How to do instant replay right?

[Ennder]

I agree in general with the idea that this should be easy but on the same note I am an NFL fan and I think fully 40% of reviews in the NFL get the wrong result, it is just awful how bad they are at reviewing plays.

[DrugBust]

The NFL is doing it wrong too.

[RightFieldCoder]

That's because they have the guys who got it wrong in the first place decide if they made a bad call. NHL has it right by having someone else (who is actually used to watching the game on a monitor) make the final decision. I am sure most people here have more experience watching a baseball game on TV than any of the umps. Steve Czaben has mentioned before that there are millions of people with more experience watching NFL games with slo-mo replays than the zebras on the field.

[pebadger]

There is a big underlying philosopical problem behind all of this replay stuff: Many seem to think that with just the right system, that somehow every call will be right. It won't be. Perfection is an impossibility. The only real question is how much time, effort and expense do we want to expend to get better calls.

 

I think the NFL system is junk due to the "challenge" mechanic. The system basically requires coaches to officiate the game at a cost of timeouts, but only for a select number of plays. In fact, the system actually double penalizes the teams that suffer the most bad calls because they simply can't fix them all.

 

The best system for "fixing things" is probably continuous independant review of ALL decisions, but such a system has its own drawbacks and the costs (not just financial) may not feasible for baseball.

[owbc]

[sarcasm]Sounds like replays should be done by the fans via Twitter poll.[/sarcasm]

[FVBrewerFan]

Someone in the box instantly watches a replay of anything remotely close and calls for a replay if he is unsure. He watches the replay a couple times and makes the call. No reason this process should ever take more than 2 minutes, if it is so close you can't tell in 2 minutes than you just don't overrule it. Certainly no reason to have the umps on the field ever walk off the field as part of the process.

 

This is the approach most here would use, more or less. I see serious problems with reviewing all close plays. Why? It would be up to 15 different review umps every night to decide what is a close play. This would force some of them to review more plays that necessary. Others would rush the decision under the pressure of timely response. You could easily have several replays every inning which would get to be crazy.

 

Gomez gets hit in the hand, or was it the bat? Let's review. Next pitch he dribbles one down the line, 3B picks it up and throws him out. Waas it fair or foul? Was Gomez out or safe at 1B. Wait, he was safe. Now where do the runners go who were at 2nd and 3rd? Now he stea;s 2nd. Or did he?

 

That's just ONE of many scenerios that play out every single game, it's not far-fethced at all. Eben if it took 30 seconds to review each one, it would ruin the flow of the game and just get ugly.

[Ennder]

Well sure you would still need guidelines on what is and isn't replayable. Getting hit probably would not be. They would still have to work on all the gray areas The point is the way they are going about it now is completely flawed, where the umps walk off, interrupt play etc to make the call. HR or not HR should be a 30 second stoppage of play instead of the 2+ minutes it is now.

[LouisEly]

That's because they have the guys who got it wrong in the first place decide if they made a bad call. NHL has it right by having someone else (who is actually used to watching the game on a monitor) make the final decision.

 

This. It is the arrogance of some (not all) to refuse to admit they made a mistake.

 

My opinion is that it is a combination of things mentioned. Only certain events are reviewable (like safe/out plays and run scoring plays, not check swings, balls/strikes, etc.), teams are limited to a certain number of reviews a game plus one review that can be used in the 9th inning only (keeps a team from blowing all their reviews early), and the decision is made up in the booth by someone who is already reviewing it as the umps are leaving the field.

 

I keep going back to Armando Galarraga and how he should officially be recognized as one of only 23 players ever to have thrown a perfect game. To be a member of a club that exclusive, but have it taken away by a bad call, is what makes replay worthwhile.

[RockCoCougars]

I don't want replay. Games take long enough as it is, and I don't feel like waiting two minutes for them to decide to review a play, then a few more to conduct the review. Like others have said, I can't stand how seemingly every turnover and all the touchdowns in the NFL are reviewed. It's made the officiating tentative, and worse than it's ever been. Over time, bad calls should even out anyway. I would be in favor of some type of umpire rating system to weed the bad ones out though.

