Instant Replay for MLB

[Tbadder]

I gotta say I love the idea of a non-player determining the result of a sporting event. This kind of human contradiction is fun (and no this isn't a blue ink comment so stop right there) and exciting. Betrand Russell pointed out that it is our irrationality that makes humans unique, not our rationality. By all means, if we have a way to correct an injustice or be more accurate, I think we should reject it for the sake of entertainment value, which is the highest priority.

[jeffy]

I gotta say I love the idea of a non-player determining the result of a sporting event.

 

Huh? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/ohwell.gif

 

 

[jeffy]

Yeah, I think as far as determining fair/foul or home runs, replay is fine.

I don't know that there are many other calls where replay can pretty much always give you a definitive answer...and probably quickly, in most cases.

 

On a close safe/out call it is often hard to tell. On a force out, you can not really determine exactly when the ball makes contact with the glove and on a tag play, it is often hard to tell if/when the glove actually makes contact with the runner.

[Team Canada]

Everyone always makes the "human element" argument until their team gets screwed by a call. Are you saying you'd rather be able to wax poetic about the beauty of human arbitration rather than win a World Series?

 

 

It's about time. Calls should be made correctly. I don't care whether it's a machine or man that does it, and in baseball, it's usually pretty obvious what the right call is on replay.

[brewcrew00]

Everyone always makes the "human element" argument until their team gets screwed by a call. Are you saying you'd rather be able to wax poetic about the beauty of human arbitration rather than win a World Series?

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. I do enjoy the human element, and would continue to enjoy it regardless of its impact on the Brewers.

 

[nate82]

The human element isn't going anywhere with instant replay. A human still has to view the instant replay and the call sometimes is wrong when someone looks at the instant replay. Also with the instant replay that is being suggested the majority of the plays that will be called will still be under human control. Balls/Strikes and Safe/Out plays will still be called by a human umpire and will not be determined through instant replay.

 

The human element in baseball with instant replay will not be going anywhere it will still be there. I don't get this argument at all since the human element of messing something up will still be there. I just don't think umpires should be the ones making the calls when they are 200+ ft away from a ball that they could easily miss read the play. Plus the umpires already gather around in a group during a game to determine if it is fair/foul or if it was a home run or not. The instant replay wouldn't take up any more time than what they already do.

[TooLiveBrew]

I really like the idea of having instant replay started under a 'challenge' basis, similar to the NFL rules. Make grounds for calls that cannot be challenged, and then give each team (for example's sake) 2 challenges per game. You could award one challenge per team (as long as the team(s) had 0 remaining) if a game goes extra innings.

[nate82]

I really like the idea of having instant replay started under a 'challenge' basis, similar to the NFL rules. Make grounds for calls that cannot be challenged, and then give each team (for example's sake) 2 challenges per game. You could award one challenge per team (as long as the team(s) had 0 remaining) if a game goes extra innings.

Yuck I hate the NFL's replay system. But I do love the NCAA's football replay system. It takes it away from the coaches and gives it to the guys upstairs who can see if there needs to be a challenge or not. You would see managers using this to get a bullpen guy some more time to warm up or stall a pitcher/batter. Not really something I want to give to a manager I would rather have an official upstairs do this like in college football.

 

[sbrylski]

No challenges, I hate the challenges.

 

I actually liked what I heard on 107.5 this morning in Green Bay - if the ball comes back onto the field, its in play. If it goes over the fence, its a homerun. By making the top of the fence a HR and the side in play, that makes the umpire's job 100x harder. Really, its pretty simple. Like Wrigley, as they said on the radio, there is never any dispute - if its in the basket, its a HR. If its not, its a live ball. Go tweak some ballparks.

[TooLiveBrew]

Glad for the feedback, nate & Sbryl. I hadn't thought the 'challenges' idea through very well (clearly!); I just like that it would make the managers place some form of value on arguing/debating a call.

 

I think the/nate's idea of making it like NCAA rules is probably the better approach, even though that does make you wonder about how lengthy the process might get. That said, I really think it's a kind of straw-man argument to say, 'Hey! That takes longer!' when discussing the strengths & weaknesses of instant replay. I don't know why people get so hung up on that -- the NFL & NCAA certainly haven't had any outrageously lengthy games due to instant replay, and given how relatively infrequently MLB would use IR, I can't see the extra time it'd tack on outweighing the good it can do.

