Instant Replay Is In
According to ESPN, MLB commisioner Bud Selig is set to make an announcement at 2 PM PT to tell the world that Major League Baseball will now use instant replay.
While this was only a matter off time, I find myself torn on the subject. Right now, instant replay is limited to "boundar calls", which means that it's used to determine whether a ball went over the fence, or whether a home run was fair or foul. If it stays to just that, I think this is a very good move.
But I, and many of the players, think that this is just the beginning - that this could end up being Pandora's Box. If this works out really well and umps are missing other calls, it's only a matter of time until baseball is run by computers.
Replay is scheduled to start on series that begin on Thursday, which includes our series against the Rangers. For all other teams, replay will begin on Friday.
What do you guys think?
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan and may or may not be a reflection of human evolution, divine enlightenment or nine cans into a 12-pack.
0 recs |
62
comments
Comments
I think baseball has been a nearly pure sport for approaching 150 years.
This is just another advent of “using a glove” or “wearing batting helmets” and further “base coaches wearing helmets”. Remember how quickly that went away without a wimper?
Stat heads will likely rejoice as their number purity is maintained to be the self-evident holiness; however, every baseball fan should weep just slightly for the tiniest of human error being taken away from the game. The error is often what makes the game so unpredictable, and so great.
by shiftyeyedgoat on Aug 26, 2008 12:07 PM PDT 0 recs
i completely agree
as much as we may hate to admit it, it’s the human element of the game that makes it amazing, even when something like ALCS ’05 happens. we may hate it when it goes against our team, but we do love the human error.
like i said, i fear that this may be the lid of Pandora’s Box, but i really hope it isn’t. as long as replay is limited to boundary calls, i’m okay with it… but the second it takes over something else, we’ve lost the game we love.
Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.
by howiestheman on
Aug 26, 2008 12:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I didn’t think it was so great when they blew the Paul/Pierzynski call in the 2005 playoffs…
…or when they almost blew the home run call in the 8th inning of Sunday’s game (the umpire closest to the play made the wrong call!!!). They did eventually make the right call, but there are times when they still choose the wrong call even after huddling.
I am not excited about the pace of the game slowing even further. But overall, I do not think a team should be penalized (a fair home run called foul or vice-versa) because the umpire(s) confuse(s) the foul pole with the "Big A".
Besides…we will always have ball/strike calls to argue about!
…and apologies in advace for the first part of my screen name.
by sothball on
Aug 26, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
up
0 recs
belated welcome to you slosh-ball
My Halos Heaven: a Mountain Dew in the upper view
by Rally Manatee on
Aug 26, 2008 12:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If you love shitty umpiring then you should petition that each umpire must drink a traffic light
before each inning.
Why would I cry if a robot called balls and strikes? The only umps I know by name are dickheads like Joey Crawford Tim donaughy and doug eddings. And I don’t love them… I HATE them.
When I see a game where a team gets jacked with a bad call, it does not make me want to watch more. It makes me want to turn the set off.
I don’t want to know the umps names. I don’t even want to know that they exist.
If GA wasn't so lazy the Halos woulda won the 2008 WS by now.
by melvintoast on
Aug 26, 2008 6:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I hate robots
I would cry if robots made any call!
by TheTypingFiend on
Aug 26, 2008 9:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
One more step toward the Robot Apocolypse
Chuck Finley is my homeboy
by HaloDutch on
Aug 27, 2008 9:17 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Ahh!!!
Its all fun and games till Soth's warriors come to town.
by AnaheimHalos61 on
Aug 27, 2008 9:26 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I like justice and impartiality.
I hate the human error element, but what I hate even more is the power trip. I hate it when umps say, “I call it like I see it,” when they obviously didn’t see it. Then, instead of being reasonable, they toss out a coach whose upset. It’s a power trip, plain and simple.
I understand that they need to maintain a level of authority over the players and coaches, otherwise baseball will end up like the NBA. Baseball players cannot intimidate officials into making a favorable call as much as in basketball (although it’s intersting that players like Giambi and Thomas always have a very narrow strike zone). But there’s got to be a way to maintain authority, and yet still admit when you are wrong, or ask other umps for help in a decision.
I love it when umps confer to get a call right. I have seen that more and more over the past 6 or so seasons. I never saw it years ago. If they could make a rule that says umps have to confer on close plays, I would rather see that than instant replay. But I guess it’s too late for that. At least instant replay will be just and fair. Plus, umps will be more likely to try to get their calls right so that the use of instant replay doesn’t spread into other rulings, and totally emasculate them
My Halos Heaven: a Mountain Dew in the upper view
by Rally Manatee on Aug 26, 2008 12:50 PM PDT 0 recs
Get it right
The umpires are amazing at their work, but sometimes they just blow calls that are just unacceptable.
