Get Rid Of Instant Review

biggerpapi- I completely disagree. If the opportunity to get the call right is present, then that opportunity should be utilized. There is too much at stake with each pitch throughout the game to not ensure, to the best of everyone's abilities, that the call being made is correct.

 

The Angel Hernandez fiasco that occurred last night was unacceptable. What's even more disturbing is the fact that the A's players/coaches that spoke out postgame will get reprimanded for their actions, but the umpires will not be held accountable. If an incorrect call is made, that individual needs to be held accountable. 

 

I am in support of some form of replay or instituting of technology pertaining to non-judgment calls within the game. Most people that support it do so for the entertainment value of a "challenge". I don't agree with this philosophy- the entertainment style of football is enormously different than that of baseball. I support furthering it for the betterment of the game. You're right, no one is perfect. But the closer to perfect, the better.

 

As for last night's call- I'm with you there 100%. I don't know how that could've been ruled "inconclusive".

Have to admit... I'm all for getting the call right.  I do think they need to figure out how to do it the quickest possible way. The errors made by the players should help determine who wins or loses.  The errors made by umpires should be corrected when possible. It is in the best interest of everyone involved.  

 

Just think about Don Denkinger's famous blown call in the World Series.  He and his family experienced death threats for years.  Simple replay and all would have been forgotten. Great umpire, best remembered for one bad call!

 

I am not in favor of changing balls and strikes call. However, that might be the area where an umpire can have the greatest effect on who wins the game.  And it is really hard to get them all called correctly. I just don't see that ever changing and it will always leave plenty of human interest or error by umpires in the game.  After all, there are more disagreements about balls and strikes than any other play in baseball.  So much that they even disallow arguing. The calls.

 

For the next three years get rid of instant replay at the MLB level but start some research at the AAA level.  MLB ponies up some money to put cameras at selected AAA games and work on it.  Try several different methods or rules or whatever and see how they work.

 

Yes it will stink for the AAA level players and fans but it will get done right without affecting the level that has the biggest interest and stakes.

coach2709- It could very easily be instituted throughout professional baseball. All affiliated minor league teams- from rookie ball up to AAA- have at least four camera set up throughout every stadium already, some with many more.

 

If MLB can use Pitch F/x technology and Bloomberg Sports technology to detect the RPMs of a pitch or the torque of a shortstop's hips, video can accurately indicate the correct call on the field.

 

As for last night...

The problem I see here JH is that EVERY call an umpire makes is a judgment call.  Pretty much every call is outlined by a set of criteria and the umpires judge whether that criteria was met.  Whether that be whether a ball went over the wall, or hit in front of it.  Whether the runner stepped on the base before the 1st baseman obtained possession of the ball.  It is the same with the K zone.  There is a set criteria for what is a strike.  With pitch FX available, why would that not be subject to review as well?  The technology is there.  What if 2 teams are in the 7th game of a championship series.  Bottom of 9th, bases loaded, 3-2 count, 2 outs, home team down by one?  Batter takes pitch and umpire rings him up on an obvious (to everyone else but him) ball?  Is that not a game changing call that could potentially be reviewed by pitch FX?  Why draw the line on HR's or force plays or tag plays?  Who will decide where that line is drawn and why? 

 

I say leave it alone.  Obviously, from the call the other night, even with replay it will be a judgment call.

 

JMHO.

I'm in favor of instant replay in all games that Angel Hernandez calls...none other.

Can we pull that off?

In my opinion, the big underlying issue with all of this is purely accountability. Angel Hernandez made a ruling. Upon request, he and his crew reviewed replay, as the rules allow. He still blew the call. He won't be penalized for this. Meanwhile, the A's lost a game that otherwise would have had its landscape completely changed had Hernandez gotten the call right.

 

Players get fined for speaking out about umpires and rulings, but umpires aren't held responsible when a mistake is made. Umpiring is no easy task and these men are the absolute best at what they do. But that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, nor does it mean the right call can't be made.