[adambr2]

I don't want replay. Games take long enough as it is, and I don't feel like waiting two minutes for them to decide to review a play, then a few more to conduct the review. Like others have said, I can't stand how seemingly every turnover and all the touchdowns in the NFL are reviewed. It's made the officiating tentative, and worse than it's ever been. Over time, bad calls should even out anyway. I would be in favor of some type of umpire rating system to weed the bad ones out though.

 

There's no reason it has to take 2 minutes. There's no reason it has to take longer than 30 seconds with the technology available. If you can't decide conclusively after 30 seconds, the call stands. Just have a replay official already looking at, don't have the entire crew disappear into some tunnel and then come out with the wrong call because their egos are too big.

 

I'm not crazy about the NFL system, but I'm in favor of anything that leans towards getting the calls right. They have just as many reviews in college football now, but they do it right and it's not extremely time-consuming.

 

People also exaggerate how many "review" calls would take place in a game. In an average game, you might have 3. At 30 seconds each, that's 90 seconds, probably comparable to one manager/umpire argument.

 

Yes some games you are going to have more, and some you won't have any at all. They're not going to review a guy being out or safe at first when the whole world saw him get thrown out by 2 steps.

[jerichoholicninja]

Could replay have fixed this?

 

With two on, two outs and the Angels trailing, 5-3, in the top of the seventh, Astros manager Bo Porter subbed right-hander Paul Clemens with lefty Wesley Wright, with left-handed hitter J.B. Shuck due to bat.

 

After Wright threw his warm-up pitches and Porter saw the right-handed-hitting Luis Jimenez on deck to pinch-hit, Porter made another pitching change, going to righty Ambriz before Wright faced a hitter, which isn't allowed unless there's an injury. At that point, a furious Scioscia informed the umpires that the Angels would play the rest of the game under protest.

 

"I think the rule's pretty clear," Scioscia said.

 

Porter had a different understanding.

 

"Technically, Wesley came in to pitch the batter that was scheduled to hit, but he pinch-hit for the batter that was scheduled to hit -- which, from my understanding of the rule, you can bring in another pitcher to face the pinch-hitter," said Porter.

 

That, however, isn't really mentioned in the rule book, and Culbreth didn't comment postgame, only saying that "all matters concerning protests are handled through the league office."

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_05_09_anamlb_houmlb_1&mode=recap_away&c_id=ana

 

I think the rule is clear that a pitcher brought into a game has to face one batter. How the umps could get that wrong 3 times I have no clue.

[Ennder]

Over time, bad calls should even out anyway.

 

Over time as in say over 10+ years sure, but over a single season there is no way they will. I'm for replay for some things, especially really easy things like HR or not HR. If they go to the booth for the replay there is no reason they should ever take over 1 minute of time.

[rluzinski]

Someone in the box instantly watches a replay of anything remotely close and calls for a replay if he is unsure. He watches the replay a couple times and makes the call. No reason this process should ever take more than 2 minutes, if it is so close you can't tell in 2 minutes than you just don't overrule it. Certainly no reason to have the umps on the field ever walk off the field as part of the process.

 

Sounds good to me. Replay should be around to make sure no obviously terrible calls are made. If it's close, move on.

 

To me, where it gets dicey is what exactly should be reviewable. I can't see reviewing every bang-bang play at the bases, for instance.

 

And I would like ball and strike determination to be done automatically, with the results being relayed through the home plate ump. He would still have the authority to intervene if needed.

[topper09er]

Over time, bad calls should even out anyway.

 

Over time as in say over 10+ years sure, but over a single season there is no way they will.

 

What is this based on? If you conservatively say 125 pitches per game + say 25 safe/out, fair/foul calls per game that is 150*162 = 24,300 calls per season. I would think that would be more than enough.

[topper09er]

Replay should be around to make sure no obviously terrible calls are made. If it's close, move on.

 

This is exactly how it is theoretically setup in the NFL, yet nothing close to this happens. They use the term "indisputable video evidance" which should mean the ref should get 1 look for 10 seconds under the hood and if it isnt obvious move on. Instead what happens is automatic commercial break, Ref and production crew look at 10 different angles in super slow motion and they come back from the break showing the "best" view and the 2 analysts disagree with each on what should happen and the ref gets the call wrong anyways.