Instant replay gives them a legitimate tool to get a call right at the moment, instead of after the fact, when the game has been decided.
As far as the time element, it is baseball – not football or basketball – you can have any random game these days running for three or more hours without the help of instant replay.
by BBFan1 on Aug 26, 2008 12:57 PM PDT 0 recs
Plus the majority of games
may not even have a “boundary call” that necessitates the instant replay.
My Halos Heaven: a Mountain Dew in the upper view
by Rally Manatee on
Aug 26, 2008 1:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
As long s it stays limited, I'm cool wit' it
Chuck Finley is my homeboy
by HaloDutch on Aug 26, 2008 2:51 PM PDT 0 recs
Oh, geez.
I am sure that when Abner Doubleday sat down and decided to plagiarize cricket, one of the first things that came to mind was “I sure hope they never figure out how to use modern inventions and prove conclusively what actually transpired. That would be vile, and dilute the purity of the game.”
On the other hand, the biggest problem with instant replay is that we have learned from the NFL that it does not work as well as supporters had hoped, and a big reason for that is all the human incompetence in the replay system (takes too long, bad camera angles, wrong judgments, etc.) But if you could eliminate human incompetence, you would do so with the umps on the field and not need instant replay in the first place.
All this does is transfer the liability of any failure problem from the field to some phantom decision-making process, at the expense of rendering the field umps less authoritative. They become hall monitors on a school yard of grown, angry, men.
Just make the owners fix the boundary problems in their feilds, require future designs to pass a review board to prevent this going forward, and let’s all get back to the real problem of umpire arrogance and intransigence.
Francisco Rodriguez: 196 career saves. 3 career Panthers, 1/3 as awesome as GMJ.
by Stirrups on Aug 26, 2008 2:56 PM PDT 1 recs
Great post, Stirrups.
Not a fan of the instant replay.
by Higz on
Aug 26, 2008 5:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The first paragraph was good.
Instant replay results in improved judgment of the game. Does it guarantee error free umping? No. Does it result in more game delays? Yes. Can it be badly executed? Yes.
Like everything else in life, there’s no perfect solution. Seat belts don’t guarantee survival.
As far as the line calls, it would seem to me that sensors, both pressure based and video image based, can solve a lot of this automatically without the need to review replay video. Green light means fair. Red light means foul. Blue light means the sensors weren’t tripped.
If GA wasn't so lazy the Halos woulda won the 2008 WS by now.
by melvintoast on
Aug 26, 2008 6:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't know if it delays anything
you see how much time it took the other day when the Twins hit the foul ball that was originally called a homer? From the time Scioscia got out of the dugout, to the time the next pitch was thrown, a couple minutes had to have gone by. Instant replay reverses everything in a second.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on
Aug 26, 2008 6:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree
All the parks with the stupid line demarkation for homeruns need to fix that. It’s ridiculous. And as I said before, the power tripping of the umps is the thing that pisses me off the most. If it were possible to require conferrence on tough calls, I’d rather have that than instant replay. But I guess we aint gittin our way, here. Did Bud ever ask fans what they think of instant replay?
My Halos Heaven: a Mountain Dew in the upper view
by Rally Manatee on
Aug 26, 2008 6:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
As long as it does something to get Dougie fired QUICKLY
by ladybug on Aug 26, 2008 3:48 PM PDT 0 recs
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Limited Replay to call “boundary calls” only will gain acceptance with familiarity. Advancement in technology will make turn-around time of replays instantaneously available to lessen the drag on the length of the game. Enhanced imaging and animation technology will remove the possibility of a questionable play seen on raw video. It is inevitable instant replay will be expanded to more of if not all of the game. Fans, teams, sports pundits, and in the end MLB will call for this to happen. Nothing stands in the way of youth and progress.
Gone will be the cursing of the umpire for calling your team player out, or jumping out of your seat rejoicing that the call was made in your favor instead of the opposing team’s. Gone will be the need for an emotionally charged manager or player to have those dramatic in your face arguments with the umpire. Instead of anyone getting excited, they will just pause and calmly wait for the replay and the official’s delayed call. We are fooling ourselves if we think the use of replay in baseball will remain limited and that baseball will retain all of the human character it still has today.
by 44FAN on Aug 26, 2008 5:08 PM PDT 1 recs
Wholeheartedly agree
And I use this same argument against free speech infringement, gun control, and taxation!
by Higz on
Aug 27, 2008 12:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
rec'd
that’s exactly what i am afraid of… many players have expressed this same opinion as well.
baseball is the only sport where you can argue a call and get it changed in your favor. human error adds to the drama and the uncertainty of the game.