 

My question for those that are opposed to replay: what benefit does the game get out of umpires making mistakes? It does not promote accuracy or purity in the game. It hinders the true results of the actions of the players. Major League Baseball is a multi-billion dollar business that is driven by the success of its players. Umpires are in place to interpret and carry out the rules and regulations of the game. If those rules and regulations aren't carried out in the best possible way, shouldn't revisions be made in order to ensure they are?

 

If they make the correct call there is no conversation about this play, other then they got it right. After all, isn't getting the call right what it is all about. 

Absolutely. Instant replay helps ensure that happens (although apparently not in Cleveland).

Are you saying the game has not been pure or accurate or whatever for the last 100+ years?  I am saying that the umpire's calls - good or bad - have always been part of the game.  Do the umpires strive to make the right call every play?  Of course, they always have.  Do the players strive to make a play without error every play?  Of course.  They both make mistakes.  I'm just saying I feel like the human element has always been part of the game and should remain. 

 

Without replay, coaches and players see a play and don't agree with it.  They argue with the ump.  Ump doesn't change his call - of course.  What do you tell your players?  Don't worry about it.  Things even out in the end.  I believe that.  Some calls go your way, some don't.  It is part of the way the game is played.  Even with replay, unless EVERY SINGLE call is reviewed, it will continue to be part of the game.

 

We talk about how baseball develops character and makes you a better person.  Part of that is the ability to perceive things that don't appear to be right and move beyond it.  To accept what you cannot change.  It happens in baseball, it happens in life.  Sometimes a decision is made that you just know isn't right, you have to learn how to deal with it and move on.  It's part of life and something that baseball teaches a player quite well.

 

 

bballman- MLB teams are not attempting to teach. They are attempting to win, and generate revenue. Bad calls have an impact on the results of the game, and that shouldn't happen.

 

There are plenty of outlets for learning to deal with adversity. But if I took a math test as a kid and was marked wrong by answering that 2+2=4, I would ask for an explanation. If I did not receive an explanation, I wouldn't just deal with it. I know 2+2=4, and I deserve credit for that. Adam Rosales hit a home run last night, and he wasn't given credit for that. He needs to be given credit. "Human error" is not an acceptable excuse. The game needs to be called as it goes.

 

If the current form of instant replay doesn't provide an outlet for getting a call right (which apparently it doesn't), then MLB needs to come up with another alternative. Your guess is as good as mine what that alternative may be. 

You are right about MLB not being there to teach.  Guess I got carried away with my feeling on things. 

 

However, bad calls have ALWAYS been part of the game.  Its not like something has changed with the game since DVRs came into existence.  My opinion is just different than yours in that I think we should keep it the way it is.  MLB has always been about winning and generating revenue, probably since the 1910's.  It's on a bigger scale now, but it is still a game and umpires and their bad calls are still part of the game. 

 

In my opinion, it's part of the appeal of the game.  To watch a manager go out and argue a call, maybe get ejected.  See a player get pi$$ed off and get in an umpires face is entertaining.  Sitting around while the umpires go into a back room and come out and circle their finger in the air is not all that entertaining to me. 

 

It's not exactly the same, but people get all worked up over players using PEDs because it changes the game and makes it where you can't compare past to present, and yet it is OK to significantly change the game (IMO) for instant replay, just doesn't seem right.  How many more HR's could Hank Aaron possibly have had if there were instant replay?  How many borderline calls on foul balls might have given another player enough hits to hit over .400?  Or how many hits did Ted Williams get that would have been ruled foul with instant replay, stopping him from hitting .400.  It wouldn't have taken many. 

 

Remember, back in the day, umpires made mistakes too.  And yet the game went on and has become what it is today.  Maybe it's just nostalgia, I think we should keep it the way it is - no replay.

