Instant replay in baseball...

[erik316wttn]

After the epic San Diego/Colorado wild card playoff in which there were two big blown calls, how would you feel about instituting a replay system in baseball on some level? I'm not talking for balls and strikes, but mainly for fair/foul, safe/out, homer/not a homer calls.

 

And if you feel that replay shouldn't be instituted because "that's just part of the game," then please explain why you are against making 100% sure the correct outcome is reached.

[CubmanPi]

Where would the replay booth be? How should it be decided when to go check it or how often?

[erik316wttn]

Where would the replay booth be? How should it be decided when to go check it or how often?

 

I don't know. I'm just asking hypothetically if replay would be a good idea.

[E.J.]

I think there should, but I also think there should be some rules in place like you only get 2 challenges a game or something, or maybe the reviews only come from upstairs if they think the call was botched.

[Careless]

IBTM

 

Oh, and I wouldn't have a problem with a very limited replay system

[CubmanPi]

Where would the replay booth be? How should it be decided when to go check it or how often?

 

I don't know. I'm just asking hypothetically if replay would be a good idea.

 

In all honesty, the logistics of the issue and whether or not the process could be good and streamlined carry a lot of weight as far as my opinion goes. I don't think it's a bad idea, but everywhere within the barrier between the field and the fans is in play, and dugouts are no place for an umpire.

 

Placing the review behind the screen might make sense, and standing so close to the fans would be encouragement for the umps to keep it quick, but I don't know how baseball would pull it off logistically.

 

Another point to consider is, do you require the umps to get together and deliberate before resorting to replay? What are the circumstances? And on the Barrett play when no conference is required since it is solely the call of one ump, what's the threshold? An NFL-like challenge system? Would there be a penalty for losing challenges or some other way to discourage frivolous challenges? What would that be?

 

Conceptually I think it's a good idea, but baseball is fundamentally different enough from the only sport which currently uses instant replay that, if I were a deciding official on the matter, I'd have to see a solid and efficient plan for it.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think they'd need even more cameras. That final slide apparently only had 2 angles, neither of which were definitive either way.

[Rob]

Being a stat-head, I'm accused enough of trying to take out the human element of the game. I'm fine with the occassional bad call from umpires though, seeing as how they tend to even out over the course of the season.

[Sammy Sofa]

Being a stat-head, I'm accused enough of trying to take out the human element of the game. I'm fine with the occassional bad call from umpires though, seeing as how they tend to even out over the course of the season.

 

Or, as we saw tonight, the course of a game.

[Flames24Rulz]

Yes, I think there should be a limited replay system in baseball.

[Yeti]

pfft

[CubmanPi]

I went ahead and voted no, and basically it amounts to the same argument I brought up when people starting quoting the sour grapes that dude started spouting over at the Brewers board.

 

Baseball has 162 games. 162. Regardless of breaks, I firmly believe that a crew of umpires calling games to the best of their ability and privately being held accountable for bad calls will allow the best and worst teams to reach their fair and deserved spots in the standings come playoff time. Yes, San Diego got screwed on that final play, but it's their own fault they were playing in a 1-game playoff, and it's their own fault that the 2-run lead they gained in the top of the 13th disappeared.

 

As for the part of the original post which suggested limited replay and possibly for post-season only, it sounds great in theory and is a concept with which I whole-heartedly agree, but it's not a very logical solution.

 

First, the replay system would need a full season of use in order to get the kinks worked out for the post season - something like that wouldn't just appear and immediately start working with optimum efficiency or without any technical difficulties.

 

Second, for the number of post-season games played, the number of infamous blown calls from the umpire is relatively small. Yes, I believe it would be fair if there were replay reversing the homerun call in the NYY-Bal game or the play at first in the 80's WS (between the Royals and Cards, I believe, but I could be mistaken), but I also believe that such plays are infrequent enough that, even given the magnitude and impact associated with these plays, the cost and headache that comes with instant replay doesn't make sense. (Bartman play intentionally left out - I don't think it would deserve a replay, even if the system were already instituted and perfected by then.)

 

Also, in football, one reason replay makes sense is because of the amount of action. With all the penalties that crew has to look for in middle of 22 people on a play which could develop any way at any pace, it's easy for someone to miss something. In baseball, if there's no ball, there's no play. (Exception: plays such as the interference play on Uribe, which defers both to the frequency argument and to the fact that the umpires got that play exactly right following deliberation.)

 

The added benefit simply does not outweigh the cost.

[seanimal]

Umpires are one of the best things about baseball.

