Little League World Series uses instant replay

[Oldcity]

Add Little League baseball to the growing list (NFL, NBA, NHL, tennis) that's smarter than MLB. Here's an article detailing its success.

"As of Sunday's consolation game, replay had been used 16 times during the 10-day tournament, with eight calls upheld and eight overturned, according to league vice president Lance Van Auken. The total delay for all 16 calls was about 52 seconds."

I'm not a fan of the challenge system for baseball that the LLWS used, but it's embarrassing to see how well and how easily this could work when MLB is so against it. Just throw a replay guy in the press box, have him review it, and it's done in 30 seconds.

[RockCoCougars]

I say no replay in baseball. Frankly, I can't stand it in any sport. I can't stand watching college football because of replay. Every fumble, nearly every sideline play and half the interceptions and end zone catches result in a five minute delay. You've got a few dozen officials- who supposedly are the 'best'- in each sport. Let them do their job.

[Oldcity]

A recent study found that umpires blow 20% of close calls (and that's before even considering their strike zones). Them "doing their job" isn't good enough.

Edit: Link

[RockCoCougars]

I agree that the umps blow a lot of calls. If it's 20%, perhaps MLB should instill some type of performance metrics to weed out the bad umpires- I believe they already have something in place. I'll complain about the umps as much as the next guy, but the human aspect is part of the game, and hopefully all the bad calls even out over time. I've noticed in football- especially the NFL - officiating has gotten much worse in general since replay was restarted. Another thing to consider is that there are far more 'plays' in a baseball game compared to any sport that I can think of. Do we really want to be reviewing balls/strikes someday? Frankly, a missed strike call can be just as important as a blown call on a runner sliding into home.

[topper09er]

Um, 52/16 = 3.25 seconds per replay??? How is that possible? I am going to say that is impossible and there is no way that is true.

[topper09er]

Just throw a replay guy in the press box, have him review it, and it's done in 30 seconds.

This is exactly what they do in college football and it is at least 5-10 minutes each time. The reason is that if someone is held accountable for the call, and if he gets it wrong it will be shown on ESPN for days, he is going to take his sweet time watching every angle and making sure it is correct.

[owbc]

I say no replay in baseball. Frankly, I can't stand it in any sport. I can't stand watching college football because of replay. Every fumble, nearly every sideline play and half the interceptions and end zone catches result in a five minute delay. You've got a few dozen officials- who supposedly are the 'best'- in each sport. Let them do their job.

How much college football do you watch? It doesn't take any additional time. It just uses a TV time out which would have been used later anyway. I am not sure of the average number of replays per game but it is probably 2-3. It has been a complete success.

[RockCoCougars]

I say no replay in baseball. Frankly, I can't stand it in any sport. I can't stand watching college football because of replay. Every fumble, nearly every sideline play and half the interceptions and end zone catches result in a five minute delay. You've got a few dozen officials- who supposedly are the 'best'- in each sport. Let them do their job.

How much college football do you watch? It doesn't take any additional time. It just uses a TV time out which would have been used later anyway. I am not sure of the average number of replays per game but it is probably 2-3. It has been a complete success.

I watch way too much college football, and I respectfully disagree. It's rare for a college game to be under 3 hours these days, and that's ridiculous. Obviously, the networks- and, in turn the conferences- love it because it allows them to add even more commercials, so it will stay. It seems like the 'replay booth' messes up a chunk of the time as well.

[owbc]

I watch way too much college football, and I respectfully disagree. It's rare for a college game to be under 3 hours these days, and that's ridiculous. Obviously, the networks- and, in turn the conferences- love it because it allows them to add even more commercials, so it will stay. It seems like the 'replay booth' messes up a chunk of the time as well.

I think you are in a small minority, but I respect your opinion. I do not think it adds more commercial time. There are a designated number of commercials per half and once they use them up, they stop taking commercial breaks. So I guess a replay that occurs after the commercials are used up would add more time, but I do not think any more than 5 minutes is added to the average game, probably less.

