MLB considering expanding replay

[erik316wttn]

They're thinking of expanding it to trapped catches in the OF, and fair/foul batted balls.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6353837

[Schwarber Fan]

Just fully implement it for god's sake

[CubmanPi]

Yea, I'm not very big on instant replay, but if they're going to have it, then just have it for anything that isn't balls and strikes or the "neighborhood" "rule" for forceouts at second.

[Soul]

Just fully implement it for god's sake

 

+1

 

 

Stop piece-mealing this thing.

[Irrelevant Dude]

For me personally, replay takes away from my enjoyment of the game. It really limits some of the excitement of the moment. I can't fully enjoy a spectacular NFL touchdown catch because I'm always wondering if it is going to be overturned. I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I don't want to be looking toward the replay monitors on an RBI base hit down the line because I'm worried that the run will be taken off the board.

[TruffleShuffle]

But the game being decided by a flagrantly incorrect call does not subtract from your enjoyment?

[erik316wttn]

But the game being decided by a flagrantly incorrect call does not subtract from your enjoyment?

 

That's the gist of it for me, really. If it ensures the correct outcome, then I'm in favor.

[Omar]

Just fully implement it for god's sake

 

+1

 

 

Stop piece-mealing this thing.

 

(Except balls and strikes)

[JoshiQ]

Then why even have umpires (except for home plate)? Just have some guy up in the booth watching on TV and he can make the out/safe calls.

 

I've always been a fan of the human error aspect of the game. It's just part of baseball to me. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't.

[TruffleShuffle]

Then why even have umpires (except for home plate)? Just have some guy up in the booth watching on TV and he can make the out/safe calls.

 

I've always been a fan of the human error aspect of the game. It's just part of baseball to me. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't.

 

for the same reason that you have officials on the field of play in every other game, to make a ruling on the routine plays (which constitute 99% of the calls probably) and rulings on close calls, with those rulings being maintained if video cannot change the call conclusively. do you really want a guy in a booth spending 15 minutes trying to figure out a bang-bang play at first? you let the umpire make the call, if look at it for a minute or two, if you can't overturn the call then move on.

 

"sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't" just strikes me as lazy and irrational.

[Soul]

Then why even have umpires (except for home plate)? Just have some guy up in the booth watching on TV and he can make the out/safe calls.

 

I've always been a fan of the human error aspect of the game. It's just part of baseball to me. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't.

 

It's not about whether it "goes your way" or not.

 

It's about ensuring to the greatest degree possible (and practical) that games are decided correctly, which flows into correct statistics, correct playoff/non-playoff teams, correct draft positions -- everything.

[JoshiQ]

Then why even have umpires (except for home plate)? Just have some guy up in the booth watching on TV and he can make the out/safe calls.

 

I've always been a fan of the human error aspect of the game. It's just part of baseball to me. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't.

 

for the same reason that you have officials on the field of play in every other game, to make a ruling on the routine plays (which constitute 99% of the calls probably) and rulings on close calls, with those rulings being maintained if video cannot change the call conclusively. do you really want a guy in a booth spending 15 minutes trying to figure out a bang-bang play at first? you let the umpire make the call, if look at it for a minute or two, if you can't overturn the call then move on.

 

"sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't" just strikes me as lazy and irrational.

 

But the guy in the booth wouldn't need 15 minutes. He'd just hit a red light for an out and a green light for safe. It would take a lot less time for him to do it that way for the "routine plays" and all of the bang-bang plays are going to go up to his booth anyways. And like you said, it wouldn't take 15 minutes, it would take a minute or two. And if you want to make it so the manager can only "throw the red flag" on 2-3 plays a game then eventually a call will be missed anyways.

 

There really would be no reason for umps.

 

And what the "sometimes it goes your way" comment has to do with being lazy is beyond me.

[JoshiQ]

Then why even have umpires (except for home plate)? Just have some guy up in the booth watching on TV and he can make the out/safe calls.

 

I've always been a fan of the human error aspect of the game. It's just part of baseball to me. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't.

 

It's not about whether it "goes your way" or not.

 

It's about ensuring to the greatest degree possible (and practical) that games are decided correctly, which flows into correct statistics, correct playoff/non-playoff teams, correct draft positions -- everything.

 

The plays are normally called correctly. The ones that aren't are probably close enough that there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn the call. The time it would take to fix incorrect calls and then the argument that would ensue is just not worth it. What I'm saying about the "goes your way" comment is every team will end up getting the same amount of unfair calls by the end of the season. And it will probably end up with the right teams still being playoff teams and getting the right draft order.

[NonProfitCow]

What I'm saying about the "goes your way" comment is every team will end up getting the same amount of unfair calls by the end of the season.

Is this some kind of magic or natural law?

[JoshiQ]

What I'm saying about the "goes your way" comment is every team will end up getting the same amount of unfair calls by the end of the season.

Is this some kind of magic or natural law?

 

Magical.

[CubmanPi]

Instead of the magical "bad calls even out in the end" rule, I think it's worth considering that, when every team gets 27 outs instead of the game being played on a clock, and when there are 162 games (approx 4374 outs) in a season, the impact of any one play in terms of an entire season is severely insignificant. Add to this insignificance that questionable calls go in all directions over the course of the season, and replay turns out to be pretty inconsequential.

 

Even considering that, however, using instant replay during the season is worthwhile because it keeps the process in practice for when playoffs roll around, and during the playoffs, anything outside of balls/strikes should be fair game.

[TruffleShuffle]

Instead of the magical "bad calls even out in the end" rule, I think it's worth considering that, when every team gets 27 outs instead of the game being played on a clock, and when there are 162 games (approx 4374 outs) in a season, the impact of any one play in terms of an entire season is severely insignificant. Add to this insignificance that questionable calls go in all directions over the course of the season, and replay turns out to be pretty inconsequential.

 

hockey is half as many games - not a huge difference like the nfl - but playoff spots in both leagues this year came down to games on the last day. now you could make the same argument in hockey, but if a bad goal call costs a team like the rangers a point, and they miss the playoffs by a point, which ends up costing them a chance at a stanley cup along with lots of revenue for each extra playoff game, and you can see how a seemingly minor mistake ends up having huge repercussions.