Instant Replay?

[charpotsss]

I glanced around for a minute or two and didn't see a thread on this, so sorry if I'm repeating something.

Was just reading DOB's latest and noticed this bit:

"— Instant replay: Buster Olney was told that some GMs are planning to recommend limited use of instant replay during the General Managers meetings next week in Orlando. Good. I’m for it, but only on a very limited basis - specifically, a quick look at a TV monitor mounted nearby to determine whether balls are fair or foul, or whether homers hit this yellow line or that foul screen or whatever. For close plays at the plate, I don’t know. I’d hate to slow the glacial pace of some games even more. For balls and strikes and other calls, absolutely not. No, no, no."



What do y'all think about instant replay? My opinion pretty much mirrors DOB's, only maybe a little bit more strongly FOR it. I've written two papers advocating the MLB implement instant replay for classes and have always wished they'd find a way to use it on a limited basis - even more so lately given how many close calls there were in this post-season alone.


Any thoughts?

[thegame10]

No.

No instant replay. Ever.

But that's just me...:rolleyes:

[TheMatrix31]

They need to do EVERYTHING to get calls right. If that means spend an extra ten minutes a game figuring some things out, so be it. I don't buy this "human error is part of the game" crap, either. It's the referees job to get the call right. If they don't get the call right, they're not doing their jobs.

[Corvette]

I remember a few years back they were trying to speed up the game. This won't really help. Also, how are they gonna control the amount being used, is it 1 every 3 innings? I could see them being overused.

[TheMatrix31]

Have one challenge per game, and automatic review on anything questionable after the 7th inning.

[charpotsss]

Have one challenge per game, and automatic review on anything questionable after the 7th inning.

That's pretty much exactly what I proposed in my papers. Each manager having one challenge should not slow up the game too much and they can limit the time given to the umps to review just as the NFL does, same rules with there must be VERY SUBSTANTIAL evidence in order to reverse the call made on the field.

One thing I wonder a little about also: with a play like Matt Holliday's slide into home during the WC playoff game, the catcher never appeared to tag Matt but Matt also never appeared to swipe home plate (from what I can remember-that's right, right?) I suppose in this instance, since the original call was he was safe, then that would have to stand even though he never touched the plate.

[McCarroll21]

I'd be for it so long as it's not used to question whether a player is safe/out at first base or strike/ball or something. Use it for things like DOB said, is a ball a homerun? fair or foul?

I like the fact that baseball hasn't turned into a game refereed by a monitor. Don't make it to where every play has a chance to be overturned.

Fact is, when an umpire has to make a safe/out call, they get it right damn near most of the time. Some things you just can't see, such as if a ball goes over the yellow line, or if it's on the right side or left side of the foul pole. Use it for that, not to determine whether a guy is safe or out.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Ball games are only slow if you watch them on television. This wouldn't change the perception at all, and I seriously doubt it would make it worse.

[F_man8326]

I'd be for it so long as it's not used to question whether a player is safe/out at first base or strike/ball or something. Use it for things like DOB said, is a ball a homerun? fair or foul?

I like the fact that baseball hasn't turned into a game refereed by a monitor. Don't make it to where every play has a chance to be overturned.

Fact is, when an umpire has to make a safe/out call, they get it right damn near most of the time. Some things you just can't see, such as if a ball goes over the yellow line, or if it's on the right side or left side of the foul pole. Use it for that, not to determine whether a guy is safe or out.

I agree with what Josh said.

[PhantomsCV]

no balls and strike calls can be replayed. All close plays at the plate will be replayed. Catches in the outfield, plays at each base and home runs will be checked by the umpire in a booth and if they believe a change will be made. The coaches can't "challenge" the plays because what will you give up when your wrong? Will you give up a run, out, or what?

[vnodnarb]

I agree with most of the posts above, but would like to add that the person watching the replay should be up in the booth and should take no more than 30 seconds to message down to the umpire what the call is. They should do it that way in football, I think it's stupid for one of the referee to walk off the field into some booth and waste 3-5 minutes sometimes. Someone should be upstairs with the replays ready to go and should be able to make the decision very quickly.

[Nasadega]

Wow I've just realized I had 215,000 Bn bux, second richest member (if wofrado ladazmo doesn't count)
I definately need to use them in vbookie.

[WarParty]

Of course MLB needs to take advantage of what has become mainstream technology when it comes to getting a call right as opposed to 'speeding up the game', to wit: Put full trust in the umpires. I'm not calling out the umps, although some could use far closer scrutiny, but the camera's eye is sometimes more precise than the human's.

