Fair/Foul and New Replay Rules

It depends on what you want out of the game. If you believe the rule book is subservient to a subjective call and tradition, the thought of IR is probably repulsive. If you’d rather have the calls made as accurately as possible, and if the rule is no good, adjust it, then you’d likely think IR will be a benefit to the game.

But here’s the trouble. The vast majority of baseball games aren’t played in a venue where IR is affordable or where the game is viewed by so many. So, the only place where it will matter, is where the game is so tied to $$$$ and the games are on TV, where 7 cameras can be used to show every play in hi-def slo motion, from every conceivable angle.

I really don’t believe baseball is doing it because it thinks it will make the game any “better”. Instead, I believe they’re doing it because they feel all the replay makes the “product” look bad, and that means lower revenues. So, whether you think its good or bad, you better accept it for MLB.

Seven cameras? Try 12 and sometimes more.

As a condition of the expansion of IR the owners and managers have agreed that the placement of any runners will be solely up to umpires' judgement and that there can be no arguing or appeal of their decision.

In the real world, what this will mean, as in the case when the current IR policy was implemented, is more ejections.

I don’t know about more ejections, but for sure there’s gonna be more “dead” time. I’ve often thought about why there’s so much opposition to IR, and it always works out about the same way. There’s always gonna be a certain percentage of people who don’t want the game to change, no matter what the change. Of the rest, I really think the main objection is time, not tradition. IOW, if it didn’t take more than a few seconds, there would be very little objection at all, outside of those who are just flat out against any change.

And then to add even more complications, I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing that advertisers love breaks in the action because it gives them the chance to get at likely consumers of their product.

The expansion of IR is a BS idea, I have no problem with it as it exists. It will either mean the umpires will deafault to making a wrong call that is easier to fix or ejections will go up. Either way it will give the talking idiots another reason to say the umpires suck and IR is great. Neither is true. It will also mean they will have to continue to play a foul ball in case it gets reversed.

quote:

It will either mean the umpires will deafault to making a wrong call that is easier to fix

This is the problem I have with it. It's obvious in football sometimes that the call is CLEARLY wrong almost to the point that the official called it wrong knowing it could be reviewed.

And yes I don't like all the down-time that is created with instant replay.

Michael, your thoughts are what concern me.. that any ball "close" must be ruled fair and let the review process call it foul...

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
As a condition of the expansion of IR the owners and managers have agreed that the placement of any runners will be solely up to umpires' judgement and that there can be no arguing or appeal of their decision.

IMHO, this is a cluster waiting to happen. Placing runners based on what would have happened if they hadn't killed the play?

It doesn't sound like an improvement to me...

I'd assume all fair/foul calls are reviewable? If so, how about this case, R1 & R2 no outs, batter bunts one hopper right on top of the plate, slightly to the first base side, F2 pops up, catches the ball on first hop. HU kills it with foul call. Further review from the camera looking straight down on home plate clearly shows ball was fair when touched by F2. Place the runners and tell me how many outs there are...

What if F2 had instead deflected the ball away just as the foul call was made?

Sounds like they would tend to call it fair and change to foul. If they actually kill it and the players stop then the umpires get to decude to either call the BR out and now have R2,R3 or bases loaded no out. IR is fixes all, don't you know.

quote:

Either way it will give the talking idiots another reason to say the umpires suck and IR is great.

Couldn't agree more and while I didn't think it possible, they appear to be getting more stupid by the season.

I think this is a terrible idea and wish someone would inform the powers that be that baseball and football are not the same game.

I would much rather they spent the resources they are wasting on this on training, assurance, whatever the umpires need.

Oh, and Tim McCarver is the worst announcer in the history of baseball.

Just wait until a perennial All-Star is lost for the season because of a play that wasn't killed due to the possibility of replay...

The recurring argument is going to be that either the fielders quit trying to get outs or the runners gave up trying to advance on a foul call. True or not it is not going to make baseball better, it will just change the argument.

are we sure that we really need this

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:are we sure that we really need this

Well TR, it isn’t a matter of what “WE” need or don’t need. Since its extremely unlikely that “WE” will ever be in a position where IR will be used in a game we’re managing or playing in, what “WE” need or don’t need is irrelevant. The thing is, there are only 30 votes in all the world that get to say what is needed or not, and “THEY” have determined that they do in fact need it.