 

The same goes for baseball, ultimately you add only a few minutes to the game, with the result that the integrity of the game is improved. Most games would not even have a single call reviewed so it would generally be inconsequential. I am also in favor of fully automating ball/strike calls, but I recognize that is still probably about 10-15 years away from being implemented. I strongly believe that it is inevitable, it is just a matter of time to refine the technology, get it on all broadcast TV, and then have a blown call get lots of media attention. The Joyce call will ultimately result in more replay, public opinion has been in favor of it ever since.

[RockCoCougars]

One issue with the college game is that the smaller conferences often don't have enough technology/camera angles to have the efficiency that say a Big 10 game on ABC has (plus the national TV games have a ton more commercials as well, so breaks aren't as noticable). I would guess that replay goes better in a Ohio St./Penn St. game than it would in a North Texas/Arkansas St. game. Obviously, 'MLB' would have a Cadillac replay booth in place, but like I said, at some point do you start replaying strike calls, etc.? If you are going to use an automated system for that, what is the point of even having umpires on the field (maybe you need one to keep the game moving). I am a purist codger, but to me, using technology as an umpire is too much of a fundamental change.

[trwi7]

College football games are over three hours mainly because they stop to move the chains after every first down.

[pebadger]

Replay conundrum:

 

Ball hit to the gap. OF makes spectacular diving attempt at ball. Umpire rules catch and out. Runners going on the play from first and second. Upon seeing the 'Out' call, the runners head back to their bases. Replay subsequently shows that the ball was not caught, and was instead trapped.

 

Where do you put the runners? Does it matter if there was an apparent double play on the play? Does it matter if the apparent second out was made by simply making a throw that beats the runner back to his base? How about if the double play was made on a tag play after the apparent catch?

 

There are a whole bunch of hypotheticals like this that can be posed that don't lend themselves to easy answers. Until somebody comes up with good answers to cover all the bases, I'm not very enthusiastic about a "general" replay system in baseball. The live ball/dead ball structure of the game is much different than football and as such does not lend itself to after-the-fact replay review as well as football. It doesn't mean you can't come up with a system, but I think it does mean it will be harder to do, both from the standpoint of constructing the rules of the system and then getting the public to embrace its legitimacy when controversy arises (as it certainly will).

[RockCoCougars]

College football games are over three hours mainly because they stop to move the chains after every first down.

 

Perhaps these brief stoppages play a role, but you have to consider that in recent years the NCAA has also changed the rules regarding out of bounds plays, adopting NFL-like rules to speed up the clock.

[olliegjw]

Replay conundrum:

 

Ball hit to the gap. OF makes spectacular diving attempt at ball. Umpire rules catch and out. Runners going on the play from first and second. Upon seeing the 'Out' call, the runners head back to their bases. Replay subsequently shows that the ball was not caught, and was instead trapped.

 

So, you would rather have the offensive team get punished with an out, or maybe two, instead of one of the teams maybe being punished by an extra base? They will obviously have to use their best guess, just like they already do on fan interference and obstruction calls.

[GoudaBrew]

Just throw a replay guy in the press box, have him review it, and it's done in 30 seconds.

This is exactly what they do in college football and it is at least 5-10 minutes each time. The reason is that if someone is held accountable for the call, and if he gets it wrong it will be shown on ESPN for days, he is going to take his sweet time watching every angle and making sure it is correct.

Each replay at the college football level and NFL average 3 minutes. The NFL averages slightly more than 1 review per game. I can't find the number for NCAA.

 

The length of a baseball game has actually been shortened over the last 11 years by 6-8 minutes. MLB pressured umps to speed things up a while back.

LINK

 

Think how much time is used when a manager, player or bench coach comes out to dispute a call? Instead of arguing with the ump for a couple minutes, the ump could just refer to the replay official and solve the problem that way.