I think the larger question is the huge egoes of many MLB umpires who have had all the power on making calls since the invention of the game and they're not wanting to relinquish it, regardless of the arguments in support of video reviews.

Again, I say for maybe the 1000th time, where is the commissioner in matters such as these? Where is the leadership and vision of a modern commissioner acting in the best contemporary interests of the game and getting calls right? Where is it?

It's in the old boys club, alive and well, and being the perpetual puppet for the fat cat owners who keep Selig on a short leash. This, obviously, is a separate issue and a topic for another thread but for now, I see linkage to the question posed on video replays.

[dmangrich]

determine whether balls are fair or foul, or whether homers hit this yellow line or that foul screen or whatever.

Would rather add two umps like in the play-offs.

[absintheofmalaise]

Since all games are televised these days they can have pretty much instant review on all close foul line and HR calls. The only time it would even come into play would be if it was close so it shouldn't slow a game down. How many times during a season does this type of thing really happen? The only time it should ever be used is on those types of calls. I don't think they should use any type of system to call balls and strikes. It's up to the hitter and pitcher to adapt to the strike zone.

[Hobbes]

Again, I say for maybe the 1000th time, where is the commissioner in matters such as these? Where is the leadership and vision of a modern commissioner acting in the best contemporary interests of the game and getting calls right? Where is it?
Selig has actually been very vocal in his opposition to instant replay. You may disagree with his stance, but he has not ignored the issue.

[Rick]

I'm a baseball purist but I wouldn't mind using instant replay as long as it is limited to homerun calls and fair or foul calls . No calls on the bases and no ball and strike calls should be reviewed .

The thing that scares me is whether people will want to expand the use of replay once it starts . But I guess in other sports , it has been kept to its original purpose - In hockey, it is only used to see if a goal was scored . In basketball, it is only used to see if a shot was a 3 pointer and if a shot beat the buzzer.

[TheMatrix31]

I'm a baseball purist but I wouldn't mind using instant replay as long as it is limited to homerun calls and fair or foul calls . No calls on the bases and no ball and strike calls should be reviewed .

The thing that scares me is whether people will want to expand the use of replay once it starts . But I guess in other sports , it has been kept to its original purpose - In hockey, it is only used to see if a goal was scored . In basketball, it is only used to see if a shot was a 3 pointer and if a shot beat the buzzer.

How hard is it to tell if a ball is fair or foul? Do we really need instant replay on those?

Base calls need to be allowed. If Kenny Lofton was actually called safe at second during this postseason, things could have been drastically different.

Get instant replays on things that really ARE close.

[dmangrich]

In the post season I might agree.

[GTBrave]

just as long as it doesn't end up like that God awful college football system where every 3 plays get challenged then I'm all for it.

[JCStone57]

I only see the need for replay in the playoffs solely and only those plays that would involve a run being scored. A homerun call or a close play at the plate. Also let the managers decide if they want to challenge. Give them 1 challenge per game and as a penalty they can only go to the mound once to talk to the pitcher per inning after that if they "lose" the challenge. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.

[milbraves]

Everyone keeps saying to use instant replay on fair/foul calls. Doesn't anyone see why that can't possibly work? The call must be made instantaneously on fair balls. How could instant replay work on fair/foul calls? The umpires can't make everyone freeze until the guy in the booth decides the call. One option would be to give no call on a play close to the line, let the play finish, and then get the call, but what a waste of time! Also, IR would add another member, a booth reviewer, to the umpiring crew, something MLB isn't real crazy about.
I just don't see it as necessary. Maybe just to quiet all those waving the IR flags, they could have the crew chief review footage in the once-in-a-bluemoon instance where a homerun call is unclear. In a homerun, the ball is dead whatever the ruling, and as such, should be the only time that instant replay is ever used in baseball, if at all.

[Hobbes]

Everyone keeps saying to use instant replay on fair/foul calls. Doesn't anyone see why that can't possibly work? The call must be made instantaneously on fair balls. How could instant replay work on fair/foul calls? The umpires can't make everyone freeze until the guy in the booth decides the call. One option would be to give no call on a play close to the line, let the play finish, and then get the call, but what a waste of time! Also, IR would add another member, a booth reviewer, to the umpiring crew, something MLB isn't real crazy about.
I just don't see it as necessary. Maybe just to quiet all those waving the IR flags, they could have the crew chief review footage in the once-in-a-bluemoon instance where a homerun call is unclear. In a homerun, the ball is dead whatever the ruling, and as such, should be the only time that instant replay is ever used in baseball, if at all.
When people are talking about fair/foul calls, they are talking about balls that are clearly home run distance, but for which it is unclear upon which side of the foul pole they passed. Nobody means fair/foul calls on balls in play.