While “WE” do have some input through our wallets, I think its safe to say that’s already been taken into consideration, and determined to not have an impact, at least at this point in time. So, the bottom line is, its gonna be in the rule book, and everyone is gonna be stuck with it for better or worse, at least for some period of time.

Personally, I’d much rather have seen MLB incorporate calling balls and strikes not swing at or put into play, but that’s just me. All I can hope is, they’ll put this into operational use and it will work out to be an improvement for the game. Because if it does work out, there might be hope yet for me to see balls and strikes called by technology in my lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:are we sure that we really need this

Well TR, it isn’t a matter of what “WE” need or don’t need. Since its extremely unlikely that “WE” will ever be in a position where IR will be used in a game we’re managing or playing in, what “WE” need or don’t need is irrelevant. The thing is, there are only 30 votes in all the world that get to say what is needed or not, and “THEY” have determined that they do in fact need it.

While “WE” do have some input through our wallets, I think its safe to say that’s already been taken into consideration, and determined to not have an impact, at least at this point in time. So, the bottom line is, its gonna be in the rule book, and everyone is gonna be stuck with it for better or worse, at least for some period of time.

Personally, I’d much rather have seen MLB incorporate calling balls and strikes not swing at or put into play, but that’s just me. All I can hope is, they’ll put this into operational use and it will work out to be an improvement for the game. Because if it does work out, there might be hope yet for me to see balls and strikes called by technology in my lifetime.

TR and umpires don't agree often but we do this time. I hope to hell to never see balls and strikes called by computer. As somebody that uses cutting edge technology on a regular basis, there are times when the old methods are better.

I hope the first two weeks there are a ton of balls called foul but IR shows they were fair, umps put runners somewhere, both managers think they are wrong, everyone gets tossed and they finish the games with the guys selling hot dogs / cokes / cotton candy out of the stands.

I'm with MST I never want to see balls / strikes called by machines or computers. I could probably tolerate safe / out (although I could see some problems) but the fair / foul is just a can of worms we really don't want to open.

Baseball isn't really a game where IR can be put into play seamlessly. Much of the action is determined by what can continue after a play. In football or basketball a whistle stops the play and you can figure things out. Being called out / safe doesn't stop the play - things can still go on.

I probably watched 100 or so MLB games last season. As I sit here, I can't recall a single case where there was a blown fair/foul call. There probably were a few, but I can't remember any.

I think we're all in agreement here, we don't need this...

The problem is that blown calls usually happen during playoffs or WS so more people are paying attention. Because it is more high profile they scream for IR more.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
…I hope to hell to never see balls and strikes called by computer. As somebody that uses cutting edge technology on a regular basis, there are times when the old methods are better. …

Well Michael, you had to have an idea that that would evoke some kind of response, so I’ll accommodate. Hopefully we can keep it light.

Right now balls and strikes are being called by a computer. Its called the human brain. It gathers inputs, processes them, and spits out the result of all those computations, hopefully correctly. The only difference a mechanical computer would be, is more accurate because it would have much more accurate inputs to use in its computations.

So since the only difference is in the degree of accuracy of the call, I have to wonder why it is you think the old methods are better. Is it that you’re just a traditionalist and hate change of any kind? Or maybe you’re one of those folks who believes having the “human factor” involved in calling pitches adds another dimension to the game where the players have to be able to adapt to the different situation for each game.

I know it can’t be any worry about it taking any longer, because in fact it would be quicker. Since the pitch would be called long before it got near the catcher, and thus could never be influenced by either the catcher’s mitt, or whether or not he dropped the ball.

So what exactly is it about umpires calling pitches that is “better”?

WHAT IS BETTER IS THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN THE GAME---YOU DO THAT SN YOU DO NOT HAVE BASEBALL --IN ADDITION WHO ARE MANAGERS GOING TO ARGUE WITH--YOU CANNOT KICK DIRT ON A COMPUTER

quote:

YOU CANNOT KICK DIRT ON A COMPUTER

LOL!

If computers were so accurate, then why is there so much dispute about balls/strikes when every TV game has the "K-Zone, etc" right there? They're wrong all the time!

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

So what exactly is it about umpires calling pitches that is “better”?

Because they understand that, in pro ball, players, managers and owners WANT them to consider other considerations, such as where the catcher had to go get the pitch and whether or not he dropped it.

