quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Our experience with Questec and now FX tracking proves otherwise. Players ***** as much when the technology identifies the low strike as a strike and inside strike as a strike and high strike as a strike and, and.....
Remember when F1 took a bat to the Questec camera?
quote:Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Our experience with Questec and now FX tracking proves otherwise. Players ***** as much when the technology identifies the low strike as a strike and inside strike as a strike and high strike as a strike and, and.....
Remember when F1 took a bat to the Questec camera?
I wasn’t aware that pitches were being called anywhere in games by technology. When did that start, and how wide spread is it?
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
My post was in reference to the suggestion that players would respect the "decisions" of technology called balls and strikes. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary when umpires first conformed to the standards of questec and in post game comments regarding FX. I apologize if I was not clear.
Its only natural for human beings to go into the “It wasn’t my fault” mode when things don’t go their way. After all, it wouldn’t project very well for a player to take a pitch he could have clobbered if only it was in the strike zone, or for a pitcher to admit he’d thrown a pitch in a crucial situation that wasn’t very good. quote:Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
My post was in reference to the suggestion that players would respect the "decisions" of technology called balls and strikes. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary when umpires first conformed to the standards of questec and in post game comments regarding FX. I apologize if I was not clear.
Now its my turn to apologize for not being clear. I wasn’t at all trying to suggest anyone would respect the decisions or anyone or anything when those decisions went contrary to their benefit.
What I was trying to get across, was that all those glares, stares, jawing, and body language indicating they were somehow grievously wronged, would carry a lot less weight than they do. IOW, there’d be no reason to posture. It doesn’t show a lot of intelligence to argue with an inanimate object.
Its interesting that there would be many who would argue that a picture they could see with their own eyes was wrong, and they were right. I’d suspect that came because of habit, not high intelligence.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Because of "weaknesses", technology would call pitches strikes that MLB does not want called strikes. The advent of a robot umpire would have to coincide with a change of the definition of a strike.