I wish they had computers and replays on everything they could without slowing down the game too much.  For instance, I would be for some type of laser/computer determination for balls and strikes.  That should be relatively easy. 

 

Yes, they are. Quite stringently, in fact.

Coincidentally, NCAA officials have just announced that the use of instant replay is to be expanded at the Division I College World Series. Last year, they used it in the same way it's used in MLB; to determine whether a home run has been hit. However, this year, they're going to also review disputed balls down either baseline. If a foul call is overturned when runners are on base, it'll force the umpires to determine where the base runner(s) would have likely ended up.

 

This doesn't apply at the Regional and Super-Regional levels of the NCAA Tournament because not all venues are equipped to provide the replay.

bbman, I really appreciate your nostalgic point of view, and have long held that same position ... but I'm evolving on this. I like instant replay on homers -- and am open to other specific incorporation of technology to ensure it gets called right.

 

Question: If it was your son on the mound, and a shot was called a homer in a big-time consequential game ... but clearly wasn't on replay... would you hold strong to your view?

 

Not trying to back you into a corner at all ... don't take it that way ... but would you really stand on principle, or might you want the right call made?

Who wouldn't want the right call made?  But I still feel like the call on the field should stand and he and I would talk about how bad the call was after the game. On the same note, I have not heard ANYONE say that they want this applied to balls and strikes. In fact everyone is against it. But, what about a scenario similar to what I mentioned earlier. Bottom of 9th, bases loaded, 3-2 count, 2 outs, up by one run. Obvious strike, but umpire calls ball to walk in the tying run. Pitch FX shows a clear strike. Should they use replay to over rule that?  Why or why not?  I think because most feel it is part of the game. Who is going to decide where the line is drawn?  Add a couple scenarios for replay to be used. Then something else happens that replay could have been used to resolve it, so they add that next year. And that goes on and on. I don't know. Just doesn't sit right with me.

I admire the fact that you are consitent, and stick by your guns. Great response.

If the opportunity to allow for the call to be right arises, and they still get the call wrong, what's the point? Get rid of the review. While they are at it, get rid of the on screen strike zone. Do we really need to completely dismantle authority? Who's to say the A/V crew isn't dotting the pitch as they see fit? I believe the  umpire more than the little strike zone and dot on the screen.

My opinion is there is no problem with the way this instant replay rule should have worked, just that Angel Hernandez was the one in charge of making the decision. Had this happened with any other MLB crew, the right call would have been made and this would have been a non-issue. 

Give the umpires a tool they can use to make their jobs easier.  Get the right call, and add a little drama (coaches challenges!) to the game.   Keep the managers in the dugout.  We waste all this time with a manager upset about a call, when we could be looking at a replay quickly.   The players are quicker and stronger, and sometimes I get the feeling these umpires are guessing or aren't positioned in the perfect spot to make the call.  Give the umpires something useful, and bring the game into the 21st century.   It's not complicated. 

 

 

And while we're making changes, let's make the players stay in the freaking batters box to keep the game moving!  Too often they are taking a stroll.  I'm waiting for one of them to get lost finding his way back to the batters box from the concession stand.

I'm not a fan of replay because I believe it's abused in other sports which has led to poor officiating as a result. However, I think replay is here to stay so its important the umpires get the call right. There should be stiff penalties for umpires who still miss a call even after going to replay. And those penalties should be announced..

…On the same note, I have not heard ANYONE say that they want this applied to balls and strikes. In fact everyone is against it. …

 

I’ll admit that the majority of people interested aren’t yet those who want to see technology call pitches that aren’t swung at, but saying you’ve not heard ANYONE say they want and that EVERYONE is against it, means you haven’t listened to ALL the voices speaking on the topic. The movement toward it began when QuesTec become a primary way to “grade” umpires in order to help them get better, and as more and more people get comfortable with Pitch and Hit F/X, many more are hopping the fence.