Umpire can read the memos and shade their rulings as dictated by the MLB opinion of the week.

Heck, computers can also be programmed to hit the ball with far more accuracy and power than players. Why go half way?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Because they understand that, in pro ball, players, managers and owners WANT them to consider other considerations, such as where the catcher had to go get the pitch and whether or not he dropped it.

Umpire can read the memos and shade their rulings as dictated by the MLB opinion of the week.

Heck, computers can also be programmed to hit the ball with far more accuracy and power than players. Why go half way?

Do all those memos get sent out because everyone really WANTS the umpires to not call pitches by the rule, or because the reality is that its impossible? But you do bring up an interesting point. I’m not a MLB ump, so I don’t know what memos get sent out to umpires, but I definitely am interested. Can you please post any memo that comes from MLB that says umpires should call any pitch a ball that the catcher drops and wasn’t attempted to be bunted or swung at?

What does whether or not a computer could be programmed to control a machine that could hit a ball? We’re not discussing machines playing the game. We’re talking about how the game’s rules are applied.

quote:

What does whether or not a computer could be programmed to control a machine that could hit a ball? We’re not discussing machines playing the game. We’re talking about how the game’s rules are applied.

Jimmy and I disagree often. This one we do not.

If we want so much replay and so much technology involved, why not make everything done on a computer? Why have multi-million dollar stadiums? Why have 30k fans at a game? Just play it on a computer, save million dollar salaries and have zero fun.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Jimmy and I disagree often. This one we do not.

If we want so much replay and so much technology involved, why not make everything done on a computer? Why have multi-million dollar stadiums? Why have 30k fans at a game? Just play it on a computer, save million dollar salaries and have zero fun.

I really don’t understand what your point is in arguing that computers may as well play the game, rather than to simply have technology help apply the rules. The two things are totally different.

What you seem to be saying is, the game as it is in inviolate and nothing should be allowed to change it in any way, but even the youngest of us has seen the rule book change during our lives. Unless you advocate going back to the original rules of the game, you have no reason to argue against any changes the owners decide to make.

You’re what I’d call a dyed in the wool traditionalist. You don’t have any really good reasons not to change the game, but you don’t want to see it changed. That doesn’t make you an evil person who needs to be hunted down and eradicated, but it does make me wonder why you’re so dead set against change, even if it will make the game better in the eyes of the people who own the game.

Assume you were an owner of a ML franchise, and the people running the organization proved to you that the fans, aka the consumers of your product, were losing confidence in whether or not the game was being conducted as well as it could, because all the TV replays were showing a great deal of umpire fallibility, and the bottom line was being affected. You could do what you’ve always done and send out some more memos demanding better umpiring, knowing full well the umpires were at the upper limits of their capability, or you could for all intents and purposes, make at least part of the problem disappear. What would you do, tell the fans tough */%@?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Jimmy and I disagree often. This one we do not.

If we want so much replay and so much technology involved, why not make everything done on a computer? Why have multi-million dollar stadiums? Why have 30k fans at a game? Just play it on a computer, save million dollar salaries and have zero fun.

I really don’t understand what your point is in arguing that computers may as well play the game, rather than to simply have technology help apply the rules. The two things are totally different.

What you seem to be saying is, the game as it is in inviolate and nothing should be allowed to change it in any way, but even the youngest of us has seen the rule book change during our lives. Unless you advocate going back to the original rules of the game, you have no reason to argue against any changes the owners decide to make.

You’re what I’d call a dyed in the wool traditionalist. You don’t have any really good reasons not to change the game, but you don’t want to see it changed. That doesn’t make you an evil person who needs to be hunted down and eradicated, but it does make me wonder why you’re so dead set against change, even if it will make the game better in the eyes of the people who own the game.

Assume you were an owner of a ML franchise, and the people running the organization proved to you that the fans, aka the consumers of your product, were losing confidence in whether or not the game was being conducted as well as it could, because all the TV replays were showing a great deal of umpire fallibility, and the bottom line was being affected. You could do what you’ve always done and send out some more memos demanding better umpiring, knowing full well the umpires were at the upper limits of their capability, or you could for all intents and purposes, make at least part of the problem disappear. What would you do, tell the fans tough */%@?

