Please, PLEASE! Bud, don't ruin my sport

Looks like Major League Baseball is thinking of using instant replay; why is this necessary? Have we all caught ADD from the football fans? I'm disapointed that I haven't seen anyone in the dominant sports media passionantly oppose this. Does anyone agree with me?

Well, there have been some horribly wrong calls. Game-changing calls.

Do you know to what extent it will be used? I would hope not on each pitch for strikes, etc. I enjoy watching baseball, but if it loses the human element and becomes even slower-moving with dragged out technical replays, that would be a pity.

Well, they say "only on home-runs", but I'm sure it's just an excuse to get the foot in the door, and then, "why not at first base?; plays at the plate?; diving catches?; strike zone?" About the bad calls, there have always been bad calls; in 1985 there may have been a championship-changing call. I think the umpires have just had a bad week, I don't think their skills are deteriorating.

I'm still trying to reconcile myself to the DH or, as some of us call it, the OFG.

(Old Fat Guy)

Yes, I despise the DH rule.

I understand using it in football because of the larger number of players on the field (especially all piled up) that would make it harder for the referees to get a good angle, and also because, with a much smaller number of games, one bad call could ruin a season. But with baseball, while umpires are going to and do make mistakes, they generally have a better view (or at least a better chance to get a good view), and with the large number of games in a season, the bad calls should even out so that they don't have a significant impact on a team's chances of getting to the playoffs.

And if you watch the game on TV, where instant replay is the routine, it's pretty clear how much the umpires are right, anyway...most of the time.

#4 krolik - okay, I'll bite. What is the OFG?

I could see the instant replay for HR calls only, but I do understand the dread that the instant replay will start creeping into the rest of the game.

A better idea, in my opinion: MLB is talking about how healthy the sport is and how much they're raking in. OK, time to spend some of that coin and add two more umpires up the foul lines. Either that, or just put somebody in the stands next to each foul pole who can tell the umps where the ball went.

I, too, hate the DH.

The strange thing is that I heard that Selig has been pushing the umps to speed up the game this year, while instant replay will obviously tend to slow it down. Maybe Selig is trying to preemptively quicken the pace, in anticipation of that slow-down.

Of course, replays will probably be uncommon, given the rarity of the kinds of "border calls" that warrant it. On the other hand, I can think of three or four such calls (one clearly blown) that I have seen in the past few days.

I think the trade-off of game pace and loss of "the human element" for greater accuracy is probably worth it. Think of the playoffs, when your team could lose it all by a blown home run call. While it's easy to say now that that's just part of the game, you won't be saying it then. But the replay has to be limited to border calls, which are the farthest from the umpires and easiest to blow.

>10 tom1066:

I actually wouldn't want replay even if my team got royally tooled by a bad call in game seven of the World Series! Sure, I'd be upset, but not enough to endorse replay. I'm much more concerned about the game as a whole than I am about my own team.

Just watch this, and then try to tell me you want replay. *sniff* I'm going to need a minute . . .

Or, if the manager had to challenge a call to get a replay and had to pledge a fifth of his salary to forfeit if he incorrectly challenges or something like that. :)

I can understand the view that increased accuracy is a good thing, somewhat. But I think there should be severe penalties or boundaries in place to ensure that it doesn't become commonplace and is only used in extreme border cases.

>10 tom1066: Yes, I would be upset if the championship was "stolen" from my team, but I'd get over it pretty quickly. I think the introduction of instant replay may affect how much I enjoy the sport in general in the future.

#8 karenmarie

OFG = Old Fat Guy

As I understand it, the replay will be limited to specific circumstances and managers will only have a certain number of times they can invoke it. I have not heard whether managers burn one of their times regardless of whether the call stands or not (as in football, where time-outs are not charged if review overturns the field call).

In my view, managers should get one review, and that's it. Realistically, few games will have multiple close border calls, and limiting to one review will force managers to use it sparingly.

I admit that baseball "purists" may find replay objectionable, but I'm really not sure what "pure" baseball is. What is called baseball now, with the DH, commercial breaks, situational relievers, cupped bats, humidors, etc., would certainly not seem pure to a fan from the 1950s, much less one from the 1850s.

Some things about baseball should never change, but I'm not convinced relying on human perception to accurately see what happened 200 feet away in a millisecond is one of them.

#14 krolik thanks! Inquiring minds needed to know.

>15 tom1066:

If the managers can only dispute a certain number of calls in any one game, then "getting it right" every time isn't really the point, is it? It's just another silly game within the game (just like in football). I for one am not looking forward to watching Terry Francona or Clint Hurdle wheel their Clown Car over the third-base line, beep their big red nose, and throw out the challenge flag. If Bud does decide to allow this abomination (Ultimate Goodness forbid), I hope the challenge mechanism is one of those little bicycle air horns. *bee-beep, bee-beep, bee-beep!*

http://www.raleigh.co.uk/media/panda/thumbs/ABH104.jpg

Hey krolik, would this be an OFCG?

I think human errors ARE part of the game, whether by umpires, players, managers, or fans. How much fun would baseball be if we couldn't argue over whether a manager made the right call at a crucial time, or groan about how an umpire totally missed a call, a player botched a play, or a fan interfered? It's about sport and entertainment, not controlled, mechanized perfection.

