Let's reign in the Umps

[futurefan]

I know this will open up a huge can of worms, but here goes.

I believe it is time to begin discussion on a ( replay) challenge system on any call made by umpires in a baseball game. I hated the system when they installed it in tennis tournaments. Within 1 week I could see the value of the system and after a few years I cannot believe it was not done sooner. As for the human element, it is over rated in my opinion. I have never watched a sporting event of any kind to see the officials do their thing, and in tennis (with the challenge system) the linesman have become all but invisible in all matches where the system is in place. Players such as John McEnroe terrorized the system with out of control rants in many matches. Today there are no arguments in tennis as the challenge system allows for a player to get his "day in court" and move on with a correct call. I realize that nothing could be done until a new CBA is done with the boys in blue but I would like to see discussion begin now.

Advantages:

No arguing with umpires as the play would be replayed on the jumbo screen and seen to be correct or faulty. Done deal

I believe it would actually shorten the time of game as it could be done quickly on screen and there would be no reason for the manager to go on the field and argue with the umpire for no reason.

The umpires would not have the ability to incorrectly change the outcome of the game.

Ejections would be a thing of the past as either the player or the ump would be shown to incorrect on screen to all fans

Go ahead and shoot me down with this idea but it works very well in all sports where the technology is available..

[Invader3K]

They already have Questec in all the stadiums now, if I'm not mistaken. The home plate could simply relay the balls and strikes called by the computer. Seems easy enough. As far as other calls, I wouldn't have a problem with maybe giving each manager one appeal a game, or something. I wouldn't want it to be like the NFL where every other play seems to go for review.

[futurefan]

I agree that there should be a limited number of challenges. If they are right on the challenge, it carries over and they do not lose it.

[T B0NE 10]

What if the bases are loaded with 2 outs and a line drive hits the line but the ump calls it foul.

 

When he corrects it, how many runs score? This is one of my problems with instant replay in baseball.

 

Thats the thing with the foul and fair home runs- they can actually correct it correctly.

[bani1717]

Well, they could just err on the side of calling it in play. It's not any different than the current possibility of a non home run being called a home run, only to be reversed.

 

Does anyone know how exactly the Questec system works? I'm just curious how it adjusts for height differences and batting stance differences when looking at the strike zone and calling balls/strikes.

[topper09er]

I know this will open up a huge can of worms, but here goes.

 

Probably not as most people on here seem to favor this.

 

No arguing with umpires as the play would be replayed on the jumbo screen and seen to be correct or faulty. Done deal

 

There were at least 2 plays today that were too close to call even with instant replay, baseball plays are far from done deal. Same thing in teh NFL, its like everyone assumed if you add replay there will never be a bad call ever again. In reality its just not true, pretty much any play in baseball that is close enough for an ump to get wrong is so close that you cant even tell on replay. Plus showing it on the screen will only cause the fans to cheer every call for the home team and boo the others.

 

I believe it would actually shorten the time of game as it could be done quickly on screen and there would be no reason for the manager to go on the field and argue with the umpire for no reason.

 

Um, as Rock would say, "I mean, are you kiddin' me?" Again, today, several "reviewable calls (at first only) and no manager arguements. Manager arguements are pretty rare and certainly do not take any longer than it would to show the replay on the screen several times and have the umpires come together and change a call, plus, any call that got changed based on a replay where it was too close to tell would cause a manager to come out and argue.

 

The umpires would not have the ability to incorrectly change the outcome of the game.

 

One call does not ever effect the outcome of a game. If you think you got screwed out of a run by a call then win the game by more runs. Show me one example where 1 single call actaully changed the outcome of a game. (The brewers -Dbacks fair ball call does not count, that happened in the 7th inning (I think) plus how do you know he wouldnt have hit another double the next pitch?) That blown strike from Dif against the cubs on July 3rd? Well, Ryan Braun had a runner on 2nd in the top of the 9th, get a hit there and we win....

 

Ejections would be a thing of the past as either the player or the ump would be shown to incorrect on screen to all fans

 

In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not.

 

 

This does not work well in football, it just prolongs the game and wastes time and causes the refs to be even worse. It doesnt work for baseball, there are way too many close calls in a game, pretty soon each manager will want 10 challenges per game and the umps will still be right every time.

 

Also, a strike is not from the arm pits to the knees or whatever it says in the rulebook, it is whatever the umpire decides is a strike.

[nate82]

What if the bases are loaded with 2 outs and a line drive hits the line but the ump calls it foul.

 

When he corrects it, how many runs score? This is one of my problems with instant replay in baseball.

Ground rule double would probably apply in that situation it would suck for the team batting but at least some runs come in instead of possibly none.