Well said by someone who has never stood behind the plate and called 250 to 300 pitches.
This game is played by humans and is officiated by humans and there is absolutely no need to change anything. Players make mistakes, umpires make mistakes. Live with it. The sun will come up tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
…I hope to hell to never see balls and strikes called by computer. As somebody that uses cutting edge technology on a regular basis, there are times when the old methods are better. …

Well Michael, you had to have an idea that that would evoke some kind of response, so I’ll accommodate. Hopefully we can keep it light.

Right now balls and strikes are being called by a computer. Its called the human brain. It gathers inputs, processes them, and spits out the result of all those computations, hopefully correctly. The only difference a mechanical computer would be, is more accurate because it would have much more accurate inputs to use in its computations.

So since the only difference is in the degree of accuracy of the call, I have to wonder why it is you think the old methods are better. Is it that you’re just a traditionalist and hate change of any kind? Or maybe you’re one of those folks who believes having the “human factor” involved in calling pitches adds another dimension to the game where the players have to be able to adapt to the different situation for each game.

I know it can’t be any worry about it taking any longer, because in fact it would be quicker. Since the pitch would be called long before it got near the catcher, and thus could never be influenced by either the catcher’s mitt, or whether or not he dropped the ball.

So what exactly is it about umpires calling pitches that is “better”?

The current technology is not accurate, it is better than the first system but the MLB supervisors look at what it questions and decides the true misses from that. Which means if there are ten questions, usually 6 or 7 get tossed, leaving two wrong. If the umpire misses two that are not questionable then you have a total of four by the human, six by the machine. Now who is calling safes and outs at home? Who are calling check swings, foul tips, fair/fouls and balks. All calls that have to be called quickly and decisively, not possible with a computer. As to not liking change, I have no problem with change or progress. I do have a problem with change for change's sake. I use, install and repair new tech things all the time. Am I a traditionalist, absolutely, but I have already said I don't mind the IR as existing. I would like to see some clarifications, like the play last year where many felt they made a call up, or changed a call not allowed by current rules. To me,you call it foul, it's done.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Jimmy and I disagree often. This one we do not.

If we want so much replay and so much technology involved, why not make everything done on a computer? Why have multi-million dollar stadiums? Why have 30k fans at a game? Just play it on a computer, save million dollar salaries and have zero fun.

I really don’t understand what your point is in arguing that computers may as well play the game, rather than to simply have technology help apply the rules. The two things are totally different.

What you seem to be saying is, the game as it is in inviolate and nothing should be allowed to change it in any way, but even the youngest of us has seen the rule book change during our lives. Unless you advocate going back to the original rules of the game, you have no reason to argue against any changes the owners decide to make.

You’re what I’d call a dyed in the wool traditionalist. You don’t have any really good reasons not to change the game, but you don’t want to see it changed. That doesn’t make you an evil person who needs to be hunted down and eradicated, but it does make me wonder why you’re so dead set against change, even if it will make the game better in the eyes of the people who own the game.

Assume you were an owner of a ML franchise, and the people running the organization proved to you that the fans, aka the consumers of your product, were losing confidence in whether or not the game was being conducted as well as it could, because all the TV replays were showing a great deal of umpire fallibility, and the bottom line was being affected. You could do what you’ve always done and send out some more memos demanding better umpiring, knowing full well the umpires were at the upper limits of their capability, or you could for all intents and purposes, make at least part of the problem disappear. What would you do, tell the fans tough */%@?

The funny thing is that most fans don't agree that IR needs to expanded. Most,if not all, talking idiots think it does. Many of the ESPN analysts believe it too but they have a bias against officials in all sports, it makes their job easier.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

What does whether or not a computer could be programmed to control a machine that could hit a ball? We’re not discussing machines playing the game. We’re talking about how the game’s rules are applied.

Jimmy and I disagree often.

Nahhhh. Not all that often...only when you're wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by mrumpiresir:
Well said by someone who has never stood behind the plate and called 250 to 300 pitches.
This game is played by humans and is officiated by humans and there is absolutely no need to change anything. Players make mistakes, umpires make mistakes. Live with it. The sun will come up tomorrow.

What’s the difference if my perspective is that of an umpire, a player, a coach, some other official, or just a fan? I don’t get why perspective overrides the desire to follow the rules.