>19 carlym:

Absolutely right: human errors are an inextricable part of the legend and lore of the game. Why can't we just pretend that life isn't always fair?

>18 BOB81:

Yes, that looks like a prime example.

On another note: I just finished reading Bill Bryson's The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid. It's about an era, not about baseball specifically, but it contains a smart tribute to his father, who was a baseball writer, and a very good one. The excerpts about Bobby Thomson and Bill Mazeroski are worth checking out.

I think human errors ARE part of the game, whether by umpires, players, managers, or fans.

That doesn't mean we should celebrate them. If an infield is full of rocks, we don't say "errors are a part of the game." No--we drag the field (technology!) to reduce the bad hops. So why should we tolerate umpire's mistakes if we can find a way to reduce them? I consider myself a purist, too, but I've seen umpires consult home run replays on several occasions, and nobody had anything but praise for their desire to get the call right.

So the biggest problem with replays isn't the fact that umpires will be making fewer errors, it's the implementation of a system with minimal impact on the fan's experience of the game.

In any case, cheer up. The game of baseball has already survived the DH, interleague play, a cancelled World Series, steroids, a thrown World Series and numerous other gambling scandals, cocaine and amphetamines, domes and artificial turf, and the Red Sox winning the World Series. So an occasional video review is not going to hurt anything.

>22 Topper:

Do you really think replay has made football better? I don't think living with errors is akin to celebrating them, and besides, they only drag the infield between innings! Minimal impact, how do you know it will be a minimal impact? How has Baseball survived the 30+ years since this technology has been available, and we only discover that we "Need" it now?

And to be realistic, the vast majority of "bang-bang" plays are not reviewable in a practical sense. Even if the umpire did blow the call in these instances, the evidence is rarely going to be indisputable. So replay is probably going to be used for fair/foul, interference, and home-run calls, not safe/out calls. (I would personally be in favor of a Questec-style balls and strikes system, but that's a different issue and is not going to happen any time soon)

>24 Topper:

So you don't think that any form of replay could become the slipperiest of slopes? If we can't get all of the calls right, why must we get all of the fair/foul/HR calls right?

>23 BOB81:

I have no opinion of the football replay system.

But the time to be spent reviewing a home run call is currently spent on the manager yelling, screaming, kicking dirt, and throwing bases. So two instant replays (at most) would have a negligible impact on the length of the game.

>26 Topper:

But would it really make Baseball better? I personally think that replay in football is pretty silly. I probably wouldn't be against replay in Baseball if I hadn't seen what a mess it is in football.

>25 BOB81:

No. We should get the calls right that can be gotten right. I don't see what's so controversial about wanting the umpire to have less of an impact on the outcome of the game. They should at least try something out (in spring training or the minors) and see how it works in practice. If it's too awkward and time-consuming, then fine.

>27 BOB81:

Yes. It would make baseball better.

Does this mean an end to yelling, screaming, kicking dirt, and throwing bases? Say it ain't so Bud, say it ain't so! I can just see Sweet Lou going out there and curtsying to the umpire, "A replay if you please, sir?"

If we take enough time, I'll bet we can get all of them right; we'll wonder how we could ever watch a sport that was so unfair and so imperfect for so long.

With liberty and justice for all.

>15 tom1066: et al.

Agree that "pure" baseball is a myth. But one of the game's lasting attractions is its sense of continuity. And although change is inevitable, some changes are more invasive than others.

I would prefer, as someone else suggested, the addition of an umpire on each foul line. There are other, less invasive ways of making calls more accurate than instant replay. The Astros just moved one of the yellow lines on an oddly-shaped portion of Minute Maid Park to make it easier for umpires to see if a ball hit there is a home run. I don't know much about how umpires are trained, but maybe that could be improved.

It's the post-hoc solution of instant replay that bothers me. In response to Topper, I don't think umpiring errors of any sort are being "celebrated" because baseball doesn't have instant replay. My point is that once they're done, they're done, and they are part of what makes baseball interesting and fun to discuss. Players try to prevent playing errors by practicing, but they don't get do-overs when they screw up. They just get mocked by sportswriters and fans.

Baseball has also made other efforts to prevent unnecessary delays in the game, and instant replay seems inconsistent with that goal.

>33 carlym:

Celebrating the "human element" of umpiring is celebrating error. And you wouldn't even *need* a
challenge like in football. All you would really need is an extra umpire in the booth watching the videotape, who's authorized to overturn boundary plays. Nothing needs to change on the field. 15 seconds of review (the time spent arguing with the umpire) and the call is corrected. Believe me, fans will not run out of stuff to argue about.

>34 Topper:

15 seconds? You can't be serious. The NFL replay system was originally supposed to take no more than 90 seconds; didn't quite work out that way. And they still get tons of calls wrong anyhow, replay and all.

Baseball is disimilar to most other sports in that each playing field is unique, with different dimensions and ground rules. I think that leaves more room for error on dimension-related calls, both in getting the call correct and determining what is "correct". If implemented properly, I don't have any issue with reviewing home run/foul calls.

