Selig Warming Up to Instant Replay

[mauboy]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

I'd be for this if the delays lasted less than 30 seconds, which should be easy to do, since there really isn't the detail that you'd have to worry about in football. They're either safe or out. 30 second challenges reviewed by someone in the booth who is reviewing every play before challenges are even issued.

I'm not really for it as a whole but if they absolutely brought it to the game, whatever minimizes the delays would work for me.

[1998 Yankees]

It's time. There's too much at stake and it's too easy with available technology to correct horrendous errors that can ruin a season. Tradition be damned.

[BadluckinOOTP]

I think if they are going to have replay in baseball, they should just have homeplate and nothing else, becuase the other umps would be obsolete.

[yankeesrule]

What do you make the penalty for a manager calling for a replay, or is it similar to college football with only "booth replays"?

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by yankeesrule

What do you make the penalty for a manager calling for a replay, or is it similar to college football with only "booth replays"?

Good question. If it's up to the managers, there will be reviews on every close play, and the game is already long enough. Can't think of anything now, too late, tired, falling a sl ee

[mrskippy]

Originally Posted by yankeesrule

What do you make the penalty for a manager calling for a replay, or is it similar to college football with only "booth replays"?

Easy. It's an OUT!!! Limit it to two (or maybe three) per game, like the NFL, but give an extra if it's in your favor.

I think managers should get to call a replay. Obviously, booth replays could always be an option or perhaps (like the NFL) at the end of a game (8th, 9th and extra innings).

[mrskippy]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Good question. If it's up to the managers, there will be reviews on every close play, and the game is already long enough. Can't think of anything now, too late, tired, falling a sl ee

Hence, two, maybe three challenges tops.

[blueturf]

Originally Posted by BadluckinOOTP

I think if they are going to have replay in baseball, they should just have homeplate and nothing else, becuase the other umps would be obsolete.

I would definitely not be in favor of replay for baseball. Too often replays are inconclusive making reversals tough. Very few tag/force plays are missed by the umpires and the presence of replay would probably create a timidness or reluctance to make tough calls. I feel officiating in football, especially college, has changed drastically with timid officials not wanting to blow a call dead or even calling things they don't see - not to mention it seems a lot of the time, the replay booth doesn't get it right.

If anything, the only replay I think that would work in baseball would be foul/fair decisions and homeruns.

I would rather see the Commissioners office enforce a strict umpire evaluation system and suspend or release underperforming umpires.

[mauboy]

Could you imagine this:

A close play at first where the ump then SHRUGS his shoulders, runs to the sideline, looks into a video to see a replay, comes back out and says.. "YOU'RE OUTTA THERE" with the same enthusiasm as he would've if he made the call on the spot. Heh.

[lewis31lewis52]

I'm in favor of instant replay, but only in the case of home runs or fair / foul calls. Anything else is up to the ump. I mean seriously, how many calls do umps actually miss?

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by mauboy

Could you imagine this:

A close play at first where the ump then SHRUGS his shoulders, runs to the sideline, looks into a video to see a replay, comes back out and says.. "YOU'RE OUTTA THERE" with the same enthusiasm as he would've if he made the call on the spot. Heh.

I'll gladly trade a little ump excitement for call accuracy.

The less umps are noticed, the better it is, I'd think.

[Tony M]

It's a tricky one. Replays have been brought into cricket for things like run-outs and catches and stumpings but haven't been brought in for leg before decisions.

Now, the lbw decisions are the hardest ones for a cricket umpire because it takes into account the position the ball hits the pitch on the way to the batter and as the umpire has to also keep an eye on the bowler's feet at his end he's got to look up quick enough to see the ball pitch and that's not the easiest thing in the world.

It's the same with plays at first, generally. The first baseman is quite often at a stretch to catch the ball and the base umpire has to watch when the ball gets into the baseman's glove and where his foot is at that point and where the batter is - that's three things to keep an eye on almost at once. It's hard enough doing that whilst watching the television when everything is shrunk down to tv size and you can see all the relevant areas in a small part of your vision.

