How about instant replay?

[Sports Guy]

IR should be there and it should be for everything but balls and strikes.

[TGO]

IR should be there and it should be for everything but balls and strikes.

I agree. For balls and strikes, the home plate umpire should wear a shock collar so the computer can tell him when he made the wrong call.

[AZRon]

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

"....... -- 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."

........

As it relates to improving the fairness and integrity of the game on the field, Selig's record reflects his position well -- he will do nothing unless placed in a state of "trepidation" by Congress or the owners clique to whom he kowtows

[TGO]

I agree. For balls and strikes, the home plate umpire should wear a shock collar so the computer can tell him when he made the wrong call.

I should expand on this. I'm clearly joking about shock collars, but absolutely not joking about a computerized strike zone. I don't understand how someone can be in favor of instant replay for all calls EXCEPT balls and strikes when balls and strike calls happen more frequently than any other calls and the "replays" of them would be instantaneous. You don't have the potentially troublesome "slowing down the game" issue with balls and strikes. The technology is already there and if it isn't, it's pretty close and just needs to be improved slightly.

[RShack]

IR should be there and it should be for everything but balls and strikes.

You can't really do that even if you want to. Whenever the D takes one action, rather than another, based on the ump's call, you can't unwind that. Some things just cannot be undone.

[RShack]

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 the correct word here. The other one is dead wrong. This kind of crap is the result of both writers and editors being lazy and trusting automated tools to do more than they can do. Just because it's spelled properly, it can still be the wrong word.

[Cokeman]

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

In your original post, you suggested that if a manager's challenge was denied, the team's next batter should have 2 strikes assessed against him before he even sees a pitch. You don't think that could also affect the outcome of a game? Seems like you are creating a new problem in an attempt to solve an old problem.

[geschinger]

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

This is the key question to any replay scheme. Looking at one of the calls last night in the context of a replay system that covers a broad array of plays... The line drive (Short hop?) handled by Ryan Howard. If that was replayed and it could be shown as clearly not a catch what is the remedy? Do over? Runners on 1st and 2nd, no out recorded on the play? He clearly started towards first base and would have recorded an out there had the umpire not called it a catch. Do we assume the batter is out and keep a runner on second?

[RShack]

This is the key question to any replay scheme. Looking at one of the calls last night in the context of a replay system that covers a broad array of plays... The line drive (Short hop?) handled by Ryan Howard. If that was replayed and it could be shown as clearly not a catch what is the remedy? Do over? Runners on 1st and 2nd, no out recorded on the play? He clearly started towards first base and would have recorded an out there had the umpire not called it a catch. Do we assume the batter is out and keep a runner on second?

You can't unwind that. It's impossible to do. When an ump's call co-determines what the D does and/or what baserunners do, then you're stuck with it, even if you know better.

[AZRon]

In your original post, you suggested that if a manager's challenge was denied, the team's next batter should have 2 strikes assessed against him before he even sees a pitch. You don't think that could also affect the outcome of a game? Seems like you are creating a new problem in an attempt to solve an old problem.

Perhaps -- in my concept, there are consequences for being wrong

for the umpires, it's the public reversal and (potential) tabulation of their errant decisions

for the managers, it's putting their next batter "in the hole"

[AZRon]

IR should be there and it should be for everything but balls and strikes.

What about 3rd strikes and 4th balls?

[RShack]

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

Why? Is this based on a feeling, or what? Strike 2 counts just as much as Strike 3 does. If you're gonna say the last one of whatever counts more than the earlier ones, then how come you don't wanna review iffy plays on the 3rd out of the inning but not the first 2 outs? It's the same issue.

[AZRon]

Why? Is this based on a feeling, or what? Strike 2 counts just as much as Strike 3 does. If you're gonna say the last one of whatever counts more than the earlier ones, then how come you don't wanna review iffy plays on the 3rd out of the inning but not the first 2 outs? It's the same issue.

I'm concerned with umpires' decisions that result in outs, baserunners, and advancing baserunners

Obviously, every pitch "counts" -- but, in my opinion, it's the outs and baserunners that are the most "precious"

I want to retain umpires and I don't want every umpire's call reviewed

Consequently, my concept allows for a manager's challenge to an umpire's call on:

an out

or

a batter safely reaching first base

or

a baserunner advancing

[charliec107]

I like the idea of an extra umpire in the booth. If there is resistance from introducing replay from the umpire's union (or whatever they have) adding 15 extra jobs could squash that. If it is obvious, the video guy can just buzz the crew chief. No reason for replay to take over 30 seconds in most cases. If an argument ensues after a play, the replay can be concurrent with the argument because of the field umpires don't need to leave the field. Plus, maybe some arguments could end quicker if a replay decision comes down. Implement a rule that arguing a replay is like arguing balls and strikes and eject the manager for further delay.

Or maybe do what the NHL does, and have a central room in Toronto (or in our case, NYC) that handles all the replays; however, that could take more time than the previous suggestion.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Anyone else think that if the Yankees lose this game, instant replay will be in place by tomorrow night?