Mike Scioscia: He provides to unlike method of your team member.
by howiestheman on
Aug 27, 2008 1:59 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I say just use pitch-tracking software and any technology possible to get rid of umpires entirely
I’m not one of those faux-purists who love the umpires. Umpires exist in sports because the technology necessary to replace them didn’t exist at the advent of the sport. If baseball was invented in 2300 A.D., there’d be no such thing as an umpire.
I hate the “unpredictable” human element. I prefer my team losing because they deserved to, not to win because they didn’t. Likewise, I’d prefer the other team to lose when they deserve to, and not win. Even if I didn’t agree with the first part, I’d still say the idea of an opponent winning because they didn’t deserve to (see: 2005 ALCS) overrides any other emotion I have in baseball to the point that I just cannot come close to agreeing with anyone who misses the human element. Accuracy and fairness > all other emotions.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 26, 2008 5:51 PM PDT 1 recs
You ever play Base Wars on NES?
My Halos Heaven: a Mountain Dew in the upper view
by Rally Manatee on
Aug 26, 2008 6:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The Olympics being such a recent presence, I just can't help but draw a comparison:
In sports with a purely human judging element, like say, gymnastics or Taekwondo, what happens? The judges make calls that don’t make sense or the audience cannot fathom, which results in endless bitching and moaning about the controversial outcome.
In swimming, where the winner was determined by touch sensors accurate to 1/100th of a second, a controversial close finish results in a quick trip to the replay both where a diagnostic is done on the sensor plates, and a better camera angle is shown to the complainer, at which point, the complainer shuts up (Phelps gold medal #7, in case anyone doesn’t get the reference).
I don’t see how ANYBODY could prefer the gymnastics result over the swimming result.
I wonder if any horse-racing fans, upon the advent of cameras posted at the finish line for use in close finishes, thought to themselves: “Well god-dammit, there goes the appealing possibility of human error in determining the winner. The thought that I can no longer get screwed by a judge who has money on the other horse really bums me out.”
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 26, 2008 7:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Human Error is a good thing?
Maybe it’s the Math Teacher/Logical side of me but I have never thought of human error as being at all fun or beneficial to baseball. I want to see the players decide the game not an umpire who is right 99.32% of the time.
by MH252525 on Aug 26, 2008 5:54 PM PDT 0 recs
Run a business
that deals in hundreds of millions of dollars.
Go right now.
Spend the next 30 years of your life working hard towards that one goal of making a product that not only provides you with millions of dollars of revenue but makes those you produce it for happy.
Work your way up the ladder, spend five years kissing that one bosses ass just to get close enough to get promoted. One day, you just know, you will be a partner. Maybe if those investments pay off you could maybe buy the team one day. You just know it.
Keep saving. Eat smart and cheap. Drive a shitty car. Put pictures on your wall to drive you toward your goal.
You montage. You get there. You are now the owner of the product of your dreams. Its yours.
You now are going to spend ten years molding it to what you want it to be. Hiring a cast of people to advise you in every small detail. Those around you painstakingly bear with you through all the ups and downs of making what you own perfect, to reach the ultimate goal of being the best product available.
Finally, the time has come. You have worked so hard for long to get to this point of being able to showcase and test your product against others. Your product is tested, true and should hold up well against the competition.
Everything is going well. Better than expected. In fact you see no clear-cut opposition. You are now confident that your product, something that cost you 40 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to create, can now put itself above all others.
Then some forty-year old guy makes one mistake.
An honest mistake. Anyone could have made it. But thats not the point.
This mistake could have been fixed. Righted. But it wasn’t.
Now your product that has taken a toll on not only you but the hundreds of others that aided in creating it.
The thousands of others who believed in it.
The millions of dollars. Hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yet now you fall short. Because one man made one mistake at a crucial moment. You may never recover from this. Your product may never again reach that pinnacle of excellence. This was most likely your best shot at being the best. It may take years or money that you might not have to get back to this point.
Everything you worked for gone. Because of one mistake that could be fixed.
Fuck human error. Baseball is a business. It’s absolutely retarded to put a multi-million dollar business on the shoulders of Doug Eddings. Or multiple businesses for that matter.
