Jump to content

How about instant replay?


AZRon

Recommended Posts

I'm a baseball traditionalist -- "but"

I think it's time to change the rules

When I played the game, I always accepted the multiple missed calls per game and excused them based on the limited number of umpires and their inferior competence as compared to those in MLB

I don't know whether it's the improvement in the technology of instant replay

and/or

the number of games I view

and/or

the deterioration in the competence of the umpires

but I now doubt that the outcomes of many critical games closely match the "results of play on the field"

Here's my recommendation:

Add a 5th (7th during the playoffs and WS) umpire in a top technology "replay booth" -- this "replay" umpire makes all calls on manager challenges and is required to do so within 90 seconds of the challenge

Allow team managers to challenge umpire calls 3 times (6 times during the playoffs and WS) a game

If the challenge is disallowed, the challenging manager's team loses 2 strikes on the team's next batter

Plays that can be challenged:

any play/pitch resulting in an out or would have resulted in an out

any play/pitch that would have resulted in a batter/runner reaching 1 base further than the umpire's unchallenged call allowed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Consistency in calling balls and strikes would also improve the game. If you like offense, batters will have a distinct advantage if they know exactly what the strike zone will be night in and night out. Traditionalists will definitely squirm at this, but when the technology presents itself (and I believe its there now) baseball should have a computer behind the plate. Figuratively speaking of course. Let Blue ump little league, where they belong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the guy from Fangraphs who made this suggestion (essentially): Have another ump in the booth, watching a couple TVs all the time. Give him and the crew chief on the field a communication link. The booth ump sees something that's clearly wrong before the next pitch, and it's something you could fix with replay, he calls down to the field and they fix it. This would have fixed most of the blown calls this offseason.

Unless you're completely ideologically opposed to replay I don't know what your opposition would be to that. Simple, quick, easy, barely messes with the flow of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the guy from Fangraphs who made this suggestion (essentially): Have another ump in the booth, watching a couple TVs all the time. Give him and the crew chief on the field a communication link. The booth ump sees something that's clearly wrong before the next pitch, and it's something you could fix with replay, he calls down to the field and they fix it. This would have fixed most of the blown calls this offseason.

Unless you're completely ideologically opposed to replay I don't know what your opposition would be to that. Simple, quick, easy, barely messes with the flow of the game.

Best plan, an the ump union should like it because it creates more jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the guy from Fangraphs who made this suggestion (essentially): Have another ump in the booth, watching a couple TVs all the time. Give him and the crew chief on the field a communication link. The booth ump sees something that's clearly wrong before the next pitch, and it's something you could fix with replay, he calls down to the field and they fix it. This would have fixed most of the blown calls this offseason.

I love this idea, it's kinda like the replay in hockey (though there wouldn't be a call to a booth), because it would take away the possibility of the umpires affecting the outcome of the game by making bad calls or missing calls.

Not saying the umps dont affect the outcome of games (because they do), but that bad or missed calls wouldn't affect the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the guy from Fangraphs who made this suggestion (essentially): Have another ump in the booth, watching a couple TVs all the time. Give him and the crew chief on the field a communication link. The booth ump sees something that's clearly wrong before the next pitch, and it's something you could fix with replay, he calls down to the field and they fix it. This would have fixed most of the blown calls this offseason.

Unless you're completely ideologically opposed to replay I don't know what your opposition would be to that. Simple, quick, easy, barely messes with the flow of the game.

In principle, I have no problem with that. But where do you draw the line? Balls and strikes, or someplace else?

I think they should be thorough and professional. I think that falls into the thorough category. If they could do that and get working on the professional part, then it would be better for everybody... except for some current umps who would get canned for not meeting professional performance standards, which they don't have any of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds good and all. But, I thought it sounded good for the NFL and now I absolutely hate it. I think it works in NCAA football, where someone else looks at the replay. But in the NFL, the refs seem to throw all common sense out the window and look for any reason imaginable to stay with their initial decision...except for some instances where they come to a shocking decision that doesn't seem to be corroborated by video evidence. My opinion on this will completely depend on how MLB decides to implement it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds good and all. But, I thought it sounded good for the NFL and now I absolutely hate it. I think it works in NCAA football, where someone else looks at the replay. But in the NFL, the refs seem to throw all common sense out the window and look for any reason imaginable to stay with their initial decision...except for some instances where they come to a shocking decision that doesn't seem to be corroborated by video evidence. My opinion on this will completely depend on how MLB decides to implement it.