…While they are at it, get rid of the on screen strike zone. Do we really need to completely dismantle authority? Who's to say the A/V crew isn't dotting the pitch as they see fit? I believe the  umpire more than the little strike zone and dot on the screen.”

 

How is authority being dismantled by showing it to be fallible?

 

Why on earth would the A/V crew do such a thing?

 

I’m guessing you don’t believe the little dot on the screen because you don’t fully understand how its generated, coupled with human nature’s inbred resistance to change in any form.

Stats, you are right, anyone and everyone is probably too broad of a statement, although I don't think I personally have heard it expressed.  In fact, I didn't even hear you say it. 

 

I'm just going to add one more thing.  If you look at all the calls in a game (with the benefit of replay at home on TV), it is AMAZING how many calls these guys get right.  Do they miss a few here and there?  Yeah, but they get ALOT right.  I would guess statistically, it's an extremely small sample of calls that replay would change. 

Don't get me started Stats, you're not ready for that online forum battle... 

I think it would be awesome if a machine called balls and strikes. Especially if that machine would call a pitch at the belt, over the middle of the plate, a STRIKE.

That would be cool.

Seems to me the game got along fine without it the first 100+ years.

He's not too far off...the pitch tracker you see on TV is not the same that MLB uses to evaluate umpires. The evaluation requires data sets for each batter that MLB uses to determine height of the strike zone, as well as a "fudge factor" (I hate to use that term) to correct for calls that would be technically incorrect, but correct in the context of today's game (i.e. a breaking curve that nicks the lower front of the zone, but is caught at the ankles.) The stuff you see on TV has a much larger margin of error, because it is calculated where a tech assumes it crossed the plate on video.

Stats- Without rephrasing what Matt said, which in a nutshell is correct, I worked quite a few pro sporting events in the A/V room. YOU'RE NOT READY FOR THAT ONLINE BATTLE!

Throwing out instant replay because some umps blew a call would be like throwing out gas ranges because a cook burned a dish.  Get a better cook.

Bballman,

 

If you haven’t heard me say it or seen where I’ve written it, you’ve been ignoring me.

 

Yes, they do an amazing job alright, considering what we’re talking about and how fast it’s happening. At the ML level they’re at 90%, and that’s pretty darn good. And too, let’s not forget that we’re not talking about all that many calls. When you eliminate any ball swung at, there’s only somewhere around 60% of all pitches that are called, and then let’s face it, only a fraction of those pitches aren’t fairly obvious. So in the end it may be only 30 pitchers or so in an entire game are questionable, and likely most of those are gotten correct.

 

Unfortunately though, baseball’s really dependent on the count on the umpire’s counter, so an incorrect call may seem meaningless to many, but its never meaningless to the pitcher, the hitter, and the fielders, and thus might very well have an impact on the game. That’s where any argument should be made, and where I try to stay focused. Getting the dang thing right means consistency, and consistency means everything.

 

When the ML owners put things in the rules to make the game more consistent, they did it for a reason. There was always a rule about mound height and slope, but it hasn’t always been handled like it is today, with umpiring crews going around to every field and verifying the measurements. No, they don’t do it every day, but in general a pitcher can go from one field to another and count on them being very much the same. It’s the same with the ML umpires themselves. There’s no longer National League umps and American League umps, and a lot of it has to do with keeping the playing conditions consistent.

 

When you think about it, is there really any reason the strike zone should change from one ump to another, other than that’s the way it’s always been? I can think of many many traditions that thankfully have gone by the wayside to make the game “better”, and I think this would certainly be another one.

 

 

 

Stats, you are right, anyone and everyone is probably too broad of a statement, although I don't think I personally have heard it expressed.  In fact, I didn't even hear you say it. 

 

I'm just going to add one more thing.  If you look at all the calls in a game (with the benefit of replay at home on TV), it is AMAZING how many calls these guys get right.  Do they miss a few here and there?  Yeah, but they get ALOT right.  I would guess statistically, it's an extremely small sample of calls that replay would change. 