Human error does not make anything special.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
by PhiSlamma on Aug 26, 2008 8:02 PM PDT 0 recs
Yeah. Let's take things out of the hands of humans, and use technology.
That would eliminate mistakes. That, Josh Paul, will save your career. We’ll let Microsoft write the software. Things will be perfect.
Francisco Rodriguez: 196 career saves. 3 career Panthers, 1/3 as awesome as GMJ.
by Stirrups on
Aug 26, 2008 9:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You know what? Screw refereeing. Screw humans.
Let’s let computers decide ALL facets of ALL sports.
Fumble in football? Sensors on the ball, field and hands of the player will fix that in the spur of the moment call during the snow storm at Lambeau field.
Questionable foul in basketball? Not anymore! Now the machine will be able to tell you exactly for how long that center was chillin’ in the paint — it damn well better have been < 3.000 seconds — whether that European ex-soccer player was flopping, and it Kobe actually was slapped hard enough on his way up to the basket. All fixed while taking out those mischievous and highly influenced refs with their “humanity”. Jackasses. Go to hell, Dick Bavetta.
As for whether that amazing diving ranged play made by your shortstop only to flip the glove to the second baseman, have him barreled into to break up the double play, only to have the computer deem the second baseman was in the base path of the sliding shortstop, but also out at the same time because he threw his hands in the air… which would mean that the player is out and safe… can’t… compute… MUST DIVIDE BY ZERO… SHUT DOWN IMMINENT BZZZZZT whiiiirrrrrrrrrrr ptssshhhhh…..
Computers are definitely the way to judge sports of the future, guys! Buy one for all your kids playing sports in the neighborhood or they’re not doing it right.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 26, 2008 9:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Dude, I was being completely sarcastic.
My point was that the thought of moving to technology in order to flee human error is naive. Humans make computers, so computers make mistakes. And humans use computers, and the humans using those computers still make mistakes.
(PS – the suggestion of letting Microsoft mistake free software should have been your tipoff.)
Francisco Rodriguez: 196 career saves. 3 career Panthers, 1/3 as awesome as GMJ.
by Stirrups on
Aug 26, 2008 10:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I was continuing your line of sarcasm
to piss all over PhiSlamma’s argument.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 26, 2008 10:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Of course humans will always be needed in some way
Because some calls are about intent. Did the batter intend to swing or was he getting out of the way. Did the runner intentionally stick out his arm to get contact? Did the batter try to move out of the way of the HBP?
But then there are SO SO SO MANY calls that are not shades of gray but rather black or white. Did the throw beat the runner? Was the ball fair or foul? Did it hit off a fan? And yes is the ball a strike or a ball.
While you think it might be naive to let computers check those calls, personally I think it’s idiotic to not let whoever or whatever that can make the call correctly more often make the call. Computers can judge a strikezone with much less error than an umpire? Or did you not see that call on Aybar tonight?
Replay can judge safe/out calls much better than umpires. If you don’t believe me watch the replay of a Orioles/Red Sox game about a month ago where Doug Eddings called Julio Lugo out even though he beat the throw by a good step and a half.
Human error is not something we have to live with to the extent that we do. Stop living in the dark ages. Yes computers are not infallible because as you mention they are programmed by humans themselves but, I trust computer programmers a heck of a lot more than POS like Doug Eddings.
by MH252525 on
Aug 27, 2008 10:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't really see a need to get rid of humans entirely.
But I also don’t see any reason to deny those human beings easily accessible, more accurate information than they currently possess based on some mythical “purity of the game.” If the 3B ump couldn’t see what the ball did way out in the left field corner, why NOT have the option of going to the replay booth?
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 26, 2008 10:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Maybe because it's just a game, not a nuclear reactor.
Francisco Rodriguez: 196 career saves. 3 career Panthers, 1/3 as awesome as GMJ.
by Stirrups on
Aug 26, 2008 10:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
And yet here you are at 10 pm
commenting on a blog devoted to it. Obscene amounts of money are spent on the people who play it. Giving the umpire access to information that already exists and is easily transferable doesn’t seem like a huge transgression.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 26, 2008 10:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Maybe there is a reason people spend billions to watch sport,
and zero to watch mathemeticians calculate pi.
For my part, do not confuse my inability to locate a $20 chm to doc converter that works, at this hour of the night, with any mandate on my part for absolute precision concerning tags at second base.
