Instant replay in baseball...

[CuseCubFan69]

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

 

I agree.

 

What does bug me is a lazy ump that is way out of position though.

[CubmanPi]

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.

No, they shouldn't have gotten screwed and they did deserve the right call. The whole reason I brought up the argument about sample size was because for how infrequently a single inaccurately called play alters the outcome of the entire game, and for how small one game is in the grand scheme of a 162-game schedule, the benefit does not justify the cost.

 

First, as mentioned earlier in the thread, they would need more cameras, and more people to operate those cameras. Even if it were only used for homeruns, which I am rather agreeable to, the only way to guarantee having a definitive angle would be to operate way more cameras in that corner than even Fox would pay to operate during a game.

 

Then, where do you put the replay booth? Do you even use one? Or do you just hire an extra umpire who sits in the press box and has radio comms with the crew chief? How do you determine what circumstances warrant a replay, even if it were used for homeruns only? Do you require all four IF umps and the two down the line to all deliberate first? Do you implement a challenge system? How many challenges does a team get? Should there be a penalty for a challenge that doesn't get overturned, like in football? Since there's no clock, what should that penalty be?

 

For how infrequently a single reviewable call carries game-altering impact, and for how infrequently the umps get it wrong when the replay shows conclusive evidence, and for how small each game is among a 162-game season, the cost-benefit comparison just doesn't support instant replay.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

In basketball, replay is mostly used for the clock, but also to determine whether a player's foot was on the line during a three-point shot (only used on close calls obviously). In hockey, they'll use it to see if the puck crossed the goal line, or if a goal is scored right as time is running out in a period.

[CuseCubFan69]

Instant replay of the fancam might not be a bad idea.

[NewUserName]

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.

 

In basketball, replay is mostly used for the clock, but also to determine whether a player's foot was on the line during a three-point shot (only used on close calls obviously). In hockey, they'll use it to see if the puck crossed the goal line, or if a goal is scored right as time is running out in a period.

 

 

Hockey can use to make sure a goal is good for any number of reasons. Like touched with a high stick. Intentionally kicked or punched in.

 

 

If baseball had instant replay I could see about 25% of all double plays being reviewed.

[killthegoat06]

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.

 

In basketball, replay is mostly used for the clock, but also to determine whether a player's foot was on the line during a three-point shot (only used on close calls obviously). In hockey, they'll use it to see if the puck crossed the goal line, or if a goal is scored right as time is running out in a period.

 

 

Hockey can use to make sure a goal is good for any number of reasons. Like touched with a high stick. Intentionally kicked or punched in.

 

 

If baseball had instant replay I could see about 25% of all double plays being reviewed.

 

In that case I say that there are times when instant replay would be helpful, but because of the number of unnecessary reviews I say it's a bad idea.

[Careless]

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.

 

In basketball, replay is mostly used for the clock, but also to determine whether a player's foot was on the line during a three-point shot (only used on close calls obviously). In hockey, they'll use it to see if the puck crossed the goal line, or if a goal is scored right as time is running out in a period.

 

 

Hockey can use to make sure a goal is good for any number of reasons. Like touched with a high stick. Intentionally kicked or punched in.

 

 

If baseball had instant replay I could see about 25% of all double plays being reviewed.

There's no way they'd let things like that be reviewable anyway.

[Banedon]

I'm late to this topic but I'm in favor of instant replay. It really could work quite well, and similar to football.

 

1. Each manager gets 1 challenge per game. Challenges can be used on any ball put in play. Challenges can NOT be used on balls and strikes, balk calls, or tag up/sac fly calls. That way the "human element" is retained. (I doubt you'd get the double play challenges because everyone would save that challenge for the really blatant misses.)

 

2. Challenges cannot be used in the 9th inning or extras. At that point, you have a review ump in the booth that can do "official challenges".

 

As far as the complaint that it will slow down the game, would it really slow it down any more than a Lou Piniella or Bobby Cox tirade currently does?

 

I recognize that baseball is grounded in it's roots, and hates to update the game in any significant fashion, so I doubt that it will happen. But not doing it because it's never been done in the past is silly. Get the calls right. Mistakes are made by umps...they aren't intentional, but calls are missed. No reason not to fix them.

 

If you really want to limit it though, make it on scoring plays only. If the "missed call" happens on a play at the plate, or on a play where a player otherwise may have scored (ex: a homer inadvertantly called a double) than it's reviewable.

[erik316wttn]

I'm late to this topic but I'm in favor of instant replay. It really could work quite well, and similar to football.

 

1. Each manager gets 1 challenge per game. Challenges can be used on any ball put in play. Challenges can NOT be used on balls and strikes, balk calls, or tag up/sac fly calls. That way the "human element" is retained. (I doubt you'd get the double play challenges because everyone would save that challenge for the really blatant misses.)

 

2. Challenges cannot be used in the 9th inning or extras. At that point, you have a review ump in the booth that can do "official challenges".