 

I think more cameras in ballparks for instant replay is doing something good for the wrong reason. Indeed, baseball needs more cameras, but it's not because we need more accuracy in the calls of the game, but because we need more accuracy in the account of the game. The game should be recorded, and measured, in the most accurate and complete ways possible.

 

That's not to say video analysis shouldn't be used to evaluate umpires' performance, but I would much prefer if video was not used to influence an umpire's decision on the field. I think there is a performance incentive in not having the video to fall back on.

 

So yeah, I voted 'no'.

[snoodmonger]

i say no, and I have no good reason for saying so other than it just doesn't seem right to me.

[Guest]

I went ahead and voted no, and basically it amounts to the same argument I brought up when people starting quoting the sour grapes that dude started spouting over at the Brewers board.

 

Baseball has 162 games. 162. Regardless of breaks, I firmly believe that a crew of umpires calling games to the best of their ability and privately being held accountable for bad calls will allow the best and worst teams to reach their fair and deserved spots in the standings come playoff time. Yes, San Diego got screwed on that final play, but it's their own fault they were playing in a 1-game playoff, and it's their own fault that the 2-run lead they gained in the top of the 13th disappeared.

 

As for the part of the original post which suggested limited replay and possibly for post-season only, it sounds great in theory and is a concept with which I whole-heartedly agree, but it's not a very logical solution.

 

First, the replay system would need a full season of use in order to get the kinks worked out for the post season - something like that wouldn't just appear and immediately start working with optimum efficiency or without any technical difficulties.

 

Second, for the number of post-season games played, the number of infamous blown calls from the umpire is relatively small. Yes, I believe it would be fair if there were replay reversing the homerun call in the NYY-Bal game or the play at first in the 80's WS (between the Royals and Cards, I believe, but I could be mistaken), but I also believe that such plays are infrequent enough that, even given the magnitude and impact associated with these plays, the cost and headache that comes with instant replay doesn't make sense. (Bartman play intentionally left out - I don't think it would deserve a replay, even if the system were already instituted and perfected by then.)

 

Also, in football, one reason replay makes sense is because of the amount of action. With all the penalties that crew has to look for in middle of 22 people on a play which could develop any way at any pace, it's easy for someone to miss something. In baseball, if there's no ball, there's no play. (Exception: plays such as the interference play on Uribe, which defers both to the frequency argument and to the fact that the umpires got that play exactly right following deliberation.)

 

The added benefit simply does not outweigh the cost.

 

What if that was the Cubs today that got screwed?

[CubmanPi]

What if that was the Cubs today that got screwed?

If the Cubs get screwed, then there will be an hour or two that day for which I will be in full support of instant replay.

 

However, in tonight's game, I think the two angles only provided probable, as opposed to conclusive, evidence that the call was inaccurate, so I think that even if there were an NFL-like replay system, that McClellan's call would have stood. I also think that a replay on the Bartman play would not have resulted in a reversal, which would just piss me off even more.

 

If the Cubs were in the Padres shoes tonight, I'd certainly be pissed, but there were 73 other games the Padres lost. I'm pissed about Bartman, but it was only strike two. Cubs had to lose entire games started by Z, Prior, and Wood. I'd be pissed the same way that losing those three games to the Marlins in September was that much more frustrating and catastrophic than losing the ones in May was. People tend to place more emphasis on one than the other due to timing in the season, but they're both three losses.

 

Single plays in baseball simply don't carry enough weight in the grand scheme of a season or a post-season to warrant the cost and the pain in the rump that instant replay would bring.

[CubFanPhilly]

Home runs only (foul pole/above below the line/fans reaching over, etc). Live with the rest.

[TruffleShuffle]

What if that was the Cubs today that got screwed?

If the Cubs get screwed, then there will be an hour or two that day for which I will be in full support of instant replay.

 

However, in tonight's game, I think the two angles only provided probable, as opposed to conclusive, evidence that the call was inaccurate, so I think that even if there were an NFL-like replay system, that McClellan's call would have stood. I also think that a replay on the Bartman play would not have resulted in a reversal, which would just piss me off even more.

 

If the Cubs were in the Padres shoes tonight, I'd certainly be pissed, but there were 73 other games the Padres lost. I'm pissed about Bartman, but it was only strike two. Cubs had to lose entire games started by Z, Prior, and Wood. I'd be pissed the same way that losing those three games to the Marlins in September was that much more frustrating and catastrophic than losing the ones in May was. People tend to place more emphasis on one than the other due to timing in the season, but they're both three losses.