Tennis, which would be the last sport outside of baseball I would expect to do anything intelligently, actually has a decent review system. You are allocated a fixed number (I forget what it is) of reviews (challenges) per set (more for tiebreakers) and you only use them up if the ruling is against you. There is still an element of strategy involved in deciding when to use them. This might not be the answer for baseball, but it is an example of a good implementation of the replay.

...

Sidetracking back to the DH, I don't like the idea in principal, but in practice, if it gives us a few more years of hitting from the Frank Thomases and Edgar Martinezes of the world, it's hard to summarily dismiss.

...

Change can be good or bad, but it shouldn't be avoided simply to retain a "purity" that never existed. Personally, I think the world would be just fine with a few more delays. If a baseball game is taking too much of your precious time, you're probably missing the point anyway.

I saw a note in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday that MLB is looking to institute instant replay by August, presumably so as to have it in place and bug-free by the playoffs.

Bud Selig was apparently motivated by a rash of recent botched calls.

But how did we get here? The technology has been around for 30-35 years, but only within the last 2-3 years has anyone really wanted this.

Selig follows the wind, as he did on steroids, after years of looking the other way.

>39 krolik:

And it's an ill wind that blows no one any good. But where did this sudden gust come from? Seems to me it comes from an incessant, skull-numbing media drumbeat. But what does the Dominant Sports Media have to gain? Longer commercial breaks?

Perhaps it comes from people wanting the outcome of the game determined by the players, and not by the umpires.

>41 Topper:

What a transcendental epiphany we (fans) have finally had!

I'm underwhelmed.

>3 BOB81:

Why lookie here. The drumbeat has started already.

I don't want to say I told you so, but . . .

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sweetspot/0-4-85/Gardenhire-s-lousy-idea.html

Ugh. I suppose it's inevitable. I always thought George Carlin's comparison of baseball and football was correct and made baseball look good. It's really a shame that baseball must look to football for (really bad) ideas.

I also scrolled back through this thread and after reading post 22, I was struck that the point made there was this - why should we tolerate human beings? I'm sure that someone more willing to research it than I could point out how that's another example of baseball reflecting our nation as a whole.

I'd be happy if the umpires would just talk to each other. Half the time, one ump makes a bad call because he was blocked or out of position and the other three all saw the whole thing and stand there with their arms crossed. If there is a dispute, the crew chief should call them all together and make a decision. You don't need a replay for something 20,000 people and three umps saw clear as day.

I really dislike the Yankees, but I hope they win 14-0 on Sunday. If this series goes 4 games, Gardenhire won't shut up about this until he has his Clown Car and his little red flag (see link in Message 45).

Everybody deserves a clown car.

Why, lookie here. Buster Olney isn't dead yet. Anyone know if he's even sick?

#50> Unfortunately, I'm not an ESPN "Insider" (not do wish to become one), so can't read past the second paragraph.

I liked Huston Street's comments after the "foul ball that wasn't" incident in Game 3 of the Colorado/Philadelphia series: "I don't wish there was instant replay in baseball," Street said. "It would take away the purity of the game. Tonight it went against me. Umpires do the best they can do. They are human beings."

Whether you want instant replay in baseball or not, I appreciate it when someone doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction to a single event that goes against them. You don't always see that sort of perspective from players or coaches.

Yes, that call went against the Rockies, but on the other hand, maybe if the ball is properly called foul Utley hits a HR on the next pitch.

That's refreshing. Good for Huston Street.

. . . and the DMS drumbeat goes on . . .

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&am...

"I generally do not favor increased instant replay . . . Nonetheless, there should be a league official in a video booth who can quickly overrule an obvious mistake."

Yep. Jerk.

Nothing like a good knee-jerk reaction to screw up a fine sport. I know, let's make the World Series home field dependent on who wins the All-Star Game. Oh, wait . . . .

I do agree, though, that the umps should be chosen to work the post-season based on merit.

Interesting thoughts from Bruce Markusen : http://tinyurl.com/ykobq24

Replay vindicated! Hallelujah! Finally, the proof we needed! Get it right, I say! I can't wait to read/hear the DMS ecstasies over this one (what was that camera doing there anyway?). It's all over. I'm so depressed right now. Goodbye baseball.

>55 findundercan:
Good article, but it's all over now.

Oh, and now that it's over, here's another "Get it right, I say!" article by some other @#$%.

Selig's committee will debate replays

This can't end well.

Replay at first base is coming, too: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=8616789

More: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=300602106

Watching that play last night almost made me sick to my stomach. I feel bad for everyone involved, but I'm torn about more replay creeping into baseball. If they add first base, why not home plate? Then all the bases? What about for trapped balls in the outfield? The foul lines?

If it ever comes to using replay for balls and strikes we'll be looking at 7 hour games.

>60 DaynaRT:
I agree. I think if Bud had taken a firm stand against any replay when he had the chance, the media drumbeat would have died down and eventually ceased. Unfortunately, he didn't, and now we're doomed.

I could not agree more. In spite of all of Selig's non-traditional moves, he claims to be a baseball traditionalist. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say that.