 

As far as the complaint that it will slow down the game, would it really slow it down any more than a Lou Piniella or Bobby Cox tirade currently does?

 

I recognize that baseball is grounded in it's roots, and hates to update the game in any significant fashion, so I doubt that it will happen. But not doing it because it's never been done in the past is silly. Get the calls right. Mistakes are made by umps...they aren't intentional, but calls are missed. No reason not to fix them.

 

If you really want to limit it though, make it on scoring plays only. If the "missed call" happens on a play at the plate, or on a play where a player otherwise may have scored (ex: a homer inadvertantly called a double) than it's reviewable.

 

I agree. But I'd give each side 2 challenges instead of 1. Although I could see your system working as well.

[XZero771679666304]

I could see limited use of replay, like on fair/foul and home run calls, and probably fan interference.

 

No way could it be extended to balls/strikes, double plays or checked swings.

 

I would like to see it on some safe/out calls (especially egregious ones like that Froemming call at first in the Pads/Crew series), but the evidence would have to be indisputable. Even then, it would be hard to keep managers from going to it constantly, unless like Banedon said, they get only one challenge per game.

 

 

And I don't think it would slow the game down any more than a typical managerial tirade.

[Banedon]

I'm late to this topic but I'm in favor of instant replay. It really could work quite well, and similar to football.

 

1. Each manager gets 1 challenge per game. Challenges can be used on any ball put in play. Challenges can NOT be used on balls and strikes, balk calls, or tag up/sac fly calls. That way the "human element" is retained. (I doubt you'd get the double play challenges because everyone would save that challenge for the really blatant misses.)

 

2. Challenges cannot be used in the 9th inning or extras. At that point, you have a review ump in the booth that can do "official challenges".

 

As far as the complaint that it will slow down the game, would it really slow it down any more than a Lou Piniella or Bobby Cox tirade currently does?

 

I recognize that baseball is grounded in it's roots, and hates to update the game in any significant fashion, so I doubt that it will happen. But not doing it because it's never been done in the past is silly. Get the calls right. Mistakes are made by umps...they aren't intentional, but calls are missed. No reason not to fix them.

 

If you really want to limit it though, make it on scoring plays only. If the "missed call" happens on a play at the plate, or on a play where a player otherwise may have scored (ex: a homer inadvertantly called a double) than it's reviewable.

 

I agree. But I'd give each side 2 challenges instead of 1. Although I could see your system working as well.

 

There's definitely details to be worked out...the number of challenges, what plays can and can't be challenged...do you add a 5th ump for the booth reviews or do you let the official scorer do that? (Probably a 5th ump)

[CubmanPi]

I'm late to this topic but I'm in favor of instant replay. It really could work quite well, and similar to football.

 

1. Each manager gets 1 challenge per game. Challenges can be used on any ball put in play. Challenges can NOT be used on balls and strikes, balk calls, or tag up/sac fly calls. That way the "human element" is retained. (I doubt you'd get the double play challenges because everyone would save that challenge for the really blatant misses.)

 

2. Challenges cannot be used in the 9th inning or extras. At that point, you have a review ump in the booth that can do "official challenges".

 

As far as the complaint that it will slow down the game, would it really slow it down any more than a Lou Piniella or Bobby Cox tirade currently does?

 

I recognize that baseball is grounded in it's roots, and hates to update the game in any significant fashion, so I doubt that it will happen. But not doing it because it's never been done in the past is silly. Get the calls right. Mistakes are made by umps...they aren't intentional, but calls are missed. No reason not to fix them.

 

If you really want to limit it though, make it on scoring plays only. If the "missed call" happens on a play at the plate, or on a play where a player otherwise may have scored (ex: a homer inadvertantly called a double) than it's reviewable.

 

I agree. But I'd give each side 2 challenges instead of 1. Although I could see your system working as well.

 

There's definitely details to be worked out...the number of challenges, what plays can and can't be challenged...do you add a 5th ump for the booth reviews or do you let the official scorer do that? (Probably a 5th ump)

I would imagine it has to be an umpire making any decisions which affect the game.

 

I really don't think that missed calls are impacting the integrity of a game's outcome on such a level that baseball would ever find it worthwhile to hire an extra umpire per crew. 15 extra umpires for 162 3-hour games is 7290 more hours of umpiring they'd be paying for, in addition to the installation of any replay equipment in all 30 ballparks, all to get calls right which would affect at most a very small handful of games (I'd be shocked if there were more than 5 games this season where the outcome was altered by a single blown reviewable play which had indisputable video evidence which would have overturned a call) out of the 2430 regular season games. That's a lot of money to spend and a lot of change to implement for the sake of so few games out of such a large sample size.

[Banedon]

I really don't think that missed calls are impacting the integrity of a game's outcome on such a level that baseball would ever find it worthwhile to hire an extra umpire per crew. 15 extra umpires for 162 3-hour games is 7290 more hours of umpiring they'd be paying for, in addition to the installation of any replay equipment in all 30 ballparks, all to get calls right which would affect at most a very small handful of games (I'd be shocked if there were more than 5 games this season where the outcome was altered by a single blown reviewable play which had indisputable video evidence which would have overturned a call) out of the 2430 regular season games. That's a lot of money to spend and a lot of change to implement for the sake of so few games out of such a large sample size.