[pebadger]

Replay conundrum:

 

Ball hit to the gap. OF makes spectacular diving attempt at ball. Umpire rules catch and out. Runners going on the play from first and second. Upon seeing the 'Out' call, the runners head back to their bases. Replay subsequently shows that the ball was not caught, and was instead trapped.

 

So, you would rather have the offensive team get punished with an out, or maybe two, instead of one of the teams maybe being punished by an extra base? They will obviously have to use their best guess, just like they already do on fan interference and obstruction calls.

No, I would rather they get the call "right", but the fact that you have to add in the fudge factor after the fact means that there really isn't a "right" call here. Just one that is better and one that is worse. Again, I'm not saying replay is a non-starter. I'm saying replay needs to be considered very carefully.

 

And you didn't answer the question: Where do you put the runners? What if a guy gets back to his base, tags up and is subsequently throw out on a tag play? Who bears the riskof advancement in that case? Is the rule going to be that the ball is "dead" at the point of the catch/non-catch? If so, does that rule make sense in all situations? If not, when and why will it not be the rule? How much discretion do we want to give to the umps in this case? The fact that the umps ALREADY blew it and now we age going to trust theri judgment to "make it right" will likely give some folks pause.

 

The bottom line is you can't just make this stuff up on the fly. To do so invites chaos and introduces the potential for bigger prblems than currently exist, not least of which are questions about the legitimacy of the game that come with after-the-fact "fudging" of plays that have already been made.

[olliegjw]

And you didn't answer the question: Where do you put the runners?

It depends on the situation. In your scenario, it would probably be ruled a single, and the runners would advance one or two bases depending on where they were when the ball hit the ground, where in the outfield the ball was, etc. Same thing they do now if they call a homer and the ball actually hit the top of the fence.

[nate82]

And you didn't answer the question: Where do you put the runners?

It depends on the situation. In your scenario, it would probably be ruled a single, and the runners would advance one or two bases depending on where they were when the ball hit the ground, where in the outfield the ball was, etc. Same thing they do now if they call a homer and the ball actually hit the top of the fence.

That only sets up the replay for failure as you are now putting the judgement in the umpires hands. They may just say hey no one scores on that play even if a guy is on third because it is a close play and only gives the batter a single. This then brings up more controversy that the umpire blew the call again.

If replay is to be added more it should be like the little league rules. No replay can be used if runners will be advanced so if a ball is called out and the runners could have advanced if it was a hit there is no replay. If a ball is called foul no replay available. The only time replay should be available is on safe and out calls at the bases and if the ball was foul not fair. Which to limit it like that really does not make any sense. I like the current replay rules that baseball has right now it makes sense for home runs as there is only one outcome that can happen unlike multiple outcomes that could happen on a foul or fair call down the line with runners on. Unless you want to call it a ground rule single/double depending on where the ball was hit with the runners only getting 1 base on a ground rule double and on a ground rule single runners stay at the base they were at unless at 1B then they move to 2B. But this still has some controversy to it and the umpire will still be blamed as blowing the call because it wasn't a ground rule single/double for the player it was the opposite.

Way too much to think about and way too much randomness that could happen for this to be fair to any team. I would just rather just leave it as is and just take the bad calls as instant replay just opens up another new set of problems.

[pebadger]

Manager 1: But the runners were going with the pitch, and the batter is fast. I think both runs score and it's a double. We win.

 

Manager 2: No way. I'll give you the first run, but we threw your guy out at third on the play anyway when he tried to advance from 1st. So the inning is over on that 3rd out. Game over

 

Manager 1: Wait a sec. That play at third was pretty close. I think we should review that, too.

 

Ump: I have an idea! Why not just let me make an arbitrary ruling and everyone will think it's cool!

 

Bottom line: PROBABLY isn't good enough. Since replay is involved in the first place, we're most likely already talking about a controversial play. And now we want umpires to just sort of make an after-the fact ad-hoc ruling on subsequent results that are simply unknowable? There had better be ironclad rules in place if you want to go down that road that remove virtually ALL discretion from the umpires as to how to handle a given situation. Even the tiniest bit of discretion that will almost necessarily be left to them will cause controversey enough sooner or later.