I assume you do you’re very best to call every pitch correctly, and make every other call or decision as perfect as you can. So why is it that you wouldn’t want to do that even better than you do now? Haven’t you worked very hard to learn the rules and how to apply them? Why put a limit on that kind of feeling?

If there’s no reason to change ANYTHING, why have the owners continued to do that over the years? Somewhere along the line, I think people forget who has the final authority over the rules. If you’re a current ML umpire, are you quitting because they’ve added some new IR rules? If you’re not a ML umpire, it won’t pertain to you anyway, so why be bothered? The sun will come up tomorrow, one way or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by mrumpiresir:
Well said by someone who has never stood behind the plate and called 250 to 300 pitches.
This game is played by humans and is officiated by humans and there is absolutely no need to change anything. Players make mistakes, umpires make mistakes. Live with it. The sun will come up tomorrow.

What’s the difference if my perspective is that of an umpire, a player, a coach, some other official, or just a fan? I don’t get why perspective overrides the desire to follow the rules.

I assume you do you’re very best to call every pitch correctly, and make every other call or decision as perfect as you can. So why is it that you wouldn’t want to do that even better than you do now? Haven’t you worked very hard to learn the rules and how to apply them? Why put a limit on that kind of feeling?

If there’s no reason to change ANYTHING, why have the owners continued to do that over the years? Somewhere along the line, I think people forget who has the final authority over the rules. If you’re a current ML umpire, are you quitting because they’ve added some new IR rules? If you’re not a ML umpire, it won’t pertain to you anyway, so why be bothered? The sun will come up tomorrow, one way or the other.

We do striver to do the best we can and to always improve. Two things, the MLB umpires still need to approve the change and the owners are not the final say on rule changes, the players union does.
The reason that umpires are opposing these changes is not because it bucks tradition, well not entirely , but it is not an improvement. It will simply switch the argument. To be honest, it will be used very rarely, maybe more for traps. I see even fewer being turned over.

Have to agree with a few others that fair/foul has not been an issue other than the occassional foul pole so all it adds is more time to games that are already too long for the average sports fan to want to invest in.

Those who know me on the site know I am a huge Stl Cardinal fan, yes #11 in 2011, but Tony could easily turn the game into 3.5 hours plus when he goes on his bullpen rants, of pitching to one batter. Add more review areas and we start pushing 4-hour games.

MLB umpires are the best officials in the world. Can't we live with the one out of whatever the number is in a blown call? It makes for water-cooler talk just as much as the game winng hit/play.

As for an earlier post on McCarver, even though he was Carlton's designated catcher and player for the hated Phillies, as they say about family, he is an idiot but none-the-less he is our idiot. Redbird nation baby.....hopefully still with Pujols but will have to wait and see.

Ive sat this one out, mainly because I have no dog in this fight....this will never filter down to my level of baseball...you know some of the programs Ive umpired HS baseball for dont even have the funds for uniforms and baseballs much less computer involvement.....

But that being said.....no player, pitcher, manager or hitter wants a machine calling balls and strikes....

I feel IR is not good for the game simply b/c of football's example of officiating. It makes the officials call a reversible call instead of making a judgment call which may not be reversible. Hence trying to prevent an inadvertent whistle blow to kill a play and let it play out such as ruling a questionable player out of bounds call. Can always not call it and bring it back if ruled out.

This will be the same affect here. Umpires will call everything fair and let IR change it if need be. Simply b/c it will be easier to reset on a call changed to foul instead of one changed to fair and the umpires have to determine where to put the runners. I see more EJ or prolonged arguments when a sure double is only a single or a single stretched to a double when the runner clearly would have been out if attempted.

I think it will degrade the quality of calls to prevent affecting the game by guessing where runners should be. Look at the trouble every time Type B OBS is called.

While I am completely opposed to IR b/c I like the game as it is, I still don't like it with HR calls. I think the quality of what they were getting correct has gone down with its instantiation. I believe it will only get worse with the expansion. Now, more will be relied on for IR and umpires' correct call percentage will suffer.

And, once it does go there and the numbers get worse, where will the expansion end? Will it go to out/safe calls? As they expand it more and more, umpiring in MLB will get worse since there won't be as much of a need to be correct with mechanics/positioning. They will just rely on IR and make the reversible call instead of the irreversible one. Fewer issues that way.