Well, the NFL specifically says that the evidence to overturn the call on the field must be "incontrovertible", and it would be the same if there was a guy in the booth making the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of the guy from Fangraphs who made this suggestion (essentially): Have another ump in the booth, watching a couple TVs all the time. Give him and the crew chief on the field a communication link. The booth ump sees something that's clearly wrong before the next pitch, and it's something you could fix with replay, he calls down to the field and they fix it. This would have fixed most of the blown calls this offseason.

Unless you're completely ideologically opposed to replay I don't know what your opposition would be to that. Simple, quick, easy, barely messes with the flow of the game.

likes "my" idea of an extra "replay umpire":laughlol:

I'm not clear that their proposition is as inclusive as mine

I'm for allowing reviews of pitches that were called as a 3rd strike or a 4th ball

Further, I'm suggesting that reviews only be made upon manager challenges

Allowing for reviews of every play, as suggested by Fangraphs, reduces the pressure on the umps to make the correct initial call

Has anyone noticed any improvement in ball/strike calling consistency or accuracy since the introduction of Questec? I haven't and I'm unaware of any report (anecdotal or statistical) demonstrating that umpire accuracy and the continued employment of umpires in MLB are correlated

This is part of my reasoning of requiring a manager's challenge to initiate a review

Having your call reversed because some pipsqueak manager challenged it is, I believe, added incentive to "get it right"

Also, limiting the challenges and having a penalty for failed challenges replaces some futile arguments with game-strategy decisions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consistency in calling balls and strikes would also improve the game. If you like offense, batters will have a distinct advantage if they know exactly what the strike zone will be night in and night out. Traditionalists will definitely squirm at this, but when the technology presents itself (and I believe its there now) baseball should have a computer behind the plate. Figuratively speaking of course. Let Blue ump little league, where they belong.

It seems that the vast majority of people favor more instant replay, but draw the line at balls and strikes. I undertand the arguments against a Pitch F/X style system, but I still feel that some of the worst umpiring we have seen this year have come on balls/strikes calls. I've learned to live with bad calls that just miss or come when the pitcher crosses up the catcher, but it has gone way beyond that this season.

Whatever happens, I don't want instant replay to be expanded and the league to feel like the issue has been addressed. The umps have to get better no matter what is done with instant replay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for allowing reviews of pitches that were called as a 3rd strike or a 4th ball

I disagree with the concept of reviewing ball/strike calls, but let's not worry about that.

If you're gonna do it, the idea of doing it on just strike-3 or ball-4 doesn't make any sense to me.

There's no reason to think those calls are the most important ball/strike calls of the AB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the concept of reviewing ball/strike calls, but let's not worry about that.

If you're gonna do it, the idea of doing it on just strike-3 or ball-4 doesn't make any sense to me.

There's no reason to think those calls are the most important ball/strike calls of the AB.

The most critical element of the game is outs

Next in importance are baserunners

Next is the base that the baserunner occupies (expecially in relation to the number of outs)

While I recognize that the tenor and tactics of an at-bat change with the count, I think that the most critical call is on the last pitch of the at-bat

As a traditionalist, all of this pains me; but, given the improving technology and the criticality of umpire decisions in effecting game outcomes, I think a review process would improve the fairness and integrity of the game

I have no illusions that I have the best solution and welcome all comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's a Bud Selig quote on replay, courtesy of ESPN:

"The more baseball people I talk to, there is a lot of trepidation about it and I think their trepidation is fair," Selig told reporters before Game 2 of the World Series on Thursday. "I've spent a lot of time [on this] over the past month and will spend a lot of time in the ensuing months as well. I don't want to overreact. You can make light of that but when you start to think you're going to have more intrusions -- and even if their good intrusions -- it's something that you have to be very careful about. Affecting the game on the field is not something I really want to do."

By the way, I think it is necessary to call out both Jim Caple and ESPN's copy editing staff. It is embarrassing to have two glaringly obvious usage errors in a direct quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's a Bud Selig quote on replay, courtesy of ESPN:

"The more baseball people I talk to, there is a lot of trepidation about it and I think their trepidation is fair," Selig told reporters before Game 2 of the World Series on Thursday. "I've spent a lot of time [on this] over the past month and will spend a lot of time in the ensuing months as well. I don't want to overreact. You can make light of that but when you start to think you're going to have more intrusions -- and even if their good intrusions -- it's something that you have to be very careful about. Affecting the game on the field is not something I really want to do."

By the way, I think it is necessary to call out both Jim Caple and ESPN's copy editing staff. It is embarrassing to have two glaringly obvious usage errors in a direct quote.

"Affecting" is not necessarily incorrect. There's quite a bit of overlap/subtlety between effect and affect in their use as verbs.

"Their" is definitely atrocious editing. I can't blame Caple too much; things like that happen on occasion. That's why you hire editors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...