Francisco Rodriguez: 196 career saves. 3 career Panthers, 1/3 as awesome as GMJ.
by Stirrups on
Aug 26, 2008 11:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I see little connection between watching someone do calculations on a chalk board
and the desire to have what actually happened determine the outcome at a sporting event.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 27, 2008 7:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Attend an NFL game some time, and pay particular attention to
the prevailing spirit of the people in the stands while the zebras run around watching TV. Compare with the electricity of same audience while game is in progress.
Francisco Rodriguez: 196 career saves. 3 career Panthers, 1/3 as awesome as GMJ.
by Stirrups on
Aug 27, 2008 9:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
You mean the gripping sense of tension as people hold their breaths, wondering if touchdown
that put the other team ahead will stand while the officials review the play? The electric rush as the call is overturned, and the home crowd explodes in cheering?
What about it?
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 27, 2008 9:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
A statistician once said a line of great wisdom:
“Torture numbers, they’ll confess to anything.”
-Greg Easterbrook
The black and white of sports actually becomes a relatively small area when you begin to consider that the overlapping gray area becomes too subjective to discern.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 26, 2008 10:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No, I'm pretty sure that whether the ball went to this side or that side of the bright yellow pole
or hit above or below the bright yellow line is a pretty black and white issue, subjective only in how good your view of the event was. Providing the umpires with access to the best possible view in case of controversy does not seem too great an imposition on the spirit of the game.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 26, 2008 10:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The best possible view being...
different from their current vantage points? Please, Zu Long, tell us how four umpires deciding every facet of a baseball game is criminally inefficient to the numbers.
There is a great segment of Sportscience covering this issue (briefly). They quickly state that although it may seem subjective, hundreds of split-second decisions are made each game and are statistically within the realm of probable error (given a t-test p-value of 0.001) such that umpires are correct in their discerning judgment >99.9% of the time. Or something.
Maybe 0.001 is worth fighting over in the sense that thousands/millions of dollars are at stake — or berths in playoff spots — but to be mathematically prudent, using a human machine to determine the black from white, and separate the gray into each is simply unnecessary. The umpires get it correct too often to be able to justifiably say a machine can do it better.
And if you want to define a strike zone to me that every umpire/computer agrees with, by all means tell me that’s not a gray area. “Nose to toes, Knees to letters. Crosses the plate.” Please… I haven’t seen a pitch thrown above a player’s belt that’s been called a strike in 10 years.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 27, 2008 12:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The best possible view
would be the zoom-in camera that can give a close-up, well defined view of where the ball hit that can be reviewed if necessary, as opposed to the guy at ground level 200-300 feet away who gets one split second to make the call.
For the majority of plays, there’s not a whole lot of question on what happened. When there IS a question on what happened, why not allow the better vantage point to rule? We already do that by having more than one guy on the field. I’m not talking about replacing umpires, and no one in MLB is either. 99.9% of the time they get it right. But on those .1% where they get it wrong and there is easily available evidence that they got it wrong, why not allow them to be corrected? What is so desirable about the wrong outcome that you feel it should stand?
As far as balls/strikes, I regularly complain (probably more than anybody else on the blog) about umpire consistency, but I personally am not in favor of a computer making those calls or allowing instant replay on them. The strikezone is the most judgment-dependent element in baseball and should be allowed to remain that way.
For anything else though, where it isn’t a question of judgment but black and white (this side or that side of the line, tagged out or touched the base first) I don’t see any reason not to allow instant replay to overrule them if the umpire got the call wrong.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 27, 2008 8:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Just as a matter of prudence
the .1% of the time that umpires are wrong is not solely home run fair-or-foul calls. It would be along the lines of some 1% of those calls. But that’s neither here nor there.
Given the extremely few and far between applications that instant replay in baseball will actually receive, it’s possible to say that it’s implementation will be so sparsely used that no one will particularly care that it’s there in the first place. It’s a freak occurrence that this year has seen two or three missed home run calls — I watched two of them live as they were happening. A-Rod got robbed of a home run, and another was an Indians player, I forget whom.
Since its use would be so infinitesimally small, why bother implementing it at all? What’s the use of the precaution then? Somewhere down the line, you know some angry coach is going to see a play he doesn’t agree with that is on the borderline of when/where instant replay is going to be used. It will set a precedent for use that will then have its own borderline uses. So on and so forth.
It’s like the batting helmets for first and third base coaches. One guy in a minor league game was hit with one errant foul ball that just happened to strike him in such a way that he died from the concussive blow. Now ALL coaches in ALL leagues must wear a hard helmet. 50 years ago, even players didn’t wear helmets. All due to one death that happened over the course of how many millions upon millions of baseball plays?