 

Single plays in baseball simply don't carry enough weight in the grand scheme of a season or a post-season to warrant the cost and the pain in the rump that instant replay would bring.

 

I don't see any way that Holliday's hand could have touched home plate. He slid with his hand outstretched, and when it hit Barrett's foot, his arm was forced down along his body. Unless his hand pushed Barrett's foot back - and it sure didn't look like this to me - the call would have been overturned.

 

If there is a way to get a call right, I think it's ridiculous to push that aside for the sake of history or the human element. Just my opinion.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I went ahead and voted no, and basically it amounts to the same argument I brought up when people starting quoting the sour grapes that dude started spouting over at the Brewers board.

 

Baseball has 162 games. 162. Regardless of breaks, I firmly believe that a crew of umpires calling games to the best of their ability and privately being held accountable for bad calls will allow the best and worst teams to reach their fair and deserved spots in the standings come playoff time. Yes, San Diego got screwed on that final play, but it's their own fault they were playing in a 1-game playoff, and it's their own fault that the 2-run lead they gained in the top of the 13th disappeared.

 

As for the part of the original post which suggested limited replay and possibly for post-season only, it sounds great in theory and is a concept with which I whole-heartedly agree, but it's not a very logical solution.

 

First, the replay system would need a full season of use in order to get the kinks worked out for the post season - something like that wouldn't just appear and immediately start working with optimum efficiency or without any technical difficulties.

 

Second, for the number of post-season games played, the number of infamous blown calls from the umpire is relatively small. Yes, I believe it would be fair if there were replay reversing the homerun call in the NYY-Bal game or the play at first in the 80's WS (between the Royals and Cards, I believe, but I could be mistaken), but I also believe that such plays are infrequent enough that, even given the magnitude and impact associated with these plays, the cost and headache that comes with instant replay doesn't make sense. (Bartman play intentionally left out - I don't think it would deserve a replay, even if the system were already instituted and perfected by then.)

 

Also, in football, one reason replay makes sense is because of the amount of action. With all the penalties that crew has to look for in middle of 22 people on a play which could develop any way at any pace, it's easy for someone to miss something. In baseball, if there's no ball, there's no play. (Exception: plays such as the interference play on Uribe, which defers both to the frequency argument and to the fact that the umpires got that play exactly right following deliberation.)

 

The added benefit simply does not outweigh the cost.

 

What if that was the Cubs today that got screwed?

 

I agree with CubmanPi's take. And to your question, what if it were the Cubs that got screwed....well yes at that time emotionally I'd be in favor of replay. That's why these decisions need to be made during times of honest reflection and not when we are emotionally charged one way or the other. It's akin to asking how I'd feel about capital punishment if someone had murdered my child. While I'm opposed to capital punishment, at that moment I'd tell you I'd want the bastard to fry.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's akin to asking how I'd feel about capital punishment if someone had murdered my child. While I'm opposed to capital punishment, at that moment I'd tell you I'd want the bastard to fry.

 

uh ok, but i was in favor of instant replay long before last night's blown call. The other major sports have replay - do the people who don't want replay in baseball also want it out of football, hockey and basketball? I'm really asking this question - no sarcasm intended.

[UK1679666180]

No, the can of worms would be too huge, calls at 1B, line drives down the line, etc. MLB baseball relies on the casual fan, slowing the pace down would not be a good thing for someone w/little interest already.

 

Obviously, you'd like it to be perfect but replay is something I hope I never see.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

no

[CubmanPi]

uh ok, but i was in favor of instant replay long before last night's blown call. The other major sports have replay - do the people who don't want replay in baseball also want it out of football, hockey and basketball? I'm really asking this question - no sarcasm intended.

 

I honestly didn't know that basketball or hockey used instant replay? What are the circumstances those two sports use it for? In basketball, the only play I can imagine needing instant replay for is determining whether or not a player got the shot off before time on either the shot clock or game clock expired. I'm curious to know for those two sports, because I know all about it in football, and I firmly believe that there are enough fundamental differences between football and baseball to justify keeping it in football and not having it in baseball.

 

If there is a way to get a call right, I think it's ridiculous to push that aside for the sake of history or the human element. Just my opinion.

 

My main reason for not having it wouldn't be because of the human element or the sake of the history. I think those reasons are pretty stupid. My opinion is that there are so few games whose outcome would be definitively changed (I can't think of a Cubs game all year long where a single blown call on a reviewable play would have turned a loss into a win or a win into a loss), and there are so many games in a season, that the ultimate benefit of instant replay would be negligible at best.

 

Last night's one play would change one Padres loss into a tie game with two outs in the bottom of the 13th with bases empty, giving them a very good chance of surviving until at least the 14th inning. It turned what should have been a 50/50 shot into a loss. Given the timing, it's easy to say that the one blown call cost the Padres their season, but they only have themselves to blame for giving up the 3 consecutive extra base hits, and they only have themselves to blame for losing 73 other games this season and being in that playoff to begin with.

 

The sample size of a baseball season, and even a post-season series, is large enough that instant replay is not necessary to make sure that teams get their fair shake.

 

Baseball has 162 games per season, football has 16. If you compare time spent on the field in one game compared to the entire season, a game of baseball roughly equates to six minutes on the football field. yet football is only allowed two challenges per game. Should baseball teams only be allowed one challenge per week? Per five games? Or should football teams be allowed one challenge per six minutes?

[erik316wttn]

Umpires are one of the best things about baseball.

 

I think more cameras in ballparks for instant replay is doing something good for the wrong reason. Indeed, baseball needs more cameras, but it's not because we need more accuracy in the calls of the game, but because we need more accuracy in the account of the game. The game should be recorded, and measured, in the most accurate and complete ways possible.

 

That's not to say video analysis shouldn't be used to evaluate umpires' performance, but I would much prefer if video was not used to influence an umpire's decision on the field. I think there is a performance incentive in not having the video to fall back on.

 

So yeah, I voted 'no'.

 

I don't necessarily think video would influence an ump's decision on the field, unless that ump was deliberately thinking about screwing some team and then thought better of it, which I think is very unlikely to happen.

 

Even the best, most non-biased umpires blow a call from time to time, as McClellan did last night. I just think it would be best for the integrity of the game to make sure the correct call is made, and therefore the correct outcome of the game is reached. Someone upthread made the argument that bad calls even out over the course of the season. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I can't say one way or the other in the Padres case this year. I'm sure they got the benefit of some bad calls that they took advantage of, and I know they got screwed by at least one bad call. But if replay was there you wouldn't necessarily have to worry about that.

 

I read a statistic somewhere that on average, 98% of calls are made correctly. But if that 2% comes at the right time, it can really have an impact on a team's season.

 

I just don't see how anyone could be against the right call being made, and therefore the correct, undisputed outcome happening.

[erik316wttn]

uh ok, but i was in favor of instant replay long before last night's blown call. The other major sports have replay - do the people who don't want replay in baseball also want it out of football, hockey and basketball? I'm really asking this question - no sarcasm intended.

 

I honestly didn't know that basketball or hockey used instant replay? What are the circumstances those two sports use it for? In basketball, the only play I can imagine needing instant replay for is determining whether or not a player got the shot off before time on either the shot clock or game clock expired. I'm curious to know for those two sports, because I know all about it in football, and I firmly believe that there are enough fundamental differences between football and baseball to justify keeping it in football and not having it in baseball.

 

If there is a way to get a call right, I think it's ridiculous to push that aside for the sake of history or the human element. Just my opinion.

 

My main reason for not having it wouldn't be because of the human element or the sake of the history. I think those reasons are pretty stupid. My opinion is that there are so few games whose outcome would be definitively changed (I can't think of a Cubs game all year long where a single blown call on a reviewable play would have turned a loss into a win or a win into a loss), and there are so many games in a season, that the ultimate benefit of instant replay would be negligible at best.

 

Last night's one play would change one Padres loss into a tie game with two outs in the bottom of the 13th with bases empty, giving them a very good chance of surviving until at least the 14th inning. It turned what should have been a 50/50 shot into a loss. Given the timing, it's easy to say that the one blown call cost the Padres their season, but they only have themselves to blame for giving up the 3 consecutive extra base hits, and they only have themselves to blame for losing 73 other games this season and being in that playoff to begin with.

 

The sample size of a baseball season, and even a post-season series, is large enough that instant replay is not necessary to make sure that teams get their fair shake.

 

Baseball has 162 games per season, football has 16. If you compare time spent on the field in one game compared to the entire season, a game of baseball roughly equates to six minutes on the football field. yet football is only allowed two challenges per game. Should baseball teams only be allowed one challenge per week? Per five games? Or should football teams be allowed one challenge per six minutes?

 

Just because they performed poorly in the final inning or at other times does not mean they should have gotten screwed though. Yes, they did peform poorly down the stretch, and yes Hoffman blew it for them, but that doesn't mean they didn't deserve for the right call to be made.