Looks like instant replay is expanding

[markedman5]

Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 17m

Managers will have 3 challenges in game, 1 in first six innings

Expand

Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 19m

The replay will be a manager call system that will involve 89 percent of reviewable plays and voted on in Nov

Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 22m

It will be phasing plan to start in 2014

Expand

Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 23m

MLB plans to move forward where managers now allowed to ask for replay reviews

[PrinceEatMeat]

About time. I still don't understand why they don't just have a 5th umpire up in the booth to review any close call. That would be a lot easier than anything else they implement.

[jerichoholicninja]

Yuck.

 

They better have a good plan for what to do with baserunners on overturned calls. That is where the mess is going to happen. Bases loaded and a ball down the line is called foul but is fair on replay, where do the baserunners go? Do the umpires make a judgement call? Does everyone advance one base, or two? Do the runners on second and third score and the runner on first gets third while the batter gets a double? Way too many variables. Way too many chances for one mistake by an umpire to become multiple mistakes and cause more havoc than just a blown fair/foul call. Umpires are probably going to make the call that is easiest to fix on close calls instead of the right call. I just see this turning out horribly.

[Baldkin]

Yuck.

 

They better have a good plan for what to do with baserunners on overturned calls. That is where the mess is going to happen. Bases loaded and a ball down the line is called foul but is fair on replay, where do the baserunners go? Do the umpires make a judgement call? Does everyone advance one base, or two? Do the runners on second and third score and the runner on first gets third while the batter gets a double? Way too many variables. Way too many chances for one mistake by an umpire to become multiple mistakes and cause more havoc than just a blown fair/foul call. Umpires are probably going to make the call that is easiest to fix on close calls instead of the right call. I just see this turning out horribly.

 

You think NFL refs do this now?

 

Do they call everything a fumble and let replay decide if it isn't? Nope, they don't.

Do they call everything a catch, and then let replay decide it wasn't? Nope, they don't.

 

Your worries are unfounded. Rules can be written. I would imagine the reversed call rules would be very similar to the current rules in place for fan interference -- another case where a play is ruled dead before it is played out. Do you have a major problem with those rules?

[markedman5]

Yeah my guess is umpires will make decisions on basrunners after watching replay. Runners will awarded 1 or 2 bases but never 3. Obviously just a guess on my part but seems reasonable.

 

 

No system will be perfect and I'm sure they will make adjustments going forward but I think this is a good start.

[olliegjw]

Yuck.

 

They better have a good plan for what to do with baserunners on overturned calls. That is where the mess is going to happen. Bases loaded and a ball down the line is called foul but is fair on replay, where do the baserunners go? Do the umpires make a judgement call? Does everyone advance one base, or two? Do the runners on second and third score and the runner on first gets third while the batter gets a double? Way too many variables. Way too many chances for one mistake by an umpire to become multiple mistakes and cause more havoc than just a blown fair/foul call. Umpires are probably going to make the call that is easiest to fix on close calls instead of the right call. I just see this turning out horribly.

 

This seems like a silly argument against replay. Say the Brewers have bases loaded and hit one down the line that is called foul. Upon review, the call is reversed to a fair ball. The batter is awarded 2B and all runners advance two bases. For argument's sake, lets say that Gomez was on first and would have scored easily if the call was correct originally. Which would you rather have: 1) No replay available, so foul ball stands, or 2) Replay overturns call and Brewers get two runs and have runners on second and third?

 

Obviously, scenario two, while not perfect, results in a situation that is much closer to what should have happened. Awarding bases won't be perfect, but they can easily tell within one base of what would have happened.

[jerichoholicninja]

You think NFL refs do this now?

 

Do they call everything a fumble and let replay decide if it isn't? Nope, they don't.

Do they call everything a catch, and then let replay decide it wasn't? Nope, they don't.

 

Yes, I do and it's pretty obvious. Especially after last year when every turn over was reviewed. There were way more overturned than in previous year and it's because the refs are now making the calls that are fixable, not the right call.

 

I would prefer no expanded replay. The umps are blowing blatantly obvious calls and now we want them to make judgements about what runners are going to do? No thank you.

[trwi7]

First I'd like welcome MLB to the 21st century.

 

Now let me say that these rules are stupid. Umpires aren't above making multiple awful calls in the first 6 innings yet managers can only have one challenge in that time. Giving managers three challenges is good, only allowing them to use one in the first 6 innings is an awful idea. Let them use them when they want to.