 

 

Matt13,

 

When I said that, I wasn’t’ talking about sitting in the truck or press box and watching it happen. I was talking about the actual code the computers were running and the equipment engineered by some folks a lot smarter about such things than most of us.

 

I know the pitch trackers we normally see on TV aren’t representative of what’s really happening, but its really not easy to put a 2 dimensional representation on the screen of a polygon with 7 sides, and a variable vertical size. But the pitch being called wouldn’t be that thing seen on TV. The computer program would be a lot more sophisticated and accurate, and get more sophisticated and accurate every day.

 

Its too bad people don’t understand that, but there it is. A computer is designed perfectly for that type of application, because once the vertical size and position of the strike zone is determined, a pitch being a strike becomes a 1/0 or true/false issue, and that’s what computer do better than anything. In fact, that all they do.

 

Your representation of data sets for the batters is certainly one way to determine the vertical zone, but there are other options as well, and any of them would most certainly be tested and checked until there was no doubt technology could call the pitches in a superior manner to a human being. In fact, I don’t doubt they can do that now, but that isn’t the stumbling block. The stumbling block is determining how much of an improvement would be necessary.

 

FI, it ML umps get 90% of the calls right now, what would be the point in using technology to get 90%? Sure consistency would definitely be improved, but it doesn’t make a great deal of sense go through all the time and trouble and have no improvement. If it would improve the percentage to 95%, that still might not be enough to trigger a change, but there’s some number that will. Maybe its 95%, maybe 99%, but something’s gonna do it, and when it does, we’ll see technology taking over that 1 task. But no one would notice it because there would still be  an umpire behind the plate, at least until computers get a bit more advanced than they are.

Coach_Mills,

 

If I’m wrong and you really do have a PHD in Computer Science and totally understand not only how computers work generally, but how the machine is actually functioning and the code is working at the machine level, or some other equally high technical qualifications, I sincerely apologize. However, sitting in an A/V truck watching guys press buttons and throw switches is a far cry from the things taking place at near the speed of light in a computer’s processor.

 

You’ve taken a defensive stance, ready to do “battle”, and there’s no reason for that. Baseball isn’t a life and death struggle, and neither is whether or not your opinion or mine is superior. I understand and respect your position, but you don’t seem to do the same for mine. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to do BATTLE with you about it.

 

I’ve been down the road on this topic many times over the last 2 decades, and every time I see it happening as being more and more likely. I don’t know when, but its gonna happen. I don’t know if the game will be better or worse for it either, but I suspect it will be better, and if its not, I sure hope the powers that be have enough sense to call it a failed effort and go back to whatever worked better.

trojan-skipper,

 

I was listening to a Giants game a couple weeks back and heard Jon Miller say the top of the strike zone was a 3 ball width over the belt. I was drinking a soda at the time, and thanx to him I ended up with soda coming out of my nose and getting all over my clothes, the chair and the carpet.

 

Snowman,

 

I hesitate to do this, but sometimes it’s the only way to make people understand that change CAN be good.

 

Professional baseball got along very well without blacks from 1875 to 1947 too.

Once again, your offensive prodding is trying to provoke my defensive response. You will not drag me into this seemingly quizzical opinion of yours. I appreciate the offer, but once again, must we, as a nation, constantly feel the need to negate authority? Never argue balls and strikes! Your opinion says "Always argue balls and strikes!" You prefer a graphic that some random person threw up on the screen over an umpires call? Go build the robots and all the equipment you can to completely remove all human error in that case. I'll be waiting in the wings enjoying the fact that these professional umpires may or may not be correct in their observation. Let's remove the player errors while we're at it huh? However, I digress.

 

Yours, with a bit of human error,

Coach Mills

PhD. Computer Technology

Why don't we just let them play Xbox 360?  That computer calls balls and strikes pretty good. 

I think PS3 calls them better! How will we ever come to an agreement?