[Brew Man Dan]

New news on the instant replay front:

 

Umpires and MLB have come to an agreement

 

LINK

[lcbj68c]

Hardware is already being installed in most ballparks and September 1st seems like a good start date.

[billyhallfan]

i hate this, how come the hitters don't get a second chance to swing at a pitch, or the pitchers don't get to fix their mistakes...mistakes will happen, always have, always will, it is part of the game, and I think it should still be...

[bball123h]

We can correct bad calls. We do not have the technology to correct bad swings/throws/plays 100% of the time. It is long overdue, and I'm glad we won't have to miss a World Series appearance because of the "cookies crumbling" against us in the form of a blown call.

[NeedMoreFans]

Since it was made official today, I'm just going to say that I like the very limited use of it, but I don't agree with implementing it mid-season. Yes, teams may benefit from it, but what about those teams who were victims of questionable calls earlier in the year? They don't get that same benefit. It should have been implemented opening day 2009.

[lcbj68c]

I'm taking a wait and see approach.

[Baldkin]

They were interviewing the head of the ump's union (I forget the name) on the radio the other day, and he said that out of 1500+ games this year, only 16 plays would've been reviewed.

 

So, really, this isn't something that's going to slow down the game. I'm all for it. I wonder if fan interference (ala Jeffery Maier) will be reviewable.

[jason21nl]

so replay was used today in the Rays vs Yankees game. Even on replay you couldn't tell if it was fair or foul. It didn't take to long for them to get a ruling on it.

[BrewCrewForever]

A-Rod crushed that ball. I couldn't tell after ESPN showed multiple views. It was tough.

[TooLiveBrew]

I was watching on the YES feed, with their standard incredible camera-work (being serious there... not tongue-in-cheek). The ball looked fair, and the umps got it right on the field, real-time. That's always been my biggest reason to use instant replay -- imo it'll mostly showcase just how good the umps actually are.

 

Took about 2 minutes for the review. The ball was hooking, and essentially wrapped around the foul pole, albeit well beyond the actual pole. Also, A-Rod made sure to point out in the post-game interview that he was the first player ever involved in instant replay. What a tool.

[Invader3K]

Well, the irony with A-Rod is that he was involved with a controversial home run decision earlier in the year.

 

It looked like it hit not the foul pole itself, but the metal "netting" that hangs of the pole. I only saw it a couple times, though.

[brewerfan82]

None of the replays shown on tv showed conclusively whether or not that ball was fair or foul. The camera up the line wasn't even in line with the foul line/pole and the camera in the outfield didn't show where the ball was when it crossed the fence.

 

The umpires made the correct call on the instant replay, not because they were correct, but because the replays didn't show any conclusive evidence otherwise. Why have instant replay if you don't have cameras in place to demonstrate accurately where the ball is when it crosses the fence?

 

Place two cameras behind homeplate in line with the foul poles and homeplate for balls (not over the pole) that are hit down the line. And place two cameras on the foul poles (like the ones used on goal posts in the NFL) that can show where the ball is when it goes over the fence regardless of whether it's above the foul pole or not. This would also give a good angle on balls hit just over the fence in fair territory.

 

Seems pretty doable to me and should make for pretty conclusive replays.

[TooLiveBrew]

It looked like it hit not the foul pole itself, but the metal "netting" that hangs of the pole. I only saw it a couple times, though.

 

It sounds like everyone else saw the ESPN feed. Trust me, the YES camerawork is nearly flawless every single game, and they had a great angle of the hit. It caromed off the facade/catwalk high above the LF bleachers. The high-arcing blast was pulled by the RH Rodriguez, and hooked 'around' the foul pole (even though it traveled far past the actual pole). I didn't see anything in the YES replays to indicate that the call was anything short of correct.

 

To me, the real head-scratcher was the 1-2 fastball that appeared to nail the inner half that was somehow called ball two. Unless I'm on crazy pills, that AB should have been over before Rodriguez even got the chance to hit the bomb at the 2-2 count.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

TLB - I did not see the YES angle...the ESPN feed was off center so it was tough to tell. The only conclusive thing was that when it finally hit the catwalk it was in foul territory...it was impossible to tell if it bent around the pole. My question was...there is another yellow pole farther back from the primary foul pole, doesn't that enter into play? If that is part of the pole, then it seemed to hit foul of that pole. Anyone know what the ground rules are there?