 

I seriously doubt that umps are paid by the hour. And instant replay is something that would cost a bit of money. But not an overwhelming amount. And frankly baseball could use a bit of positive publicity as far as trying to uphold the integrity of the game, especially with all the steroid rumors supposedly tearing down the integrity of the game.

 

Again, I'm not under any delusion of this happening. But I think it should.

 

You don't think there's one bad call per team a game? Yes, it won't be a huge impact on every game...but if big ones like the one on Monday night are done correctly, I think it's worth it. I bet the Padres do too.

[wekse]

i would go a step further and have a computer calling balls and strikes at home plate.

[CubmanPi]

You don't think there's one bad call per team a game? Yes, it won't be a huge impact on every game...but if big ones like the one on Monday night are done correctly, I think it's worth it. I bet the Padres do too.

I think there are bad calls in most games, but when you qualify it by saying a call that is reviewable, is shown in replays to be indisputably wrong and likely to be overturned in a replay, and having any amount of impact on the outcome of the game, that reduces the number of incidents beyond the point of practicality.

 

As far as the integrity of the game, I think the added delays of a game already widely considered to be too slow would counter any positive publicity they could possibly receive from instituting instant replay.

[Banedon]

You don't think there's one bad call per team a game? Yes, it won't be a huge impact on every game...but if big ones like the one on Monday night are done correctly, I think it's worth it. I bet the Padres do too.

I think there are bad calls in most games, but when you qualify it by saying a call that is reviewable, is shown in replays to be indisputably wrong and likely to be overturned in a replay, and having any amount of impact on the outcome of the game, that reduces the number of incidents beyond the point of practicality.

 

As far as the integrity of the game, I think the added delays of a game already widely considered to be too slow would counter any positive publicity they could possibly receive from instituting instant replay.

 

Again, I don't believe the delay would be as significant as people think. Certainly no more than the fruitless arguments that go on over bad calls now.

 

And I don't think impact on the outcome of the game should be a factor in considering this. No one can know at the moment of the bad call how significant that will be to the outcome of the game. In retrospect, it may not be, but that happens in football too, and I don't think anyone would want the NFL to drop replay at this point.

[CubmanPi]

You don't think there's one bad call per team a game? Yes, it won't be a huge impact on every game...but if big ones like the one on Monday night are done correctly, I think it's worth it. I bet the Padres do too.

I think there are bad calls in most games, but when you qualify it by saying a call that is reviewable, is shown in replays to be indisputably wrong and likely to be overturned in a replay, and having any amount of impact on the outcome of the game, that reduces the number of incidents beyond the point of practicality.

 

As far as the integrity of the game, I think the added delays of a game already widely considered to be too slow would counter any positive publicity they could possibly receive from instituting instant replay.

 

Again, I don't believe the delay would be as significant as people think. Certainly no more than the fruitless arguments that go on over bad calls now.

 

And I don't think impact on the outcome of the game should be a factor in considering this. No one can know at the moment of the bad call how significant that will be to the outcome of the game. In retrospect, it may not be, but that happens in football too, and I don't think anyone would want the NFL to drop replay at this point.

The comparisons with football simply don't work in baseball. The clock, time of possession, and turnovers all play a huge role in every game, and all can be impacted by a single blown call.

 

When the outcome of a baseball game is rarely affected, and when a single game in the course of a 162-game season is so small, it very well should be a factor. A single baseball game makes up as much of a percentage of a season's playing time as 6 minutes does in football. If a team plays a better football game for 42 minutes, but the other team storms back the final 18 minutes and then wins the game on a bad call, the team that was better for the first 42 minutes doesn't still come away with 70% of a win. They get one loss, which carries the weight of ten losses in baseball. Replay makes way more of a difference in one season of football than it could ever make in ten seasons of baseball, and they are only afforded the baseball equivalent of 1 challenge per five games.

 

The comparison is completely invalid.

[hardcorecubfan]

yes, which I never thought I say that but just for questionable homers.

[biittner77]

I would vote yes if it meant getting rid of the useless extra umpires that stand 20 ft behind the actual umpires instead of in the OF gaps where they might actually be able to get into position to make a correct call.

 

The vote would be no for the regular season.

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

"Just heard on ESPN News, Buster Onley was saying that the GMs will discuss using Instant Replay in certain situations (whether a ball is fair/home runs, possibly plays at the plate), at the GM Meetings this coming Monday. What is y'alls opinion? Do you think the Holliday slide had anything to do with possibly reviewing the instant replay issue"?

 

--- Was glad I could break the story on November 3rd.

[cubweiser03]

i would go a step further and have a computer calling balls and strikes at home plate.

 

We could call it SABER. Strikes And Balls Errors Rarely.

Then the game taken over by nerds would be complete!