Take for example the gidp from Ortiz in the first inning last night. Garko was stretched out a long way from the base when he fielded the throw and it would have been hard for the ump to see the foot on the bag from where he was. There's no doubt Ortiz was out but if he had just been a bit quicker it would have been a different matter. Due to where Garko fielded the ball the ump would have been watching him field it whilst peripherally trying to see where the batter was.

I can't think of a way of automating such things without wiring up batters and fielders so that the base lights up or something when the batter touches it (you'd need sensors in your shoes and on your hands) and the fielder would need a wire from hand down to foot to send a signal when the ball touched the glove or hand and the foot would transmit if it was in contact with the plate.

Human fallability is one of the things that makes sport great.

Having said that, they could employ Cyclops technology at home plate for whether a ball is outside the strike zone on the sides. The vertical one is more difficult because it depends on the knees and body position (is there any proof that the shorter you are the more likely you are to walk because the strike zone is smaller?)

[Russ]

Nah, you listen for the ball hitting the glove while you watch the runner's foot. Then check to make sure the first baseman has the ball cleanly. It's actually pretty rare that an ump misses this call (sorry Cardinals fans).

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Russ

Nah, you listen for the ball hitting the glove while you watch the runner's foot. Then check to make sure the first baseman has the ball cleanly. It's actually pretty rare that an ump misses this call (sorry Cardinals fans).

Fair enough. I didn't realise that was how they did it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by redsoxford

Fair enough. I didn't realise that was how they did it.

Yeah, they've got a lot of little tricks. It's amazing how many calls they get right, even on balls and strikes.

The only way I would advocate instant replay is on home runs, either fair/foul or fan interference or the yellow line.

[Raderick]

I'm for instant replay on all plays, especially bang-bang plays where the umpire cannot make a conclusive decision (outfielder traps ball instead of catching it outright, home runs that go over the yellow line and did the runner touch the base or home plate among the top of my list). I would happily sacrifice game length for an accurate game.

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Raderick

I'm for instant replay on all plays, especially bang-bang plays where the umpire cannot make a conclusive decision (outfielder traps ball instead of catching it outright, home runs that go over the yellow line and did the runner touch the base or home plate among the top of my list). I would happily sacrifice game length for an accurate game.

If you as an outfielder think you've caught the ball on the fly, you're probably not going to be as quick to throw it back to the infield if there's nobody on. And if you're the batter and you're not sure, what do you do? Stay at first, keep running as far as you can. If the ump calls timeout for a replay, when do they call it? If it wasn't a fair catch which base gets awarded?

The fielder would have to throw the ball almost straight away after 'catching' it incase it got called fair and then you could argue that they didn't have full control of it for long enough (I know that's the case in cricket where a fielder has caught the ball, thrown it up in the air to celebrate, dropped it on the way back and the batsman is given not out)

Balls and plays that have gone dead are much more suited to instant replay rather than live plays.

Say in the NFL a running back fumbles the ball at the touchdown line and it's not instantly clear whether he was in control as it broke the plane and the offense stop and a defensive lineman picks up the ball and runs 100 yards back. They confer on the replay and call 'fumble' - you could say it was unfair on the offense if the defense get the TD, although they shouldn't have stopped playing, but then if they call it a fumble and don't award the TD it's unfair on the defense who took legal advantage...

You have to play as if nothing has changed until the play is called dead. In a school hockey match I remember shadowing a player who was about to take a free hit from their penalty area - the whistle blew and he swung at the ball and missed. Most other players probably wouldn't have gone in at that point, but the whistle had gone, the ball was live, so I swiped it with my stick and stuck it in the net. It stood.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by redsoxford

It's a tricky one. Replays have been brought into cricket for things like run-outs and catches and stumpings but haven't been brought in for leg before decisions.

But, cricket isn't a real sport.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

But, cricket isn't a real sport.

Isn't there a spelling bee you're missing on ESPN?

[Tribe Fan 24]

Originally Posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Isn't there a spelling bee you're missing on ESPN?

Classic!