[psmith2.0]

It's already a fairly long, somewhat low-key and, dare I say, boring game (80% of the time). Is this really necessary?



For 100 years we've not had it and "the game" has been just fine, hasn't it? Don't umpires, on balance, do a pretty damn good job?

It'll be interesting, a year from now, to see where baseball attendance and TV viewership stands...if there's any sort of affect from this move.



I just heard this on the radio, and didn't know it was coming. Do catchers get to blog too now, mid-game? Are we just going to modernize it all to hell, whether it needs it or not?

[kieran]

I think it will help in certain situations, but I didn't think it was really going to happen this fast. I thought they'd try it out in spring training or minor leagues first.

A missed home run call either way could win/lose the game sometimes.

I still think they should have tried it out before putting it into the major leagues. This could slow up the game big time.

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 It's already a fairly long, somewhat low-key and, dare I say, boring game

You've obviously never seen cricket. Or better: cricket on the radio.

Replays? Why not? It'll fill the time between pitches with something, at least.


And the catchers get to Twitter between pitches, not Blog. Keep up!

[Banana]

Erm, I'm not up and up with the baseball scene (indeed, never have been with any sports) but are you suggesting that they are going to mandate replay for every call?

Not just for too close to call?

[psmith2.0]

I'm not sure of the details. But I can't imagine it being every play...jeez, the games would be six hours. They're already killing me at three.



I don't know...just seems like a solution in search of a problem (which is a recurring theme with technology and "all the cool shit we can do now, vs. years ago!")...all the places we can put cameras, the "digital tools" available in situations where they couldn't before, etc.

"We're going to put three-way cameras in all NFL footballs starting next season. It weighs down the ball, throws the balance/spin off and they'll eventually burst after a few plays (and we'll need to stop before then to possibly replace some lenses). But, by George, we've now got the ability to put cameras in a football, for cool POV shots for the home viewer...so we're gonna!"



That's the kind of thinking (if you can call it that) that really gets on my nerves.

It's like Goldblum's cool line in "Jurassic Park": "...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."



Have there been enough games or big events (World Series championships, etc.) truly affected by a blown call? In all the teams and in all the games played during a season (hundreds, right?), how "big" of a problem is this, I wonder?

And I also I wonder what the umpires think of this? Do they feel undermined or like they're not trusted? Or do they welcome this?

[Banana]

Goldblum's line was awesome, that's for sure.

And you could at least chuckle at the thought:

"Hmm, okay the umpire are saying it's a foul ball. Let's take a look at the replay."

"Yeah, we can see the ball 400 feet to left of the foul post."

"Yep, no doubt. Umpire called it right."

"Let's play it one more time but with a different angle."

"Here, we can see that ball goes behind the post."

"Definitely no doubt."






I don't think this will be the case, but again, I'm not up and up with the sports and their quirks...

[kieran]

I think it's only for calling whether home runs are fair or foul, or whether they cleared the "fence" or not. I put that in quotes because a lot of stadiums just have lines where if a ball hits over that line, it's a HR.

Shouldn't be any more time consuming than umpires huddling to determine the same thing.

[dmegatool]

I guess it will be pretty much like hockey. They don't use it every game but when they do, it's because it's a really tough decision. And it has to be important too. They don't do it on a offside or icing call...

[Luca]

Originally Posted by kieran23kk I think it's only for calling whether home runs are fair or foul, or whether they cleared the "fence" or not. I put that in quotes because a lot of stadiums just have lines where if a ball hits over that line, it's a HR. Shouldn't be any more time consuming than umpires huddling to determine the same thing.

Yep, that's it. There aren't going to be instant replays for the strike zone, or for determining whether a fielder actually tagged a baserunner, or anything like that. Just home runs, which have a major impact on the game and are not always easy to determine.

I don't foresee this having any negative consequences on the pace of play.

[psmith2.0]

Well that'll be nice. I wasn't sure what all it would be used on, but the ABC radio news reporter said, in her report, "get ready for longer baseball games starting Thursday...". So that made me think it would (and spurred me to create such an awesome, rawkin' thread).



If it takes no longer than a current discussion/dispute, fine. Whatever (still don't think it's necessary, but blah blah...).

I just hate to see an already barely-watchable (sometimes) game become even more so.

[Mancomb Seepgood]

Yes, the instant replay will only be used in certain situations. When QuestTech machines were put in place a few years back, many traditionalists cried bloody murder thinking the integrity and human aspect of the game would be jeopardized. The fact is, it hasn't really made too much of a difference either. If the game itself is constantly changing, the way it is moderated should change as well.

At first, the umpires were against using the instant replay and they actually filed a grievance with the league. In the past few months, they've softened up to the idea and have pretty much accepted that it's going to happen with or without their endorsement.

The bottom line is that it's needed. It's the last major sport here in the U.S. to implement it, and I've seen too many times teams get screwed over by a blatant umpire mistake. World Series championships have been lost by bad calls. As long as the right call is made, I could care less if it is done in a delayed fashion.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 ...the ABC radio news reporter said, in her report, "get ready for longer baseball games starting Thursday..."

Typical of writers for local news radio/TV stations to blatantly lie in their headlines in order to make things seem more interesting.

[psmith2.0]

Local? This was the main ABC News radio feed doing national news (the convention in Denver, Hurricane Gustav, etc.). There was nothing "local" about it.

In fact, I was listening to Chicago's WLS Roe Conn Show stream...so there was no "Southern, small-town angle" to anything I was listening to at the time.

Typical of writers for local news radio/TV stations to blatantly lie in their headlines in order to make things seem more interesting.

Remove the "local" (or replace it with "national" or "all") and I can go with your statement a lot easier.