[McCarroll21]

When people are talking about fair/foul calls, they are talking about balls that are clearly home run distance, but for which it is unclear upon which side of the foul pole they passed. Nobody means fair/foul calls on balls in play.
Yes. Just use replay for homeruns that are in doubt. Is it fair or foul? Did it go over the yellow line?

[WarParty]

Selig has actually been very vocal in his opposition to instant replay. You may disagree with his stance, but he has not ignored the issue.

That's true and it continues to reveal the lack of vision, imagination and leadership of the puppet commissioner, which is my original point. The old boy owners have their lackey in place to do their bidding against anything that smacks of 21st century modernization.

Realize that all things can be improved. Realize that the conquering #1 sport in America, the NFL, has embraced the technology. Realize that the NFL took the mantle of the nation's favorite sport away from MLB while the likes of Selig and the old world owners were talking about tradition and maintaining the them-called integrity of the game.

I'm convinced, and I'm not alone, that there still exist MLB owners that would far prefer to go back to the Negro leagues and no free agency. If the DH is a good thing, and I believe it is, again, why aren't both leagues using it? Again, where is the lapdog commissioner??? Sadly, we know where.

[KRAZE E E803]

I truly believe that its a horrible Idea for Baseball. Baseball is the purest sport we have left and instant replay would just bring about more changes to the game. Aside from slowing down the game, instant replay isn't an exact science (as seen in football) and there will be more rules placed to for what is and isn't re-viewable. What are you gonna have a manager's challenge too? Then challenges for balls and strikes? I agree with a previous post, how hard is it to see foul or fair. I believe thats their main proponent for having it if I'm not mistaken. Its just absurd to let this CREEP in our beloved game. Lets keep it simple people. Let this in and the next thing we know it will be something else, and then something else. My last point is look at football. Those referees are so scared to make a call one way or the other its preposterous. Poor guys are scared to make the right call for fear that they will be humiliated in front of millions. Its just ends up costing everyone in the end. I guess there is nothing I can do to stop it though. If it does end up being a good thing for baseball I would be the first one to say I was wrong!!! I just don't believe thats the case.

[milbraves]

That's true and it continues to reveal the lack of vision, imagination and leadership of the puppet commissioner, which is my original point. The old boy owners have their lackey in place to do their bidding against anything that smacks of 21st century modernization.

Realize that all things can be improved. Realize that the conquering #1 sport in America, the NFL, has embraced the technology. Realize that the NFL took the mantle of the nation's favorite sport away from MLB while the likes of Selig and the old world owners were talking about tradition and maintaining the them-called integrity of the game.

I'm convinced, and I'm not alone, that there still exist MLB owners that would far prefer to go back to the Negro leagues and no free agency. If the DH is a good thing, and I believe it is, again, why aren't both leagues using it? Again, where is the lapdog commissioner??? Sadly, we know where.

That's all pretty weird. why so much distrust of MLB owners??

Also, the DH in only one league is the best thing about having two leagues. It gives you a choice as to which style of play you prefer. It's been talked about alot in a thread called "new rules" or something

[milbraves]

Aside from slowing down the game, instant replay isn't an exact science (as seen in football) .

That's a pretty good point there. I still can't tell if Holliday ever touched the plate to take the Rocks into the playoffs.
Remember, that game was nationally televised and had cameras everywhere, a lot more than MASN sends out for a Nats vs. Marlins game.

Here's why the owners and the league are against instant replay: it would require every stadium to be equipped with a large number of cameras, at all angles. This works just fine in the NFL, as nearly all games are televised to a massive audience. But the owners aren't paying for the cameras, the few networks that pay to televise the games are, and they're all held to the same standard as far as field coverage and angles. If IR were to be started in MLB, the owners themselves would likely have to pay for the technology themselves, costing them money without providing any added revenue. Do you think there's anyone out there that really loves baseball but doesn't ever watch because sometimes the umps blow a call? of course there isn't. But adding Instant Replay would really turn alot of the old timers off, and they're crucial to baseball ratings. So IR would cost the owners money, while not making them any. So they're against it. Simple dollars and sense.

