the game in a booth with video access. He controls a red/green light on the field or scoreboard where he indicates play praised for quick review. He takes 15 - 20 seconds and looks at EVERY close play (not just challenged ones) to see if there is clear evidence that a call should be overturned. He can take longer if needed (really, really close play, or a play that is game critical to get absolutely correct) but normally if he doesn't see overturn evidence in 15 or 20 seconds, call stands, and the game moves on.

The current system and its 2 or 3 minute stoppages of play just kill momentum, and we already have these 15 - 30 second pauses on close plays ANYWAY with the managers doing their "wait, let's see if we want to challenge this" thing.

I agree with this. On run of the mill non-scoring plays, if it's not obvious just go with the umps call. Move the game along. I'm willing to give up some level of perfection for speed

[InsideCoroner]

Gibbons made three challenges that went to the tape yesterday (one "unofficial" on Carrera's long foul to start the game) and paused at least once more when considering another challenge. That's fine, apparently, but the pitching coach is on a clock for mound visits? Come on. And they wonder why most people find baseball boring.

I was curious how many fidgety kids were out at the game yesterday asking, "Daddy, why is nothing happening again?"

[bobmc]

Today's game against the Blue Jays was the quintessential example of this.

For all intents and purposes, managers are never out of challenges in MLB.

But Brad Brach did get to warm up during one review and was ready when beckoned after the review was complete - so there is that. I loved that - as if Buck had planned it so perfectly - in your face!

[DrungoHazewood]

I think we need to be done with challenges in replays altogether, yet keep the replays to catch the calls clearly missed.

Have a fifth umpire at the game in a booth with video access. He controls a red/green light on the field or scoreboard where he indicates play praised for quick review. He takes 15 - 20 seconds and looks at EVERY close play (not just challenged ones) to see if there is clear evidence that a call should be overturned. He can take longer if needed (really, really close play, or a play that is game critical to get absolutely correct) but normally if he doesn't see overturn evidence in 15 or 20 seconds, call stands, and the game moves on.

The current system and its 2 or 3 minute stoppages of play just kill momentum, and we already have these 15 - 30 second pauses on close plays ANYWAY with the managers doing their "wait, let's see if we want to challenge this" thing.

I thought that's the way it should have been implemented from the start. They should be continually refining the process to make it better, quicker, less likely to be gamed for advantages. But it's baseball so it'll probably be slow, and methodical and there will be all kinds of reasons why obvious solutions just can't be done.

But the one sure thing is that Pandora's Box is open. We will not go back to the good old days, not when a million people on TV and in the boxes in the stadium and listening on the radio all know a call was wrong 10 seconds after it happened and absolutely nothing is done about it.

[21xxxv]

At least Gibbons never seems to be out of them

The Blue Jays are rapidly taking over as my team to dislike. Starting with Gibbons. The other thugs are easy to dislike. I still think Joey is getting his face fixed not his toe from the beating at the expense of Odor.

[OFFNY]

Unlike football, managers are never really out of challenges in baseball, even if they officially are.

This is because managers are allowed to ask umpires to "review" a questionable call after they have lost their challenge. And in the 1-plus years that I have been watching baseball with challenges under the current system, I have NEVER seen an umpire deny a manager when he requests a "review" of a call ...... although I finally saw it for the first time when we played the Blue Jays, but I'm giving that a mulligan, and I'll tell you why ......

Blue Jays manager John Gibbons was out of challenges, and he asked for a review. He got it. LATER THAT SAME INNING, he came out and asked for another review. The umpires promptly told the Orioles to stay on the field. They were about to give Gibbons a second review IN THE SAME INNING !!! Only when they realized how egregious this was in regard to managers being out of challenges did they finally tell the Orioles that they could leave the field without them reviewing the call.

So ...... technically, did I FINALLY see a manager denied a "review" when he was out of challenges ??? Yes, technically, they I did finally see it ...... but only because it was the manager's 2nd "review" request of the inning, and only after they initially told the opposing team (the Orioles) to stay on the field until they finally thought better of it.

So in my rat's ass of an opinion, managers essentially are never really out of challenges ...... so there really is not much risk of asking for one, even very early in the game, because you can always get another one by asking for a review.

Today's game against the Blue Jays was the quintessential example of this.

For all intents and purposes, managers are never out of challenges in MLB.

And it happened yet again.

Mariners manager Scott Servais was out of challenges ...... but he asked the umpires nicely enough for them to "review" a play. They did, and the original call was overturned.

It costs the Orioles a run.

As I asserted, managers are never really out of challenges, so it really is pointless to make any time of claim that they are. If MLB is going to continue conducting and officiating games this way, they should just say that all managers have unlimited challenges, because they essentially do.

[O's84]

This what I said in the game thread:

Completely idiotic. I'd love to have a public argument with the people who came up with the rule because I would humiliate them and rightly so.