The Challenge Rule, and "Reviews"

[OFFNY]

o

Still on the subject of challenges and reviews:

(Orioles vs. White Sox, 8/06)

On the play that was reviewed and overturned in the bottom of the 7th inning, I think that it is possible that the ball was barely fair, but there WAS NOT irrefutable evidence to overturn it.

According to the rules, you have to be absolutely sure if you overturn a call, and there is no way that you could tell from any of those replays whether or not the thumb of Machado's glove was in fair or foul territory when the ball touched it.

And as far as I'm concerned, they ARE NOT going to review what their standards are (and whether or not they are being properly met) any time soon.

I've seen the same type of abuse of the rules (and yes, in a sporting sense I consider it to be abuse) in football. In football, they overturn calls when they don't have irrefutable evidence, and they let calls stand when it is clear that it ought to be overturned.

I see the same pattern in baseball, and I see no reason why they would considering changing the status quo after doing it the way that they have been doing it for the last several years.

[Frobby]

I'm OK with the call. It hit the back side of Manny's glove and still hit chalk. And one of Manny's feet was in fair territory when he touched it.

[BradyBunch]

o

Still on the subject of challenges and reviews:

(Orioles vs. White Sox, 8/06)

On the play that was reviewed and overturned in the bottom of the 7th inning, I think that it is possible that the ball was barely fair, but there WAS NOT irrefutable evidence to overturn it.

According to the rules, you have to be absolutely sure if you overturn a call, and there is no way that you could tell from any of those replays whether or not the thumb of Machado's glove was in fair or foul territory when the ball touched it.

And as far as I'm concerned, they ARE NOT going to review what their standards are (and whether or not they are being properly met) any time soon.

I've seen the same type of abuse of the rules (and yes, in a sporting sense I consider it to be abuse) in football. In football, they overturn calls when they don't have irrefutable evidence, and they let calls stand when it is clear that it ought to be overturned.

I see the same pattern in baseball, and I see no reason why they would considering changing the status quo after doing it the way that they have been doing it for the last several years.

I traveled to Chicago this weekend to watch the series. Got tickets on 3rd base side.. it was fair ball, barely. But what I have problem with on this is..by over turning it, the assumption that the runner on 3rd would have been safe as the ball fell and was picked up quickly. Umps can't say if a guy waiting tagging up would have scored on a drop ball that was picked up quickly and a short throw for an OFer..

[BradyBunch]

I should add.. that other runner going to 2nd wouldn't be thrown out.

[OFFNY]

That play didn't cost the Orioles the game. The putrid inability to score when there are no outs and runners in scoring position is killing this team.

I agree completely.

The Orioles failed to capitalize on several opportunities on offense, and subsequently scored only 2 runs in 9 innings.

Also, even if the ball had been ruled to be foul, there is no guarantee that the White Sox wouldn't have scored AT LEAST 1 run after that, anyway. Remember, the bases were loaded with nobody out, and the count was 3-2 on the batter ...... leaving Givens completely backed up against the wall, with not an iota of margin for error. Givens might have walked the batter on the very next pitch, or the batter may have hit a long fly ball for a sacrifice fly to score a run, anyway.

My post was not to insinuate that that play cost the Orioles the game, but rather a critique of the challenge and review rules at-large ...... which I believe are not being implemented properly, regardless of the call that was made tonight. That was only 1 example of numerous ones that I have seen over the past few years in which calls were overturned that should not have been, and vice-versa.

[Beef Supreme]

I agree completely.

The Orioles failed to capitalize on several opportunities on offense, and subsequently scored only 2 runs in 9 innings.

Also, even if the ball had been ruled to be foul, there is no guarantee that the White Sox wouldn't have scored AT LEAST 1 run after that, anyway. Remember, the bases were loaded with nobody out, and the count was 3-2 on the batter ...... leaving Givens completely backed up against the wall, with not an iota of margin for error. Givens might have walked the batter on the very next pitch, or the batter may have hit a long fly ball for a sacrifice fly to score a run, anyway.

My post was not to insinuate that that play cost the Orioles the game, but rather a critique of the challenge and review rules at-large ...... which I believe are not being implemented properly, regardless of the call that was made tonight. That was only 1 example of numerous ones that I have seen over the past few years in which calls were overturned that should not have been, and vice-versa.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's not about last night's play in a vacuum. With spotty evidence and a lot of guesswork, the 2-Dimensional umpires are overturning the 3D umps far too often -- and frequently making the wrong call in the end. Every time i hear a baseball announcer talk about "irrefutable" evidence, I vocalize something along the lines of "Bowlshot!" Not only do the @D umps lose the depth perception of the on-field umpires, they also lose the audio which can help determine the right call. Ultimately, they undermine the authority of the real umps and worse, by overturning questionable calls when they should not by their mission statement, they undermine the integrity of the game.

