Skip to main content

Reply to "Mlb testing rule changes in independent Atlantic league"

Chico Escuela posted:
2019Dad posted:
Chico Escuela posted:
Go44dad posted:
 

 

Wouldn't it be super simple to have an ear piece for the human ump notifying him or her of the ball/strike call, and then he or she can signal the ball/strike call? Clearly there's a need for a human ump anyway -- check swings, foul tips, plays at the plate, catcher's interference, etc.

Simple to set that up, for sure. And I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. But if I were the ump, it could be tough to stay focused for the times I needed to overrule the robot. That voice in your ear might make you really hesitant to make a different call. Or maybe umps would get used to it, maybe they could give feedback between innings if calls were consistently off...  I’m not against the experiment. But if the goal is to speed games up, this may be counterproductive. 

Hmm . . . it would be a weird approach to me to say to the ump: "make a different call if you feel like it." We may be talking about two different things. What I'm saying is: the voice in his or her ear would tell the umpire whether it was a ball or a strike. Not suggest. Or give some kind of indication. Tell. The only time it would be overruled would be for things like checked swings, catcher's interference, etc. If implemented like that, it wouldn't slow down the game at all.

×
×
×
×