Replay reviews

[DHonks]

Not sure our record on replay reviews, but it sure seems like we have a lot of seemingly clear-cut reviews that are denied or not deemed inconclusive. I don't know what the replay officials saw tonight, but Villar was safe from all angles. Since school and golf started 7 weeks ago, I haven't been able to watch as many games. But it sure seems that we've gotten screwed on seemingly simple reviews this season. Am I wrong with this observation?

[jerichoholicninja]

Not sure our record on replay reviews, but it sure seems like we have a lot of seemingly clear-cut reviews that are denied or not deemed inconclusive. I don't know what the replay officials saw tonight, but Villar was safe from all angles. Since school and golf started 7 weeks ago, I haven't been able to watch as many games. But it sure seems that we've gotten screwed on seemingly simple reviews this season. Am I wrong with this observation?

 

I'm sure every fan thinks their team gets screwed. I will say though that in general the reviews I've seen this year have been overall questionable at best for both teams. It would be nice if they had a way to let fans know why they made the decision they made like in football.

[Baldkin]

Heck, telling fans at the game what is being reviewed would be a huge improvement.

[young guns]

Thats one thing the nfl got right, for the most part. If they see something that changes the call or even confirms it most refs will describe the action they saw that does it otherwise they say call stands which everyone knows mean we didnt see anything one way or the other. With baseball all you get is the decision. I dont get to watch the games much and even in those few games thereve been times where a call comes out that makes you go "what!?"going both ways, that there needs to be at least a little more transparency in the decision.

[MrTPlush]

What exactly do you want explained? Most replays in baseball are quite straight forward. Safe/Out Catch/Not Catch

[1992casey]

But some are clear as mud. If you watch on TV, the announcers are scratching their heads. Imagine the fans in the park. I was at one game where a replay was immediately followed by another one. Those of us in the stands had no clue what either replay was about.

 

I agree that the NFL mostly has it right. However, at Lambeau last year, we noticed that the official was hard to hear in the stands, and he wasn't closed-captioned on the scoreboard.

[DHonks]

My comment is that it sure seems like this season, the Brewers have made a number of challenges that look clear-cut, yet have not gotten their way. Opponents have had much better success with even less visual evidence. And I'm not the typical "blame the ref/ump" type person, it just seems that replay has not been our friend this season

[AKCheesehead]

Based on what I observed this year, I would really like it if they did away with replay, aside from fair/foul, HR/not, which I'm ok with. The rest of it is not an improvement to baseball at all, in my opinion.

[young guns]

What exactly do you want explained? Most replays in baseball are quite straight forward. Safe/Out Catch/Not Catch

Yes most replays are straight forward and im not saying they need to explain every replay with a "the defender tagged the runner before he reached the base" type explaination. I dont know if explaination would be enough anyway. Most baseball plays its also pretty obvious what the replay official ultimately thought, missed a tag or made a tag or whatever, but its more what did they see to make them think that did or did not happen. Some of these calls make me think some of these officials need to be taught what indisputable means.

 

I dont know if there is a good solution, there most likely wont be a solution that makes everyone happy, but the best i can think of is that they should release a screen shot that shows the "indisputable evidence" with an explaination of what it shows. I mean, if its indisputable you should be able to easily defend your position right? Probably would only have to do this for overturned calls since thise are the ones you need to see something to make.

 

As an example, the last one I saw and remember, a week or so ago, in Pittsburgh, late in the game braun is called safe on a pick off attempt and pitt challenges. Its a close play. It looks like when the tag is made brauns fingers are over the bag, but not on the bag. However its possible his palm has hit the bag and his fingers have just not closed on the bag yet. I believe i saw some movement in the bag that may have coincided with that as the tag is being made. He might have been out but he was ruled safe and there was nothing on video that definitively showed him being tagged and his palm not on the bag.

 

I guess i would just be happy to know that someone is reviewing the reviews with the officials and making sure that they arent making calls without the proof to back them up.

[645]

I'd say there was one game that the brewers got screwed on Reply calls but overall they haven't been although a few have been against them that shouldn't had but they gotten a few too.

 

Although on another topic of speeding up the games the way they are doing the reply system it's not working. there was a game Villar lead off with a walk and before the pitcher throw to the 2nd batter he throw over to 1st base to pick him off and the Ump calls him out. They review the play and it showed he has safe. Game started up again and the pitcher throws to 1st base again and Vallar was called out again. He clearly was out after another review but the thing is the way they are doing reviews it took 10 Minutes to make that out. It makes no sense to let teams have 2 minutes where the fans look at the dugout to review it themselfs to deside if they want it reviewed so that the fans can send the next 2 minutes looking at the umps.

 

I'm of the Option that they should take it out of the hands of the Manager and have the players on the field ask for the review for they are there in the play and in most cases they know if they are safe or out for they don't need that 2 minutes when everyone knows they are going to review it.

[adambr2]

I would like replays to be limited to 60 seconds at most, and if the people in New York are still trying to make a determination at that time, the monitors immediately shut off and the call automatically stands as called.

 

Too often it seems we wait for them for minutes tediously going over every angle in slow motion. To me, by definition if you still can't overturn a call after 60 seconds, it's not indisputable.

 

I believe the purpose and spirit of replay is to be able to correct an obviously bad call. Not to spend minutes splitting hairs and trying to piece together multiple angles and overturn a call because of what you think you see but aren't 100% sure.

[trwi7]

I would like replays to be limited to 60 seconds at most, and if the people in New York are still trying to make a determination at that time, the monitors immediately shut off and the call automatically stands as called.

 

Too often it seems we wait for them for minutes tediously going over every angle in slow motion. To me, by definition if you still can't overturn a call after 60 seconds, it's not indisputable.