[rondoman]

Like the stupid NFL rule where you only get a 3rd challenge if you get the first two correct.

 

I say you should never lose a challenge if you are correct. You should get two challenges a game, and you keep them until you challenge something unsuccessfully, and then lose THAT challenge.

 

Also, jerichoholicninja, it may not be perfect but it is better than the way it is.

[rondoman]

First I'd like to see welcome to the 21st century, MLB.

 

Now let me say that these rules are stupid. Umpires aren't above making multiple awful calls in the first 6 innings yet managers can only have one challenge in that time. Giving managers three challenges is good, only allowing them to use one in the first 6 innings is an awful idea. Let them use them when they want to.

 

 

Agreed. I dont get the one in the first 6 innings thing. Really dumb.

[trwi7]

You can have one challenge in the first 66% of the game but you get two in the last 33%! How dumb.

[rondoman]

Ok I read an article stating if you use a challenge and are successful you keep the challenge so it should be ok.

[BuckyBrewer61]

You think NFL refs do this now?

 

Do they call everything a fumble and let replay decide if it isn't? Nope, they don't.

Do they call everything a catch, and then let replay decide it wasn't? Nope, they don't.

 

Yes, I do and it's pretty obvious. Especially after last year when every turn over was reviewed. There were way more overturned than in previous year and it's because the refs are now making the calls that are fixable, not the right call.

 

I would prefer no expanded replay. The umps are blowing blatantly obvious calls and now we want them to make judgements about what runners are going to do? No thank you.

 

Totally agree, NFL constantly make calls that are fixable first. Every borderline "fumble" is allowed to play out, with a giant pile, prolonged extrication of players/the ball, a huddle of refs and coaches screaming, then eventually a replay that takes at least 5 minutes and often determines a player was clearly down in the first place. And this is far from the only example. If there was actually a hard and fast rule that only CLEARLY indisputable calls were overturned, and only after a STRICT 1 or 2 minute decision time (no decision by then, no overturn - period), replay would be better. But it has expectedly evolved into making further guesses on borderline video evidence after 5-10 minutes or agonizing analysis. And to think baseball will be any different would be naive IMO.

 

Will replay assure more correct calls in baseball? Sure. Is it worth taking 5-10 minutes for each close call to watch multiple frame-by-frame videos of a ball just hitting a glove before or after a single cleat hit the bag, or if it grazed a blade of grass before hitting an outfielders glove? Well, now we all get to find out...

[DHonks]

this is okay, but why are they copying the NFL's lousy system? Nobody likes the drama of "should the coach use the challenge." All people care about is getting calls right.

[JimH5]

I'm fine with expanded replay in whatever form they want. I just want games to end in under 3 hours.

[The stache]

I'm fine with expanded replay in whatever form they want. I just want games to end in under 3 hours.

 

+1

[jerichoholicninja]

Here's a question.

 

Will this end the "if the ball beats you, you're out" rule of thumb? There's been a couple of times this year I've seen guys get called out because the ball beat them by a lot but the fielder reached for the runner instead of tagging the bag and the runner actually got in safe. What about when a middle infielder doesn't touch the bag on a double play?

[Baldkin]

I'm fine with expanded replay in whatever form they want. I just want games to end in under 3 hours.

 

The simplest and easiest way to do this would be one simple rule: If no one is on base, the batter cannot step out of the batters box, and the pitch must be delivered within 15 seconds.

[RightFieldCoder]

MLB plans to expand instant replay in 2014

 

Managers would not be able to argue a reviewable call in a bid to get it overturned without the use of replay.

This might help the speed issue. No arguing about certain calls.

 

"Now our replays take three minutes and four seconds on average. And we expect now that [future] replays will take a minute [and] 15 [seconds]."-Braves president John Schuerholz

Let's see if they keep up this pledge.

 

All replays will be reviewed by umpires at MLB.com headquarters in New York, with technicians available to provide the necessary video.

So they're using the NHL model of using a centralized place to make the decisions.

 

However, boundary calls on home runs have been grandfathered. The on-site umpires will retain the right to submit the plays for review or not.

So we'll have two different types of reviews? Yeah, that makes sense. On initiated by the umpires and decided by the umpires, one initiated by the managers and decided by a replay center.

 

The owners will formally vote on the issue at their next meetings in Orlando, Fla., in November. And the changes must also be negotiated with both the Major League Baseball Players Association and the World Umpires Association

So it's not a done deal yet.