[Superbee83]

I think Drungo is right, replay is not going anywhere at this point.

However, MLB does need to tweak the system.

I really think that the initial mistake was by having the reviews in a central location instead of the ballpark.

IMO, MLB made a bad decision by following the NFL's model. ( AS another poster stated, A fifth umpire in the pressbox would have been sufficient.)

IMO, the tweak is pretty simple. Each team has is limited to two challenges per game and the only calls subject to official reviews after the challenges have been spent would be fair/foul or fan interference calls.

Further, the manager has 30 seconds to challenge after the call is made. That window closes after 30 seconds.

The team only loses their challenge(s) if the call is overturned.

I think that more value has to be placed on the challenge made by the manager and to eliminate the crutch ( to both mangers and umpires) of the "official review".

I get the idea of trying to get the calls right, but the the flow of the game has been compromised by the system.

[Beef Supreme]

I think Drungo is right, replay is not going anywhere at this point.

However, MLB does need to tweak the system.

I really think that the initial mistake was by having the reviews in a central location instead of the ballpark.

IMO, MLB made a bad decision by following the NFL's model. ( AS another poster stated, A fifth umpire in the pressbox would have been sufficient.)

IMO, the tweak is pretty simple. Each team has is limited to two challenges per game and the only calls subject to official reviews after the challenges have been spent would be fair/foul or fan interference calls.

Further, the manager has 30 seconds to challenge after the call is made. That window closes after 30 seconds.

The team only loses their challenge(s) if the call is overturned.

I think that more value has to be placed on the challenge made by the manager and to eliminate the crutch ( to both mangers and umpires) of the "official review".

I get the idea of trying to get the calls right, but the the flow of the game has been compromised by the system.

I agree. But the most important "tweak" is not overturning calls unless it is indisputable after the replays are watched. MLB is not following this crucial part of their principles regarding the correct usage of replay. This needs to be addressed more than any other aspect.

[Aristotelian]

I think Drungo is right, replay is not going anywhere at this point.

However, MLB does need to tweak the system.

I really think that the initial mistake was by having the reviews in a central location instead of the ballpark.

IMO, MLB made a bad decision by following the NFL's model. ( AS another poster stated, A fifth umpire in the pressbox would have been sufficient.)

IMO, the tweak is pretty simple. Each team has is limited to two challenges per game and the only calls subject to official reviews after the challenges have been spent would be fair/foul or fan interference calls.

Further, the manager has 30 seconds to challenge after the call is made. That window closes after 30 seconds.

The team only loses their challenge(s) if the call is overturned.

I think that more value has to be placed on the challenge made by the manager and to eliminate the crutch ( to both mangers and umpires) of the "official review".

I get the idea of trying to get the calls right, but the the flow of the game has been compromised by the system.

What difference does the NY office make? It all happens in real time, whether it is in a booth or an office somewhere else doesn't really matter.

To me it is a matter of consistency. Does it really have to be indisputable or can they make a judgment call.

Also, I would get rid of the umpire review. Maybe keep it for home runs only. Otherwise it is just giving teams extra challenges and again right now there is no consistency.

[Superbee83]

What difference does the NY office make? It all happens in real time, whether it is in a booth or an office somewhere else doesn't really matter.

To me it is a matter of consistency. Does it really have to be indisputable or can they make a judgment call.

Also, I would get rid of the umpire review. Maybe keep it for home runs only. Otherwise it is just giving teams extra challenges and again right now there is no consistency.

I realize that the review is done in real time.

I think the mechanics of the review would be better served by a fifth umpire who would sit in the press box during every game.

It's s not going to happen because of MLB's apparent need for a review " nerve center".

I personally think that the the only way that a call should be reversed us if it is indisputable.

If not, the call on the field stands.

I agree that the official review needs to be addressed.

Presently, it us only a means to get extra challenges.

[OFFNY]

o

Off the direct subject of the OP, but still related to challenges/reviews/replays:

Beating the Nationals Again was a Challenge for the Orioles in Replay Only

(By Roch Kubatko)

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2016/08/beating-nats-again-a-challenge-for-orioles-in-replay-only.html