[Baldkin]

One call does not ever effect the outcome of a game. If you think you got screwed out of a run by a call then win the game by more runs. Show me one example where 1 single call actaully changed the outcome of a game.

Jeffery Maier.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200808253345251

[topper09er]

One call does not ever effect the outcome of a game.

Jeffery Maier.

First, that allowed the game to be tied in the bottom of the 8th inning at 4-4 and the Yankees won in the bottom of the 11th. The Yankees also won the series 4-1...Lets see, first of all the ball Jeter hit missed being a HR by about 1 ft, so if there was a little wind that day it would have been a HR and no big deal. The Orioles allowed an unearned run in the 2nd inning, dont do that and they win. The Orioles left 11 men on base and were 0-9 with RISP, I would say their inablilty to hit with RISP cost them the game more than that call.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Regarding the tennis analogy, tennis has a replay where an in/out call can be made in seconds with a computer. It is very quick and efficient and, since that is about the only call that ever needs to be made in a tennis match, it is very effective. It is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to instant replay. Reviewing plays on the bases/at the plate, trapped balls in the OF, home run calls etc. would take more time and does not eliminate the human element like tennis does. Would it be increase the number of correct calls? Probably. Significantly so? I'd argue not. Would it make every call correct? Doubtful.

 

The strike zone could potentially be monitored similarly to tennis, and as long as the calls were made instantly, I would be fine with that. I personally would rather just have the umps do it, but I think that's just a matter of personal taste.

 

I'm most concerned, as I've said before, that baseball is falling down a slippery slope like the NFL. Everyone freaked out over a handful of controversial homerun calls, so they put in instant replay. When people said they didn't like it, everyone argued that it was a simple call on replay for a small amount of plays, so no big deal. But now the precedent has been set, and after a Twin got called out at home and Derek Jeter got called out at 3rd (god forbid), everyone is going crazy again. I just don't believe that the benefit of wide-spread replay in baseball will outweight the detriment, and I don't want to see challenges every half-hour in a baseball game like we do in the NFL.

[trwi7]

I don't want to see challenges every half-hour in a baseball game like we do in the NFL.

A little over dramatic, don't you think? When was the last time each team used each of their challenges in the same game? I can't remember, probably because it rarely, if ever happens.

[BuckyBrewer61]

A little over dramatic, don't you think? When was the last time each team used each of their challenges in the same game? I can't remember, probably because it rarely, if ever happens.

Fair enough, but my point is that I am not a fan of sitting there and watching a replay for 5 minutes at a time, whether it's once or four times per game. I don't want baseball to start having delays in games like the NFL does, and if we're going to challenge close plays at the plate, trapped balls, bang-bang plays at first etc I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we say baseball would somehow be any different. Whether or not a football player stepped out of bounds or not seems like an easy call on replay...but how often do we see sit and watch a replay from 7 different angles for 5 minutes? We probably have different ideas of what amount of delay is worth bringing in replay reviews. I, for one, don't think it's worth it.

[TheRealMattKain]

topper09er wrote:

One call does not ever effect the outcome of a game. If you think you got screwed out of a run by a call then win the game by more runs. Show me one example where 1 single call actaully changed the outcome of a game.

Are you kidding? It's a shame how many games are decided by one lousy call. Just off the top of my head, how about Defilice's walk off strikeout? If the correct call was made, the Brewers would have been up to bat, instead the Cubs won on a botched call:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=290703116

 

Or what about the Twins/A's game the other night? Cuddyer scored the tying run at home, was incorrectly called out, the A's were handed the win:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6133263/16154788

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap;_ylt=AiJwfvquj.gGdt6.uYLCtAcf0bYF?gid=290720111

 

I'm assuming you watch baseball, right? You honestly cannot think of a game where a single call changed the outcome? I find that hard to believe.

 

edit: added additional link

[BuckyBrewer61]

Are you kidding? It's a shame how many games are decided by one lousy call. Just off the top of my head, how about Defilice's walk off strikeout? If the correct call was made, the Brewers would have been up to bat, instead the Cubs won on a botched call:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=290703116

 

Or what about the Twins/A's game the other night? Cuddyer scored the tying run at home, was incorrectly called out, the A's were handed the win:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap;_ylt=AiJwfvquj.gGdt6.uYLCtAcf0bYF?gid=290720111

 

I'm assuming you watch baseball, right? You honestly cannot think of a game where a single call changed the outcome? I find that hard to believe.

It's easy to find an instance here or there where one call seemed like a dramatic influence on the outcome of a game, but the point there is that one call did not make the Brewers lose or the Twins lose. If the Brewers didn't load the bases and DiFelice didn't get to ball 3...ball 4 doesn't matter. If the Twins don't blow a 10-run lead, that last call doesn't matter. Did their chance of losing jump suddenly from moderate/high up to 100%? Yes, and that's nothing to scoff at, but they were not sole determinants of either team winning or losing.

