As you know, the only play that can be overturned upon replay is a home run, or potential home run. This is a great start, because I honestly feel that you must try to get every call right. Like umpires. But we know humans aren't perfect, and that's why we need cameras, super slo-mo, and a system to implement.
It's fairly obvious, especially over some recent postseason games, that there needs to get a better system. I'm not going to get into plays, I'm sure everyone remembers some. But why choose to get calls wrong? Anyone who doesn't want to advance the implementation of instant replay is choosing to get wrong calls in a baseball game.
The three questions to ask are:
1) To what extent will calls be argued or reviewed?
2) Whose decision will it be to "challenge" the play?
3) How often can you argue?
I don't even know if anyone is trying to decide this. Should fair/foul plays be reviewed? I think so. Safe and out? Definitely. Ball or strike? Ideally, but I don't want to use any TBS or FOX pitch tracker. I don't think those are very accurate, but I don't have another solution. I personally want to see the view from up top and the view from side of hitter. (As a side note, my father, who is probably not reading this, came up with a good solution for balls and strikes, but it gets rid of umpires all together. You have laser like rays that should across the strike zone - horizontally and vertically. If the ball crosses through both set of rays, steeeeerriiiiiiike. Not a bad idea. I just hope it doesn't give the batters cancer.) But this leads right into the next question.
Who will decide what to challenge? Managers? Umpires? Shall we go with the red flag like football? I guess manager is a good idea but umpires should reserve the right, like they do for the current situation.
Lastly, how often? Ideally, there should be no limit, but you'll have the Bobby Cox type manager who would argue every close play - what's there to lose? Maybe three plays all game, and for every call overturned, you get another opportunity back.
Anyway, please comment if you have any ideas or insight. I have a feeling this issue will be brought up big time and stir up some good baseball talk.
This exact conversation came up while I was watching the most recent Yankees/Angels series and I am sure it is the main impetus for your written expression right now.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult, as you mentioned, to decide what should be reviewed under instant replay and what should not. It would be wrong to completely eliminate umpires from the game. Who can do without those ear busting 'striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiike' calls we have come to love so much, not to mention those 'ring ups' that make you quiver?
But serously, some form of instant replay needs to be instituted. Foul balls, close plays at bags on tags and put outs, and the always enchanting flare that may or may not hit the ground before ending up in some sweet leather.
The question is who calls for a review and how many chances-
I think it is clear that Managers are in the position to make the call, just as football head coaches do in Football. How many?- I propose 3 per game to be used on any close call situation that a manager believes might impact the game. The number 3 is arrived at based on a 1 challange per 3 inning ratio.
The bottom line is that we all know there are those close plays in every game that have the ability to change momentum. We should at least be able to change momentum on the correct call.
Signed----#9
You guys are both wrong. I hate the fact that instant replay has infiltrated any part of the game at all. Baseball is a Mecca for old-timers looking to find a glimpse of the past.
ReplyDeleteSure the stadiums are bigger and have Jumbotrons and electric scoreboards, but what makes baseball so great is how the game itself hasn't changed at all. Umpires still have handwritten lineup cards and pitch counters. The game still uses wooden bats. Managers still call plays with Neanderthal-like signs.
Sure, technology has improved to the point that we can laser that mole off of Cindy Crawford's face from five miles away, but to Baseball that makes no difference.
Why do you think the most beloved parks are Fenway and Wrigley? They don't have jumbotrons or fireworks. What they do have is that glimpse back to simpler times. When you went to a baseball game to see your heroes, to see the game, not to see the McDonald's race during the fifth inning.
"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America is ruled by it like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again."
So yeah, could we make baseball more precise? Maybe. But should we? No.
Signed----#21
Here's the solution - http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/alcs-coverage-the-umps/
ReplyDeleteAlthough he messed up the Field of Dreams quote a lil (one of my biggest pet peeves) I still gotta agree with 21. [And I believe my opinion still counts in these matters.]
ReplyDelete--Forever #31