[ezkcdude]

I think the sport that does it the best is tennis. Maybe it's just the technology they have and the fact that it's a very simple judgement (ball in or ball out), but it works well there. Although I miss the occasional McEnroe-esque tirades we used to get. "Are you kidding me?!!!"

[Luca]

I was thinking it was a radio station that was an ABC affiliate and that one of the local announcers said that.

But you're right, pscates... pretty much all news media is total BS.

[Mancomb Seepgood]

Yeah, that's a pretty crazy system. They make it look so accurate sometimes I wonder if they're just bullshitting and making it up.

[Eugene]

Judging whether a homerun is fair or foul with replay, I'm all for it. Anything else would just slow down the game even more.

[MBHockey]

Baseball is unsalvageable.

[alcimedes]

I wouldn't mind a coach getting two flags per game, ala football, where they can request a play be reviewed.

Few enough that it won't add any significant time to the game, and coaches won't want to waste them, but sometimes a bad strike call at the bottom of the 9th is as important as a fair/foul call.

[Mancomb Seepgood]

That would be all bad.

Being able to challenge balls and strikes would completely change the game of baseball.

There's a reason why you get automatically thrown out of a game for arguing balls and strikes.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by dmegatool I guess it will be pretty much like hockey. They don't use it every game but when they do, it's because it's a really tough decision. And it has to be important too. They don't do it on a offside or icing call...

That's what I'm thinking. You'll see more of it in the playoffs during critical situations than the regular season. And as long as they don't ever extend it to balls and strikes, it should be OK. We're just talking about judging whether balls were caught or trapped, fair or foul, in the park or out. There aren't a ton of non-obvious situations like that per series anyway.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Mancomb Seepgood That would be all bad. Being able to challenge balls and strikes would completely change the game of baseball. There's a reason why you get automatically thrown out of a game for arguing balls and strikes.

That's why the manager would be limited to two challenges per game. It only take an extra minute while the booth reviews the pitch and makes a judgment. That's how it works in football, and in most games, neither coach uses even one of their challenges.

Fact is, I have seen some TERRIBLE calls made. Both in judging pitches and in calling runners out or safe incorrectly.

At least for now, though, it's only used for home runs, which is fine IMO and doesn't change the spirit of the game at all.

[psmith2.0]

How does it work, exactly? Will play be stopped, the four umpires huddle around a monitor, etc.?

A better solution, to me, would be to have a "booth umpire", who can see the instant replay immediately (so the field umpires don't all have to stop and walk across the field to a monitor station or whatever) and give a thumbs up or down from the booth. That would truly be quick and efficient and not slow things down much at all.

Are they going to do it this way?

This works because in a game, between pitches (or batters) the TV broadcast will show a replay of a cool or odd play 3-5 times in the space of 30 seconds. If there's an official umpire type already watching this stuff and primed to make a judgement, as needed, that would save a lot of time on the field.

Or is the whole point of this to get all the field umpires in on the decision, giving their opinion/view?

[Luca]

Here's a picture of the instant replay screen they'll be using:



Looks like it'll be one guy, separate from the rest of the umpires, who decides. I can't imagine they'd actually call all the umpires off the field. Not only would it unnecessarily delay the game, but since each one already saw the play and made a judgment when it happened, they'd be biased.

Another thing to note is that in football, booth reviews are limited to 90 seconds, I believe. They can't sit on the thing all day - they have to be decisive. Hopefully it'll work the same way in baseball.

At any rate, I imagine the first use of the instant replay system will get its own press when it happens.

[Moogs]

Isolating the ump viewing the replay from the fans' view is a mistake. If they do that it's going to be full of fail. What they should do is play whichever shot the ump is looking at on TV, but have him be out in plain view of fans. It's stupid but fans won't trust anything that's off the field and out of view.

[psmith2.0]

They should just show it on the big JumboTron(?) screen over the outfield, for everyone to see and weigh in on!

[Mancomb Seepgood]

Originally Posted by Luca That's why the manager would be limited to two challenges per game. It only take an extra minute while the booth reviews the pitch and makes a judgment. That's how it works in football, and in most games, neither coach uses even one of their challenges. Fact is, I have seen some TERRIBLE calls made. Both in judging pitches and in calling runners out or safe incorrectly. At least for now, though, it's only used for home runs, which is fine IMO and doesn't change the spirit of the game at all.

I'm not referring about the time it would take, I was referring to it changing the way the game is played. Balls and strikes should never be subject to instant replay.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Mancomb Seepgood I'm not referring about the time it would take, I was referring to it changing the way the game is played. Balls and strikes should never be subject to instant replay.

Why not?

[Mancomb Seepgood]

Well, let's say you threw one of your replay flags on a called third strike that was low and on the outside corner. The pitch was right on the black, and in your mind you believe it should have been called a ball. To you, it looked like a ball. To me, it looked like a strike. If you subject it to replay, you still get nowhere because umpires differ on their interpretation of the strike zone.

The entire replay system of recalling balls and strikes would be ineffective because you can't standardize it. It's too subjective. With homeruns, you know if it's out of the ballpark. There's a fence or yellow line that tells you. With fair and foul balls, you know whether it's fair or foul because a white line outlines it. With a strike zone, it differs because not only is each umpire's strike zone different, each batter's strike zone is different. There's too many variables to make it consistant.

And if you do standardize the strike zone, you might as well get rid of umpires entirely and use QuestTech machines. Taking away black pitches would ruin the game. Pitchers who use expanding strike zones would never be succesful. Greg Maddox, for example, would never win games. Why do you hate Greg Maddox?

[alcimedes]

If you only had two that you could replay per game, that'd be what, 3% of the pitches? I don't think that would take away the expanding strike zone. Plus that's assuming your two flags would be about pitching, and not a tag out, fielding call etc.

It would just allow you to address the most egregious of those.