 

This happens because the refs know these same shots will be all over sportscenter and the internet and the mindless drones of fans who love instant replay will obsess over the fraction of an inch the ref missed so he will take as long as he can to make the decision so he doesn't have this "wrong call" on his record.

 

It is easy to sit around with all these good theoretical ideas about replay but WE HAVE PROOF that they will not get implemented the way we want. There WILL NEVER be an extra guy in the booth who just quickly reviews every play and in 10 seconds signals down to the ref to change it.

 

A bad call = bad luck, its part of any sport or system as complicated as baseball. If you prefer something with no luck involved then watch track and field. We all know usually the best statistical team doesn't win the world series, so why is that ok (for some I'm sure it isnt)? If you love instant replay then why dont you support getting rid of the playoffs completely and just crowning the team with the best pythagorian winning %? Why is it ok to make the last out of the game on a stinging line drive with the winning run on base? That is terrible luck? If you love instant replay then why dont you support awarding guys first base if say an infielder catches a line drive off their bat in less than .8 seconds? Do you think that should be an out because "it is part of the game" or "thats the way its always been" What are you 150 years old, do you ride your horse to work still? Get with the times you old school fogey. The batter clearly won the matchup with the pitcher yet the pitchers gets rewarded based on luck.

[Outlander]

Over time, bad calls should even out anyway.

 

Over time as in say over 10+ years sure, but over a single season there is no way they will.

 

What is this based on? If you conservatively say 125 pitches per game + say 25 safe/out, fair/foul calls per game that is 150*162 = 24,300 calls per season. I would think that would be more than enough.

What is your 150 bad calls a game based on? I also agree bad calls don't even out over the course of a year, especially if the bad call directly costs a team a game like this week.

[topper09er]

Its not 150 bad calls its 150 total calls, which all affect the game. Also, assuming a team would have a 100% chance of winning with a tie game in the 9th is not correct.

 

If you could somehow add up the net WPA gained/lost from bad calls over a season I would think it would be pretty close to 0 for all teams

[owbc]

Yes, NFL replay is horrible, but NHL replay is really good. Same with tennis and in the (few) international cricket games that I have watched.

 

NHL replay successfully implements the "command center" and tennis successfully uses a challenge system with computerized replay. The cricket system is similar to what baseball could implement. They have an extra TV umpire and a limited number of challenges per inning. Players can challenge catches/traps as well as out/not out. It is a little easier though because they do not have base placement to worry about.

 

Judging by the recent terrible umpiring in MLB, I am definitely opposed to anything that involves letting the current set of umpires look at video replay.

 

Also, to topper09er: are you in favor of extra replay in the postseason?

[bani1717]

I would be in favor of some type of umpire rating system to weed the bad ones out though.

 

I suggest you read this article, particularly the quote below:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8043745/the-state-umpiring-major-league-baseball

 

Baseball has a rating system in place for both balls and strikes and safe-or-out calls. Torre said the computer printouts and success rates are diligently catalogued and reviewed, and umpires who perform poorly can expect to hear about it.

 

"People think if an umpire has a bad game or does something wrong, nobody pays attention to it or has a conversation about it," Torre said. "But it's addressed. There have been situations where umpires have been disciplined, but we don't share that information. You don't want to give players more ammunition. If they know somebody has been disciplined, we don't want them to take advantage of that."

 

This article describes some of the other pressures of being an umpire:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070827&content_id=2173765&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

It is not an easy job. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about what it takes to be an umpire, about how these guys get/keep their jobs, etc.

 

As for replay in specific, I am not all that bothered by "wrong" calls. I completely agree with topper about the luck factor. That is what I consider blown calls to be. We have seen that even replay won't perfect things, and I don't really have a problem with the human element. At the end of the day you may say that a lack of replay makes things inherently unfair since someone may get screwed, but I would argue that being perfectly fair doesn't make the sport any more or less entertaining/interesting to me.

[pebadger]

I like the NHL "command center" concept for video review of goals, which is/should be pretty cut and dried. On the other hand, the command center concept does have drawbacks (as does any off-site intervention) in that it makes explicit the idea that somebody at league HQ has a hand in directly or indirectly influencing the course and outcome of games. Once you start giving a command center (in fact, any official not on the field) any power to make anything more than routine video reviews of even the tiniest of subjective calls, you open the door to at least slightly more credible suggestions of manipulation of results. Can you imagine the NBA having a video review scheme that included the league office? They have enough trouble with conspiracy theories the way it is.

