MLB may try instant replay in Arizona Fall League

[erik316wttn]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3408154

 

As the thread title says, MLB is thinking about trying instant replay in the Arizona Fall League. From there, it may get a trial run in spring training and the World Baseball Classic. As you've no doubt guessed, this is in response to the recent slew of blown HR calls that umpiring crews have made this past week.

 

I know there has been discussion about this topic on here before, but this is really the first time MLB is considering it.

 

I know some arguments against replay are that it would lengthen the game, and that blown calls have "always been part of the game." However, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would be against a system that would ensure the proper outcome.

 

Thoughts?

[Bote McBoteface]

I don't much care as long as the regulate it so that every close call isn't getting reviewed.

[wekse]

good, and let's take it a step further and get a robot behind home plate.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I have absolutely no problems with using instant replay IF it's only used to determine whether or not a ball is a home run

[ConstableRabbit]

I have absolutely no problems with using instant replay IF it's only used to determine whether or not a ball is a home run

This is why I have a problem with instant replay. Home Runs are not the only important plays in a game and there are certainly times where a close play at the plate or a base is more important than a HR (see: game 163 last year). Sometimes whether or not a player made a full swing can be more important. Because they cannot and should not review every close play, I think it's dumb to have instant replay at all.

[Outshined_One]

Here's my question about instant replay...

 

Let's say a hitter has a hit which is erroneously ruled a home run by the umpires, where the ball bounced back onto the field of play. Let's also say there are runners on first and second at the time. After going to instant replay, the umpires determine there was no home run.

 

What is the proper ruling? It's a pretty easy call when the ball turns out to be foul or turns out to be a home run, but what if it turns out to be fair, not a home run, and in the field of play?

[woodchip2153]

Here's my question about instant replay...

 

Let's say a hitter has a hit which is erroneously ruled a home run by the umpires, where the ball bounced back onto the field of play. Let's also say there are runners on first and second at the time. After going to instant replay, the umpires determine there was no home run.

 

What is the proper ruling? It's a pretty easy call when the ball turns out to be foul or turns out to be a home run, but what if it turns out to be fair, not a home run, and in the field of play?

 

I assume it would be a ground rule double.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Here's my question about instant replay...

 

Let's say a hitter has a hit which is erroneously ruled a home run by the umpires, where the ball bounced back onto the field of play. Let's also say there are runners on first and second at the time. After going to instant replay, the umpires determine there was no home run.

 

What is the proper ruling? It's a pretty easy call when the ball turns out to be foul or turns out to be a home run, but what if it turns out to be fair, not a home run, and in the field of play?

my guess is each runner would advance 2 bases as in a rule book/ground rule double. I should also clarify my stance -- I don't mean for situations like Geo's, I meant in order to determine if the ball was fair or foul. I absolutely don't mind the human element involved with umpires, even the bad ones. the calls tend to even out over the course of a season.

[CubbieBum]

It's about time they got instant replay for home run calls. However anything beyond that should be off limits. You obviously can't allow reviews for strikes and balls, but also for what's a foul. Let's say someone hits it down the line and it just gets white but ump calls foul. You can't review it because you can't know for sure how far the runner would have gotten. Maybe and this is a big maybe you could do it the other way around. If it was actually foul but called fair because then you just put everyone back where they were and count it has a regular foul ball. The only other possibilty and I don't see this making the cut is reviewing whether it was s catch or not because like the other examples you know for sure what would happen if it really was a catch. If they called catch and it wasn't of course you don't know how far the runner would have gotten but you can just have the rule that it counts as a single no matter what and all runners advance only one base. It might suck if the runner was clearly rounding second when the ball was dropped but it sure beats getting the out it would have been without replay.

[chuckywang]

Here's my question about instant replay...

 

Let's say a hitter has a hit which is erroneously ruled a home run by the umpires, where the ball bounced back onto the field of play. Let's also say there are runners on first and second at the time. After going to instant replay, the umpires determine there was no home run.

 

What is the proper ruling? It's a pretty easy call when the ball turns out to be foul or turns out to be a home run, but what if it turns out to be fair, not a home run, and in the field of play?