 

Schuerholz used a disputed hit-by-pitch call as a play that would not be reviewable, noting that if runners were moving on the pitch, it would be extremely difficult for the umpires to decide which bases they should be entitled to.

 

The list of exactly which plays fall into each category hasn't been finalized, pending further talks with the unions.

How many plays don't have base runner decisions attached?

[Outlander]

I can see this being abused if it isn't tightened a little bit more. If there is a close play in the first couldn't Roenicke just go out to talk to the umps to make sure they saw the play correctly while somebody watches the play and relays down to challenge or not? Basically not a fan of the challenges, just have a guy in the booth buzz down.

[Fear The Chorizo]

instead of a manager call system, I think they should make the managers throw something onto the field.

 

The NFL coaches get to throw a stupid little red hanky onto the field - I think baseball managers deserve to get the fan reaction of seeing them protest the call by chucking a neon green fungo bat out of the dugout.

 

Another question is if there will be gamesmanship by the jumbotron operators...if a questionable call goes a home team's way, does the jumbotron operator decide to hold off on showing a replay until the next pitch is thrown? Will teams mimic the stupidity that happens during an NFL game when teams rush up to try and get a quick snap off to beat a coaches' challenge? I can see a bad out call being made at first and instead of going around the horn, the 1B fires it back to the pitcher and he toes the rubber. But, I guess the next batter up could decide to take a nap before entering the batters box to make sure the manager has enough time to look at a replay...

 

I like the concept of replay in baseball, to get the calls right - I just don't want it to become part of the in-game strategy like it is in the NFL. To me it's simple - no ball/strike reviews, put an extra ump in the press box and give him access to all replays. There's enough time between when a call is made and when the next batter comes up to check a review and determine if an onfield call is correct, flat out wrong, or questionable. If the call is wrong or questionable, that press box ump buzzes the homeplate umpire to hold up play and to run over to the ump replay monitor behind homeplate. The homeplate ump and press box ump look at the replays for 30 seconds, agree on the proper call, and move on with the game.

[RightFieldCoder]

I'm fine with expanded replay in whatever form they want. I just want games to end in under 3 hours.

 

The simplest and easiest way to do this would be one simple rule: If no one is on base, the batter cannot step out of the batters box, and the pitch must be delivered within 15 seconds.

I came up with the idea of a pitch clock last homestand. It starts when the umpire signals the ball "in play". He will call this as soon as the pitcher gets the ball, or while the catcher has it and isn't getting it back quickly. This stops the defense from delaying the game. It counts down starting from 25. The pitcher can start his delivery any time after it reaches 20. The pitch is valid whether the batter is in the box or not, but he is still out if he hits it while out of the box. If the timer reaches 0, the ump calls a ball and immediately restarts the clock. It would change the pace of the batter/pitcher match up, but quickly speed up the overall game.

[BarneyStinston]

I'm fine with expanded replay in whatever form they want. I just want games to end in under 3 hours.

 

The simplest and easiest way to do this would be one simple rule: If no one is on base, the batter cannot step out of the batters box, and the pitch must be delivered within 15 seconds.

I came up with the idea of a pitch clock last homestand. It starts when the umpire signals the ball "in play". He will call this as soon as the pitcher gets the ball, or while the catcher has it and isn't getting it back quickly. This stops the defense from delaying the game. It counts down starting from 25. The pitcher can start his delivery any time after it reaches 20. The pitch is valid whether the batter is in the box or not, but he is still out if he hits it while out of the box. If the timer reaches 0, the ump calls a ball and immediately restarts the clock. It would change the pace of the batter/pitcher match up, but quickly speed up the overall game.

Frankly, I think it would just mean more throws over to first base anytime a man is on, and a catcher asking for time to either adjust, tend to an injury, or talk to the pitcher. I don't know how you can realistically prevent a batter from calling for time when something is bothering him, asking for a new bat, or confirming signs with the 3rd base coach.

I also believe that a player should be able to leave the batters box if the pitch is going to hit him there.

[olliegjw]

Sure is fun watching the Little League World Series. On top of the great action, they are also using instant replay. The replays are not taking much time at all. It is unbelievable that they can have a seamless replay system for kids, but not for a multi-billion dollar empire like MLB.

[BarneyStinston]

Unless replay starts evaluating real time balls and strikes, the most frequent errors made in the game, its not even worth talking about.