[trwi7]

The simple solution would be to hire 15 more umpires to make it a 5 man crew with the newly hired umpires role specifically to be up in the press box watching replays of close calls.

 

The press box ump has a buzzer which is attached to the crew chief and is buzzed when a replay takes place. Have a phone in the home dugout hooked up to the press box where the press box ump can give the crew chief the call.

 

Homeruns, trapped balls, close plays on the bases and fair and foul are eligible for review. You get two minutes to review the play, if it isn't clear within two minutes of the buzz down to the umpire the call on the field stands.

[danzig6767]

The simple solution would be to hire 15 more umpires to make it a 5 man crew with the newly hired umpires role specifically to be up in the press box watching replays of close calls.

 

The press box ump has a buzzer which is attached to the crew chief and is buzzed when a replay takes place. Have a phone in the home dugout hooked up to the press box where the press box ump can give the crew chief the call.

 

Homeruns, trapped balls, close plays on the bases and fair and foul are eligible for review. You get two minutes to review the play, if it isn't clear within two minutes of the buzz down to the umpire the call on the field stands.

 

That's pretty much the college football system and it's baffling why the NFL refuses to adopt the same system.

 

I'd like to see baseball do something similar, even if it took limiting say managers to a set number of challenges per game at two or three.

[LouisEly]

The simple solution would be to hire 15 more umpires to make it a 5 man crew with the newly hired umpires role specifically to be up in the press box watching replays of close calls.

 

The challenge with that is whether umpires will think that changing a call will make their fellow umpires look bad. Will they make the right call, or will they be more concerned about perception by their peers?

[bani1717]

The challenge with that is whether umpires will think that changing a call will make their fellow umpires look bad. Will they make the right call, or will they be more concerned about perception by their peers?

 

Considering reviewed plays would likely be under especially heavy scrutiny from MLB, I would think they'd be more concerned about keeping their jobs...

 

I also think that people in general know very little about what it takes to be an umpire at the MLB level (myself included). But from officiating grade school and high school basketball I have learned that you generally need to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, even though some of them have bigger egos than others, and at some point they all make mistakes, do stupid things, etc. Just because there is that stuff out there doesn't mean that the prevailing attitude is that the umpires will be stubborn about upholding bad calls at all costs.

 

And just because umpires don't publicly admit their mistakes doesn't mean that they're stubborn, unaware that they're imperfect, etc. Think of it this way. If you went to work every day and had 30,000-40,000 amateurs (who often don't know what they're talking about) trying to tell you how to do your job, would you want to publicly admit your mistakes to them? Or would you privately take the more accurate feedback you can get from evaluating your own performance and having other experts evaluate it? I would do the latter. Why bother trying to explain yourself to the amateurs who generally have much less than you and whose opinions don't ultimately affect your job or performance? But now if you introduce replay into the equation, then yes you are essentially admitting your mistakes by reversing a call, but that is a situation where the public admission that you were initially wrong will affect your overall performance as an umpire and potentially the outcome of the game as well.

 

All in all, I am willing to put my money on the fact that the vast majority of MLB umpires would want to get the call right via replay if it were available to them in a practical manner. (And the ones who repeatedly get calls wrong with replay should unquestionably be fired.) Which means to me that the only two real questions of whether replay should be implemented are (1) is it practical, and (2) is it cost effective, giving more of a benefit in terms of correct calls than the cost in terms of money, time, etc. As I alluded to before, I am kind of indifferent about replay being implemented. I don't really have a problem with it either being implemented or not as long as it's considered in light of these two main factors.

[trwi7]

The simple solution would be to hire 15 more umpires to make it a 5 man crew with the newly hired umpires role specifically to be up in the press box watching replays of close calls.

 

The challenge with that is whether umpires will think that changing a call will make their fellow umpires look bad. Will they make the right call, or will they be more concerned about perception by their peers?

 

All they're doing is watching the replay. We can all see the replays, MLB can see the replays and if the press box ump makes bad calls, he gets fired. If all you have to do is watch replays to determine whether the call was right and you don't do a good job, you don't keep your job.