 

Make a rule that anytime a ball bounces back onto the field of play, it's not initially ruled a home run. You can always go back later and correct it if need be.

[chuckywang]

I have absolutely no problems with using instant replay IF it's only used to determine whether or not a ball is a home run

 

I have no problems with using instant replay if it's only used to determine the correct call. I want the calls to be correct. Period.

[17 Seconds]

Good. I'm all for every different kind of instant replay. Home runs, safe/out calls, fair/foul balls, etc. I don't care how long it takes either.

[Roast]

I'm in favor of IR in some cases. I would make the following plays up for replay: Fair/Foul, HR/In play, Safe/out at any base.

 

I would then put in an NFL-style rule that each team only gets one or two replays per game.

[jersey cubs fan]

The reasons people give for being against instant replay are mind boggling.

[erik316wttn]

The reasons people give for being against instant replay are mind boggling.

 

Especially when you consider that they'd do a complete 180 on the topic as soon as the Cubs were on the opposing end of a complete BS call late in the regular season that affected the playoff race, or the playoffs themselves.

[erik316wttn]

I'm in favor of IR in some cases. I would make the following plays up for replay: Fair/Foul, HR/In play, Safe/out at any base.

 

I would then put in an NFL-style rule that each team only gets one or two replays per game.

 

I was thinking about IR the other day and was wondering if there would be a penalty for an upheld call, like there is in the NFL. What would it be? An out? A strike? I don't really think you can penalize there.

 

I'd be in favor of 2 calls per game per team, or every call coming at the discretion of the replay official.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm in favor of IR in some cases. I would make the following plays up for replay: Fair/Foul, HR/In play, Safe/out at any base.

 

I would then put in an NFL-style rule that each team only gets one or two replays per game.

 

I was thinking about IR the other day and was wondering if there would be a penalty for an upheld call, like there is in the NFL. What would it be? An out? A strike? I don't really think you can penalize there.

 

I'd be in favor of 2 calls per game per team, or every call coming at the discretion of the replay official.

 

There would be no penalty in baseball, but the main reason you lose a timeout in football is to prevent the abuse of coaches intentionally throwing the challenge flag on ridiculous plays just to give their defense a break, or just to call an offensive play without a timeout. In baseball, there are many fewer advantages that stalling can get you. and since there are other legal ways to stall, there won't be much advantage gained by the team issuing the challenge if they lose. So there really isn't any penalty necessary.

[Soul]

I'd rather not wait for spring training next year. Put it in at the all star break.

[erik316wttn]

I'd rather not wait for spring training next year. Put it in at the all star break.

 

I'm sure kinks need to be worked out first.

[Soul]

I'd rather not wait for spring training next year. Put it in at the all star break.

 

I'm sure kinks need to be worked out first.

 

Just have 'em walk into one of the dugouts and look at it on the screen. It's right there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not being totally serious. But I do find it really poor that there have been video screens all around them for years, and the umps just can't use them. Keep the truth from the eyes that are supposed to see the truth, but let everyone else view it at their leisure.

[Clem Fandango]

I'm all for it, regardless of what they use it for, as long as they use it properly. All the complaints I keep hearing on the TV shows about it taking too long is silly.

 

Oh no, it will take an extra 5 minutes to review a play and extend the length of the game. Boo hoo. Baseball games are long enough as it is, what's another 5-10 minutes? Seriously, what kind of important task do people have to do after baseball game that requires them to use the 5-10 minutes that were wasted determining an IR result? If it was so important that the IR deterred you from getting it done, you probably shouldn't be watching a baseball game in the first place.

 

"How far apart are you contractions honey?"

"I don't know, just get me to a hospital!!!!"

"I can't, the damn umpires won't get this stupid call right. You might be able to deliver our child safely if these idiots didn't implement the instant replay rule. But, the game is the game, hold on for a few more minutes, pumpkin"

[ConstableRabbit]

I'm in favor of IR in some cases. I would make the following plays up for replay: Fair/Foul, HR/In play, Safe/out at any base.

 

I would then put in an NFL-style rule that each team only gets one or two replays per game.

 

I was thinking about IR the other day and was wondering if there would be a penalty for an upheld call, like there is in the NFL. What would it be? An out? A strike? I don't really think you can penalize there.