 

I wish I were as stat-savvy as some around here to figure out how much a completely blown call influences a game. Seeing as we have win probability charts, how hard would it be to randomly reverse one call (from correct to incorrect) and see how it influences either team's chance of winning. Sampling from across the board, from a play at the plate in the ninth to the 1st ball/strike call of the game, how much does one blown call really change a game? Then try and factor in how often calls are actually blown, the fact that they are blown both ways, a 162-game season, and see how influential this terrible umping really is.

 

I realize that's an ambitious venture and don't expect anyone would do it (though the baseball/stat nerd inside me would love it), but my thought is that the effect is probably small, particularly compared to the price we would pay for replay delays.

[topper09er]

It's a shame how many games are decided by one lousy call. Just off the top of my head, how about Defilice's walk off strikeout?

As I said in my original post, we had plenty of chances to win that game, Braun had RISP in the 9th and didnt get a hit, The brewers had the bases loaded 3 times and only managed 1 walk. Plus, how do you know the cubs would not have won the game the next inning. Just because DiF struck that guy out doesnt mean the brewers would have won.

 

Are you serious with that Twins game? in the 3rd inning the score was 12-2, and you are saying 1 call in the 9th inning changed the game??? How bout the other 10 runs the A's scored? You cannot seriously blame the umps for that loss?

 

 

I seem to remember another thread about replay where I listed many good reasons not to have it and the arguement was like 100 vs me, I dont feel like listing all the reasons again but obviously I am totally against any more replay. I am OK with the HR call for one important reason, calling a HR with a replay does not replace an umpire or make a call for an umpire when the umpire is already there to make the call. It essentially is adding another umpire to the field because there are times when none of the umpires can be in good enough position to make a HR call. Anything else needs to be left to the umps. Also, I think in the current system the Maier flyout HR would have been ruled a 2B anyways instead of an out so the system still has flaws anyways. You dont know that Jeter would not have scored later in the inning from 2nd anyways.

 

Plus, would we really have wanted Moises Alou to get credited with an out on the one of the greatest plays of all time and possibly have the Chubs make the WS?

 

 

(edit: long quote and excessive punctuation --1992)

[Baldkin]

So, the call didn't effect the outcome of the game because other things happened before (or after) that?

Clearly these things effected the outcome of the game. Just because the result could've changed had something else happened doesn't change that fact.

 

As for the current replay system: "Any decision regarding the placement of runners, should a home run call be reversed, is made by the crew chief. As is done in cases of spectator interference, the crew chief will place the base runners where he believes they would have been had the call been made properly."

 

So if the ump believes the ball would've been caught, its an out.

 

Moises Alou was clearly in the stands on the play you're referring to, and it would never have even gone to a review, its not fan interference unless they interfere with a ball in play within the field of play (ie: reaching out over the wall).

[topper09er]

So, the call didn't effect the outcome of the game because other things happened before (or after) that? ...

I'm just saying you cant blame a loss on a bad call, it affects the course of the game but there are just as many other things that you can point to if you want to blame a loss on one thing

 

Its good the ump can rule an out, I guess Jeffrey Maier is lucky the wind wasnt blowing 5 mph more to right that night or he wouldnt be famous.

 

I was just joking about Bartman, I just like thinking about it.

[topper09er]

What if the bases are loaded with 2 outs and a line drive hits the line but the ump calls it foul.

 

When he corrects it, how many runs score? This is one of my problems with instant replay in baseball.

Ground rule double would probably apply in that situation it would suck for the team batting but at least some runs come in instead of possibly none.

What will happen is that the umpires will be told to err on the side of calling a fair ball. That way you actaully know where the runners end up. This is what NFL are supposed to do for fumbles, but for some unexplicable reason they still call runners down when it is an obvious fumble which just enrages fans and really makes replay look pretty stupid. So if every close call is called fair then every time the manager will want to come out and challenge the call, so every ball down the line will cause a play stoppage for a challenge.

[TheRealMattKain]

Are you serious with that Twins game? in the 3rd inning the score was 12-2, and you are saying 1 call in the 9th inning changed the game??? How bout the other 10 runs the A's scored? You cannot seriously blame the umps for that loss????????

Yes, I'm serious. Are you serious that you cannot see that that the ump is to blame? (I even used one more question mark than you to prove my point). It doesn't matter how the Twins got to the point that they were at. It doesn't matter if the Twins had a 100 run lead. The bottomline is this:

- The Twins were down by one run

- Cuddyer scored what would have been the tying run

- The umpire made the wrong call, instead of giving the Twins a run, he gave them an out and the game was over

 

You honestly don't think that was the ump's fault? Who cares that the Twins gave up a 10 run lead? Totally irrelevant to the argument. The Twins were down by a run, they should have tied the game, the ump blew it, the A's were given a win due to a terrible call. It's as simple as that.