[KRAZE E E803]

That's true and it continues to reveal the lack of vision, imagination and leadership of the puppet commissioner, which is my original point. The old boy owners have their lackey in place to do their bidding against anything that smacks of 21st century modernization.

Realize that all things can be improved. Realize that the conquering #1 sport in America, the NFL, has embraced the technology. Realize that the NFL took the mantle of the nation's favorite sport away from MLB while the likes of Selig and the old world owners were talking about tradition and maintaining the them-called integrity of the game.

I'm convinced, and I'm not alone, that there still exist MLB owners that would far prefer to go back to the Negro leagues and no free agency. If the DH is a good thing, and I believe it is, again, why aren't both leagues using it? Again, where is the lapdog commissioner??? Sadly, we know where.
The reason for the NFL being #1 as you said is due to there advertising and marketing success to a broader fan base or the past ten years. How absolutely nothing to due with technology, that is absurd.

[Hobbes]

The reason for the NFL being #1 as you said is due to there advertising and marketing success to a broader fan base or the past ten years. How absolutely nothing to due with technology, that is absurd.
And the institution of instant replay would do nothing to reverse those fortunes.

Chalk it up to the changing tastes of the Amercian sports fan, who has increasingly little patience for the often languid and cerebral game of baseball when the fast-paced violence of football provides more thrills per minute.

[MPH]

Umpires get the calls right 99.999% of the time. Usually when a replay of a close call is shown on TV I find myself marvelling at the skill of the umpire who got it right in a millisecond - without the aid of multiple views.

The exceptions are few and far between, and as we watch the replays of questionable calls from different angles it's hard to find many examples where the ump was clearly wrong. Sure there have been some blown calls, including some real gapers, but not many; and instant replay won't be conclusive all the time.

Look back through this season's gamelogs, and see how many versions of the following post sequence you find:

"Yeah safe!"
"NO, OUT!"
"Wait ... from that angle he looks out ..."
"Oh, no no no he was safe!"
"Look at his foot."
"But the ball was there already."
"No definitely out, the umpire blew the call!"
"Nah, from that angle he looked safe to me ..."
"Homer."
"Stupid ump."
There are two reasons I'm against instant replay for baseball:

The umpires rarely err, and when they do the call is often so close that instant replay might be inconclusive. With an extra guy manning the replay cam, that may introduce a new type of error to the game.
Reviewing replays will slow down the game, and there is no doubt managers will use the absolute maximum number of replay appeals allowable under the rules - it would be stupid not to. Then, after the limit has been exhausted, what happens when a really questionable call occurs, and there is no appeal remaining?

[Rick]

MPH ,
I agree with you in principle but we are not going to use instant replay for calls on the bases . I am proposing it strictly for homeruns ( was it over the yellow line and was it fair or foul ) . This will come up very rarely ( I don't think the Braves had an instance of it all year ) and it would not hold up the game long .

Now if there is a danger of instant replay spreading to other parts of baseball , then I agree with you - keep it out period . But as I noted in my other post , hockey and basketball have used it in a limited form without it spreading to other calls . Football is the sport that has let instant replay get way out of hand .

[cjones1999]

Umpires get the calls right 99.999% of the time. Usually when a replay of a close call is shown on TV I find myself marvelling at the skill of the umpire who got it right in a millisecond - without the aid of multiple views.

The exceptions are few and far between, and as we watch the replays of questionable calls from different angles it's hard to find many examples where the ump was clearly wrong. Sure there have been some blown calls, including some real gapers, but not many; and instant replay won't be conclusive all the time.


Look back through this season's gamelogs, and see how many versions of the following post sequence you find:
"Yeah safe!"


"NO, OUT!"


"Wait ... from that angle he looks out ..."


"Oh, no no no he was safe!"


"Look at his foot."


"But the ball was there already."


"No definitely out, the umpire blew the call!"


"Nah, from that angle he looked safe to me ..."


"Homer."


"Stupid ump."
There are two reasons I'm against instant replay for baseball:

The umpires rarely err, and when they do the call is often so close that instant replay might be inconclusive. With an extra guy manning the replay cam, that may introduce a new type of error to the game.
Reviewing replays will slow down the game, and there is no doubt managers will use the absolute maximum number of replay appeals allowable under the rules - it would be stupid not to. Then, after the limit has been exhausted, what happens when a really questionable call occurs, and there is no appeal remaining?
Great post MPH.

[nickzilla6066]

I'd rather they deal with the unfair advantage that the DH gives AL teams rather than worrying about replay but I suppose it wouldn't hurt for scoring plays (especially HR calls).