I agree that in its current constitution, there are exactly two uses for it: home run fair/foul, and fan interference for HR. However, deviation in ANY WAY from those two uses during a game is an absolute atrocity to the sport. Opening the door to such atrocity is a real and valid concern, and one that after Thursday may some day manifest. For now adjusting to the new rule will be quick, and will receive little mention until its first call from a manager.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 27, 2008 2:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
It happened in a couple of National League games, too
in fact, I seem to recall it happening at least twice in April alone. Maybe 5 calls this year…that we know of.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on
Aug 27, 2008 2:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
There was a Sunday night GOTW between Spankees/Mets @ Tankee Stadium.
Delgado hit one off the very bottom of the left field foul pole. The umps called it foul…even after huddling.
A camera man went right to the fan that caught the ball (actually the ball richoched off the pole and spilled his beer). The ball had black paint on it from hitting the pole, and the pole had a mark where the ball hit. Replays confirmed it hit the pole.
I would REALLY hate to see a playoff game hinge on a bad call like this…for or against the Angels or any other team.
by sothball on
Aug 27, 2008 3:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, this is the game I was watching.
It was not long after A-Rod’s robbery, and ironically they had been discussing how instant replay could help a situation like that not but an inning before this happened.
Life is funny.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 27, 2008 4:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm aware of the lesser percentage. Homerun calls were the subject so I kept them as my prime example.
However, I mentioned the .1% because beyond balls/strikes, I don’t see any reason instant replay shouldn’t be used for other close baseball plays if the umpire makes the incorrect call. I see no reason why tag outs or close plays at first or regular fair/foul calls shouldn’t be subject to review if the umpire is wrong and the replay clearly shows they were wrong.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 27, 2008 3:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm sorry, but no such example in the history of baseball exists
replays prove nothing.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on
Aug 27, 2008 3:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I do see a reason for instant replay not to be used in "close-call" situations
as I have exhaustively detailed above. You may instant-replay those details at your disposal.
I will call this an argument of ideologies and end it here. It’s a moot point anyway; instant replay starts tomorrow night regardless of whether we want it.
by shiftyeyedgoat on
Aug 27, 2008 4:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What details?
You called it an atrocity , and bashed coaches wearing helmets.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 27, 2008 9:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yea I'm not exactly understanding how it's an atrocity
to try to get as many calls right as possible.
Yes umpires do a great job on the vast majority of calls but I’m in total agreement Zu that replay should be used by the umpires to assist them in their judgment.
Anyone that thinks bad calls don’t happen enough to matter just needs to follow Doug Eddings around for a week.
by MH252525 on
Aug 27, 2008 11:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I dont think anyone ia arguing
that humans should be taken out completely. Because they can get the right call 99.8% of the time.
Why shouldn’t umps be not only allowed, but FORCED to review a few angles on a computer screen if something is not only game changing but incredibly difficult to judge within a extremely small period of time and from a tough vantage point.
Its stupid not to.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
by PhiSlamma on
Aug 27, 2008 8:20 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Baseball FAR more than any sport other than like Tennis
is all about Black/White calls.
And as a math teacher and someone that has taken a number of statistics courses, it is my opinion that numbers can be used to say whatever someone wants only when one considers the audience. Sure someone can fool some uneducated person with some manipulated data, but give me a person with even an average IQ and I’ll be getting them to ask all the right questions to look at the data objectively.
by MH252525 on
Aug 27, 2008 11:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I like it but implementing it in the middle of the season is odd.
Not fair for those who were robbed earlier in the season.
Seattle I would like to thank you for sucking. It allows me to get back to my roots: Hating Fremont.
Kobe tell me how my ass tastes
by hauldog on Aug 27, 2008 10:51 AM PDT 0 recs
Well, it was never going to be fair to anyone who was robbed at any point
the fact that the cut off is mid-season, rather than end-of-year is on little or no consequence when you consider that getting the calls right more frequently IMMEDIATELY should be the over-riding concern.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on
Aug 27, 2008 2:26 PM PDT
up
0 recs
isn't that part of the charm of baseball? bitching about an ump's lousy call?
except Doug…he just needs to be buried somewhere.
by ladybug on Aug 27, 2008 2:35 PM PDT 0 recs
Sure. And we can still bitch about it.
And then when they get told they’re wrong, we can laugh at them and say things like “Owned, jerk.”
We keep all the fun of venting at them while losing the annoyance of having the wrong call stand.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on
Aug 27, 2008 3:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs






