I’m seeing calls for instant replays all over Twitter. Here’s Henry Schulman at The Splash:
Starting with the first game of the second half for each team, instant replay is in for EVERY possible call except for balls and strikes. Each manager gets one challenge a game — a potential five minutes more to prevent another Jim Joyce from screwing another Armando Galarraga.
The home run replays seem to work well. The technology is there, and frankly, I would have liked to see the umpires break the rules on this one and go look anyway. Sometimes, you have to do what’s right, not what’s in the rules.
NO REPLAY. There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that we are capable of designing a system that won’t do damage to the experience of the game. I’m all for getting the calls right, and if there were a way to do it without turning baseball into the NFL (which has made the end of games horrendous to watch, when they should be most exciting, just because “every call has to be right”) I would be for it. The limited system in use for homerun calls work well. But, I was against even that, because of the creep, which we are seeing now. Let instant replay come over anything that happens on the basepaths and it will be just a few years before it has sway over balls and strikes and suddenly we are watching a different game.
Another idea: If the umps can get together to change a hit batsman call by the home plate umpire in the Phils/Braves game, why not just allow the umpires to huddle after a play like this when there is obvious controversy? I’m not really for that, but if they can do it for a hit batsman, when the umpire is as close if not closer than the first base umpire to the play, they should have been able to do it in this circumstance, too.
Strongly agree with you on that last remark, DP.
Yeah, but replay could be so simple. All MLB would have to do is to put a single person who’s watching the same feed as the television audience (after all the TV feed has multiple angles and shows everything) someplace in the stadium. (Hell, it could be at a remote location even.) That person is responsible for watching exactly what we, the tv audience see. Any non balls and strikes call that is missed is a replay or two (remember “we’re” seeing this too) and a call to the head umpire with the proper call. It could take 30 seconds and be non-intrusive.
Big brother? Not for me, it’s actually assisting the umpires. They’re damn good and right most of the time, but who wants to be in Joyce’s position?
BTW, if baseball wanted to affect the speed of the game, there are amble touches that could be enacted (e.g. batter can’t step out of batter’s box without a good reason [say he loses a contact lens]; pitcher’s on the rubber pitching unless he has a reason to step off [locust attack]) to do so.
@Kent: If we could be sure it would remain so simple, I would be in favor. But I think it would be an inevitable path down the review of every even mildly close call, in the name of “getting it right.” Imagine the Dave Roberts play in the 2004 ALCS. Now, that was a very close play, and I think most, outside of a few disgruntled Yankees fans, see that he was safe. But are you telling me that if we had replay at that time that the game would not have been stopped for several minutes for reviewers to scrutinize it from every angle to “make sure they got it right”? And are you further telling me that interrupting a game like this, especially as important and tense a game as that, would not do it severe damage?
Technology is making life worse for umpires, instead of making it better. With every decision scrutinized by thousands of people via multiple re-play angles and speed, umpires have to play the perfect game. However, few would want to go the way of football. So, let’s head for a middle ground. Learn from tennis. Tennis has a challenge system whereby players are allowed 3 incorrect challenges per set.
MLB can do the same thing. After 1 incorrect challenge, a team cannot issue a challenge for the rest of the game. I think there is a two-fold benefit in this. Firstly, it provides an avenue for teams to seek justice or address frustrations without disrupting the flow too much (teams will only challenge for what they feel are outright judging errors). Secondly, I think it would add to the excitement of the game if there are one or two such challenges per game (especially at the end of close games).