 

Example. Let's say you're $1000 in debt to the International House of Question Marks for all those question marks you used in your earlier post. You buckle down and save for a month - pinching every penny so you can pay off your debt to the IHQM. You're on your way to the IHQM to pay off your debt when I suddenly roll up and steal your $1000 at gun point (I was going to say "exclamation point", but the pun was too terrible). Oh oh. Now you're still in debt, but it certainly isn't my fault. How could I be to blame? Sure I stole your sweet, sweet money, the very money that you were about to use to pay off your IHQM debt, but you were the one who got yourself into debt in the first place. Not me. Sadly, I'm not so sure the judge would buy my argument.

 

(edit: excessive punctuation --1992)

[topper09er]

The Twins scored 13 runs and lost 1 run due to a bad call. So all they had to do was allow 12 or less runs to win the game. Whoever was responsible for each of the first 12 runs the A's scored has an equal amount of blame as the ump. Infact, Matt Holiday hit a Grand Slam on a 1-2 pitch, so that pitcher is much more to blame than the umpire, he allowed 4 of Oaklands runs to score. And later in the season, an umpire will make another call which will give the A's a run and they will be even.

 

First of all, I would not take a loan from a house of question marks, once I was alerted that I had reached my limit I would have switched to a different form of puncuation. I would consider a period or maybe a dollar sign or star for a while until I get back under my quota. Also, it looks like the rate is about $200/ question mark, that is very high in my opinion^ I would probably at shop around at the domestic house of ?s to see if I could get a better rate if I really needed to use some extras$ You also did not elaborate on the interest rate or how it is compounded% I would need to know these things as well. To be safe I would proabably consult a lawyer because I am not sure if there are international laws that I am unaware of that will affect my loan in anyway@ That might get expensive... I got no such alert form my original post but I will address your logical hypothetical situation anyway&

 

Here is why your example is not the same, if you take ALL of my money at one time then you are 100% responsible for me not having my money so you owe me it. The umpire affected 1 of the 13 runs not to mention that they were not all needed if the defense/pitching was better. Also, maybe it was my fault I got into debt, it may have been avoidable. What really happened is closer to if I had raised say $1500 to pay back my load of $1000. I was most likely able to do this because I was not only saving up pennies but also nickels, dimes and Susan B Anthony Silver dollars. Now, as I am going to the airport to go to wherever the IHQM is, I just $100 and throw it is the gardbage I thought it would be funny to do that in front of a bum. Then I lose $100 because I forgot it at a museum, then I give a $100 tip to the waitress at George Webbs because actaully doesnt seem like she would rather be killing herself than working there, then I ran out of toliet paper...there goes another $200. Now I have $1000 and you take $100 from me because I know your gun isnt loaded but I just want you to leave me alone so I give you $100. Now, I am $100 short and it doesnt make sense to say the last time I lost the $100 is any more responsible for me being short than any other reason.

 

Plus the judge would punish you for assault with a deadly weapon (assuming it is licensed which I'd guess it wasnt, that some more time on top there). I guess you should have used the exclamation point instead.

[1992casey]

It's time to take a moment to rein in some Fan Forum Etiquette.

 

First, a post above opens with "Are you kidding?" and later says, "I'm assuming you watch baseball, right?" Statements like that cross the condescension line.

 

Second, I've edited a couple of posts above for excessive punctuation (e.g. "?????????"). Please avoid doing that.

 

Third, topper09er, I've edited several of your recent posts to shorten up the quoted material. Please take a look at this topic:

 

Quoting messages: please be brief

 

Thanks!

[topper09er]

nks!

sorry about that.

[TheRealMattKain]

First of all, I would not take a loan from a house of question marks, once I was alerted that I had reached my limit I would have switched to a different form of puncuation. I would consider a period or maybe a dollar sign or star for a while until I get back under my quota. Also, it looks like the rate is about $200/ question mark, that is very high in my opinion^ I would probably at shop around at the domestic house of ?s to see if I could get a better rate if I really needed to use some extras$ You also did not elaborate on the interest rate or how it is compounded% I would need to know these things as well. To be safe I would proabably consult a lawyer because I am not sure if there are international laws that I am unaware of that will affect my loan in anyway@ That might get expensive... I got no such alert form my original post but I will address your logical hypothetical situation anyway&

Brilliant.

 

Anyway, sorry for getting off track on an excessive punctuation tangent. Topper, let's get back to the heart of the issue here so I can understand where you're coming from. So you are...

A) OK with what happened in the Twins/A's game

B) Do not think that the game was decided by a bad umpire call

C) Do not think that replay would have had any effect on the game