 

I'd be in favor of 2 calls per game per team, or every call coming at the discretion of the replay official.

 

There would be no penalty in baseball, but the main reason you lose a timeout in football is to prevent the abuse of coaches intentionally throwing the challenge flag on ridiculous plays just to give their defense a break, or just to call an offensive play without a timeout. In baseball, there are many fewer advantages that stalling can get you. and since there are other legal ways to stall, there won't be much advantage gained by the team issuing the challenge if they lose. So there really isn't any penalty necessary.

The only thing I can think of is warming up a bullpen pitcher, which could be significant. Umpires already break up meetings between managers and their pitchers anyway -- using a replay "flag" or whatever could just take its place.

[TruffleShuffle]

The reasons people give for being against instant replay are mind boggling.

 

the worst one is "it'd slow down the game." it already slows down the game (or stops it, basically) when the umpires huddle up to discuss a call when none of them really knows whether or not the ball went over the fence. then no matter what the call is, the manager who has the call go against his team will come out and argue. if you have replay, you'll have the answer in less than a minute, and there's no reason for a manager to argue the call.

 

i also think that if an ump blows too many calls in a year, he should be fired. they can call this the "bruce froemming rule."

[Amazing_Grace]

Here's my question about instant replay...

 

Let's say a hitter has a hit which is erroneously ruled a home run by the umpires, where the ball bounced back onto the field of play. Let's also say there are runners on first and second at the time. After going to instant replay, the umpires determine there was no home run.

 

What is the proper ruling? It's a pretty easy call when the ball turns out to be foul or turns out to be a home run, but what if it turns out to be fair, not a home run, and in the field of play?

 

This scenario is easy. MLB simply tells the umpires that if there's doubt as to whether it's a home run or not, quickly rule the ball in play so that the play happens as it would assuming there was no HR, and then you can easily recheck whether it really was a HR and override the play. This is similar to what the NFL did the first couple years of the challenge system when you couldn't overturn a "down by contact" ruling. The officials were told to rule anything close a fumble knowing the play could easily be reversed. Now that rule has been changed, I would assume because the coaches were tired of using challenges on things that the official would have ruled the other way on, but didn't because the possible consequences of missing the call one way are worse than the other. MLB would never have that problem unless they went to some kind of challenge system, and I doubt they would.

 

As for the other "reviewable" plays, whether someone swung or not, and balls and strikes, should not be reviewable. Those calls have always been mostly subjective to begin with. Umpires call the zone differently, and who the hell even knows how they tell if the player swung (it looks totally arbritrary to me). It's part of the game. I would make safe/out calls reviewable in certain circumstances, such as plays at the plate and stolen base/tag out situations. Force outs really shouldn't be reviewable. I seldom see the umps get those wrong, and you'd end up reviewing every other groundout. Something that hasn't been brought up is whether a player legally caught a ball. There are a lot of plays that are ruled catches that look like traps where the ball ricocheted off the ground first.

 

The only problem with replay is that it slows down a game that already moves too slowly. This is a compelling argument. You have to find some way to keep reviews to a minimum or we'll have 4 to 5 hour games become a regularity. I've always thought the easiest solution to baseball's time dilemma is a pitch clock like the play clock in football or shot clock in basketball. You have X number of seconds between pitches. It keeps the Steve Trachsels of MLB from making a game nearly unwatchable. Coupled with limiting the number of timeouts called per inning and limiting the number of throws to first base, it would more than compensate for any instant replay time.

[erik316wttn]

The reasons people give for being against instant replay are mind boggling.

 

the worst one is "it'd slow down the game." it already slows down the game (or stops it, basically) when the umpires huddle up to discuss a call when none of them really knows whether or not the ball went over the fence. then no matter what the call is, the manager who has the call go against his team will come out and argue. if you have replay, you'll have the answer in less than a minute, and there's no reason for a manager to argue the call.

 

i also think that if an ump blows too many calls in a year, he should be fired. they can call this the "bruce froemming rule."

 

The umpire's union wouldn't allow it. An ump could show up hung over, eject everyone that so much as looks at him cross-eyed, and miss a ton of calls per game, and he still wouldn't be fired.