 

Frankly, I don't trust people enough not to screw this up worse than the occasional screw-ups we have to deal with now. God bless 'em if they want to try it. The best bet is to do this incrementally and learn from the process. Even starting out by allowing review of calls at first base will get hairy when you add another baserunner to the equation.

[MVP2110]

IMO getting the call right should be the #1 priority. I cannot tell you how many times I have been enraged at a missed call by an ump in a crucial part of the game. Even when the replay goes against my team I can atleast be fine because it is what happened. No team should get punished for the "human effect." How many times in the playoffs the last few years have umps blown huge calls. Seems like alot. I don't want my team or any team to be the team that has that horrible call go against them. It's a cheap way to lose and in fact a cheap way to win. Do you really want to win because of a blown call?

[olliegjw]

Even if you don't let runners advance, it is still a better system, just not perfect. In the previous example, if you were on offense, would you rather have 1st and 2nd with and extra out, or bases loaded without the out? The key is to get the call right. There will be no perfect system, but getting the call right is a huge step in the right direction.

[RockCoCougars]

And you didn't answer the question: Where do you put the runners?

Let them 'complete the play'. That way, every time there is a close play on a diving catch or a short hop, the ump will be hesitant to make the call because replay will clear it up. Same thing with any line drive down the chalk.

[pebadger]

Every time there is a close play at 1st for the third out, I'm telling my runners at third to make sure they score, taking out the catcher if need be. Heck, I'll probably send guys around from second, too, just to force the throw and see what happens. And I'm telling my catcher to not let that guy score because the first baseman will have to send the ball home to make a play at the plate, just in case. I'm sure that won't lead to injuries or hard feelings.

 

And if my guy catches the ball, but it gets called a trap, I'm going to insist that I get the double or triple play credited to my team when they double off runners who think they have scored. Why should the defensive team be deprived of extra outs on a great play?

 

Isn't it kind of insane to force the players to play out a play based on the initial erroneous call, and then try to wind everything back and "fix" it based on what "should" have happened if they had gotten the call right? If a guy knows he made a catch, why should he be forced to play it out as if he hadn't and for example, make a throw to second base, when he knows darned well that he should be making the throw to first to double off a runner?

 

When an out isn't an out (only MAYBE an out), and there are runners on base, strange stuff WILL happen. That's fine. You just need a fair way to sort it all out after the fact if you indeed want to get into that business. Good luck with that. Except in the very simplest of situations, like the determination of a HR, the fluidity of play in baseball is a sever hindrance to coming up with a good replay system. It's all well and good to think that the guys at MLB and all the clubs are just hide-bound dunderheads, but it could also be the case that they aren't entirely stupid about this either.

 

Just like with the to-do about a college football playoff system it's very easy to whine about what's wrong and suggest that all ills can be cured simply by spitballin' a solution. Then reality sets in and it's not so simple. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but it's never as simple as the loudest media complainers make it out to be.

[PlayerHader]

Um, 52/16 = 3.25 seconds per replay??? How is that possible? I am going to say that is impossible and there is no way that is true.

 

 

Yeah. I caught that right away too. Has to be poor wording. Must mean average of 53 seconds, and even that seems low.

[Oldcity]

Football and baseball are entirely different. Most calls in baseball wouldn't take nearly as long to review. Football you look at things like, "Where are his feet? Does he have possession? When does his knee hit the ground? It's not clear from that angle, how about a different shot?"

 

Baseball it will mostly be: Did the ball get to the base before the runner? Was his foot on the bag?

 

It's usually plain to see by the first replay we're shown during a game whether the call was blown. Cut out the manager arguing for 1-2 minutes, and you've actually saved game time.

 

This is all beside the point of making sure you actually get the call right, which should be above all this other noise.