 

I believe the purpose and spirit of replay is to be able to correct an obviously bad call. Not to spend minutes splitting hairs and trying to piece together multiple angles and overturn a call because of what you think you see but aren't 100% sure.

 

That seems silly. What if a play is really close and they're looking at a bunch of different camera angles and splicing different shots together to get a good view? That takes more than a minute but just because you want it to go faster, they should just stop, even if it means getting the call wrong?

 

How many reviews have even been finished in a minute this year? Even the obvious ones take at least a minute to overturn.

[jerichoholicninja]

I would like replays to be limited to 60 seconds at most, and if the people in New York are still trying to make a determination at that time, the monitors immediately shut off and the call automatically stands as called.

 

Too often it seems we wait for them for minutes tediously going over every angle in slow motion. To me, by definition if you still can't overturn a call after 60 seconds, it's not indisputable.

 

I believe the purpose and spirit of replay is to be able to correct an obviously bad call. Not to spend minutes splitting hairs and trying to piece together multiple angles and overturn a call because of what you think you see but aren't 100% sure.

 

That seems silly. What if a play is really close and they're looking at a bunch of different camera angles and splicing different shots together to get a good view? That takes more than a minute but just because you want it to go faster, they should just stop, even if it means getting the call wrong?

 

How many reviews have even been finished in a minute this year? Even the obvious ones take at least a minute to overturn.

 

I totally agree with him. If it's not obvious after 60 seconds, then the call stands. The point of replay was to prevent another Jim Joyce moment not analyze every millimeter of the game at 1,000 frames per second. If the goal was to get every single call correct then challenges should be unlimited since there is no limit to the number of incorrect calls that can be made by umpires in a game and every single element of the game should be reviewable, including balls and strikes.

[MenchHead]

If I can tell if a call is good or bad via the television broadcast and their replay before the next pitch, there isn't a reasonable excuse the current system takes so long. I'm on board with the time limit. There have to be ways to speed this up substantially.

[adambr2]

I would like replays to be limited to 60 seconds at most, and if the people in New York are still trying to make a determination at that time, the monitors immediately shut off and the call automatically stands as called.

 

Too often it seems we wait for them for minutes tediously going over every angle in slow motion. To me, by definition if you still can't overturn a call after 60 seconds, it's not indisputable.

 

I believe the purpose and spirit of replay is to be able to correct an obviously bad call. Not to spend minutes splitting hairs and trying to piece together multiple angles and overturn a call because of what you think you see but aren't 100% sure.

 

That seems silly. What if a play is really close and they're looking at a bunch of different camera angles and splicing different shots together to get a good view? That takes more than a minute but just because you want it to go faster, they should just stop, even if it means getting the call wrong?

 

How many reviews have even been finished in a minute this year? Even the obvious ones take at least a minute to overturn.

 

The bolded is literally exactly what I said I'm against using replay for in the last sentence of my previous post. Yes, they should just stop. It's either indisputable from looking at it or it isn't. The Joyce play that Jericho mentioned is exactly the call I had in mind, but there are plenty that are obvious, that, IMO, is what it's for.

 

As for the one minute, I'm not dead set on 60 seconds, make it 90 or whatever, but as long as the equipment is working, 60-90 seconds is more than enough time to correct an obviously bad call. How many seconds did it take to realize that Joyce blew the call to cost Gallaraga the perfect game? 5?

 

The longest replay this year is 11 minutes. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I would like to think most fans would like to see replay be a tool to provide a quick on the spot correction to a indisputable bad call, not a call that is only indisputable after conducting a thorough forensic analysis.

[JohnBriggs12]

I don't think they can go back and eliminate replay reviews. What they've proved is that umpires miss calls a lot. I'd be worried if I'm an umpire. Baseball needs to weed out the guys that get calls overturned a lot. That would reduce the need for so many reviews.

[Baldkin]

College football has it right. There is absolutely no reason to have a challenge system, which has a few plays a night where guys are sitting, waiting for the manager to decide if he's challenging or not (while they wait to watch a replay in the dugout).

 

Have a 5th ump in the booth, who has access to all replay angles, automatically synced up. He buzzes the home plate ump if they need to review a play. 30 seconds later, call stands or is overturned.

[jerichoholicninja]

College football has it right. There is absolutely no reason to have a challenge system, which has a few plays a night where guys are sitting, waiting for the manager to decide if he's challenging or not (while they wait to watch a replay in the dugout).

 

Have a 5th ump in the booth, who has access to all replay angles, automatically synced up. He buzzes the home plate ump if they need to review a play. 30 seconds later, call stands or is overturned.

 

I've always felt that having a 3rd party decide what needs to be reviewed is the best way to do it. That, however, opens up a lot of possibilities for controversy when plays aren't challenged and accusations of league favoritism to certain teams.

[BuckyBrewer61]

I totally agree with him. If it's not obvious after 60 seconds, then the call stands. The point of replay was to prevent another Jim Joyce moment not analyze every millimeter of the game at 1,000 frames per second. If the goal was to get every single call correct then challenges should be unlimited since there is no limit to the number of incorrect calls that can be made by umpires in a game and every single element of the game should be reviewable, including balls and strikes.

 

This so much.

 

Replay has the potential to be great...if the time limits were adhered to and "indisputable video evidence" actually meant anything. If the point of replay is "get every call right," then every single play should be reviewed...but that obviously would be an incredible waste of time and ruin the game experience. And right now, we are currently wasting time and ruining the experience. I no longer get excited on close plays, I sit down and wait for the actual call to come 5 minutes later.

 

Replay should be quick and reverse clear mistakes. If a call wasn't clearly wrong after 60 seconds, even if it looks like it is probably wrong but you can't say for sure, then the call stands and move on. This would also decrease the rate of overturned calls and, in turn, the number of reviews being done.