Challenge System Probably Incoming for MLB...quick questions

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by dkgo

You might be the only person who loves blown calls and enjoys having games decided by one man's guess at what happened instead of, you know, what actually happens during the game.

Although many people like you also called things like email and cell phones foolishness when they came out.

Calls on instant replay aren't 100% though and at the end of the day your still relying on a humans decision, we've had instant replay over here for years in rugby, tennis and cricket and I still see people coming up with different outcomes on whats happened.

[ukhotstove]

ps

In reply to the op, if and I'm figuring it wouldn't be easy to bring into OOTP but if it's brought in I hope it's something we can switch off. Be a bit of a pain trying to explain in a dynasty thread that the manager challenged a call and they looked at the replay when your league is in 1890.

[Déjà Bru]

Other than UWHabs' suggestion in post #31 (which could run afoul of the situation described in ukhotstove's post #42, so even that is not so great), can we officially classify this suggestion as a dead duck? With a nod of respect to the OP, of course.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Nunyer

Football is a fundamentally different sport. The cameramen have no better idea where the action will play out then you or I do sitting at home. It is an entirely different ballgame. The vast majority of reviewed calls in baseball will occur at the bases... the bases don't move... the bases can't be surrounded by six 300lb lineman... NFL replay is simply not anywhere near an apt comparison to how this will play out in MLB.

Well I can tell you how football and baseball with regard to replay are exactly the same. They both use selective replay, IE some plays cannot be reviewed. This, and the fact human replay officials routinely blow obvious calls even using HD and super slow motion (this will happen in baseball too despite not having the pileups etc.), are the main reasons I oppose it coming to baseball.

In both sports it comes down to this..

Team A has a runner thrown out at 1b but wait it's close and replay comes in. Replay overturns the call and the Team A runner is ruled safe and put on firstbase.

Same game and Team B has a batter with a 3-2 count. Here's the pitch and the ump calls STRIKE THREEEEE!! But wait like the batter on Team A this doesn't look right. Replay shows the ball is well off the plate and will be ruled ball four with the runner from Team B being put on first base. Oh no, that's not going to happen because this play is not reviewable. While "The vast majority of reviewed calls in baseball will occur at the bases" none will occur at homeplate for the current batter.

Why? Don't we want to get it right?

Honestly in football I at least get that it is very hard to review some plays due to the whistle stopping the action. But in baseball a pitch that is the difference between a K or a BB can't be reviewed, really?

I know some here are thinking guys that oppose replay like human error in the game. Not true, at least for me. It's just my position, as in the example above, that if we can't look at all plays then we shouldn't look at any. Put umps on the OF foul lines like the playoffs and encourage them to step up and help each other out on close calls if from their vantage point they see an obvious wrong call. I know it cost money but baseball is a mutlibillions dollar business and they are going to have to pay someone to sit in the league offices to watch and review games. Use that money to put two more live umps in the ballpark.

Hey replay is coming, I don't like it, and we're really arguing about nothing. I'll be anxious to see how the balls down the line with regard to baserunners are handled. It was mentioned earlier that the rule book takes care of ground rule doubles and overthrows and will take care of this. Well duh of course there will be rules but what will they be? Any ball down the line ruled fair is a double? What if it's a texas leaguer that just gets over the firstbaseman's glove, double? If thats a single where does it have to land to be a double? Or will it be up to the ump and his potential for human error to place the runners where he sees fit?

It's a can of worms I don't like that will lead to the same minutia that the NFL replay has created. Football move anyone? Or does that still exist?
Tuck rule?

Hey it's just my opinion and we're all entitled. It's just some want to think those that oppose only do so because of history and tradition when that's simply not true.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Sweed

if we can't look at all plays then we shouldn't look at any.

Everything or nothing? That's a totally extreme view of the issue.

Oh, well. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[VanillaGorilla]

While I am opposed to expanding replay as the puppet Selig suggests, I was, and am, in favor of replay being instituted for HR calls. Asking the best umpire to make a call on a ball 200 feet away in poor light (or with the sun/a bank of lights glaring his vision) was a lot to ask. MLB slowly worked this limited replay into games and learned from the actual experience of using the technology before applying it for 162 games.

I do not see that what the Commissioner is suggesting* as being a panacea for correcting blown calls, even if administered with 100% proficiency.

If MLB wants to move towards improving the game through technolgy, why throw it into all games starting 2014? Why not try it out in limited minor league parks? Why not try it out in, say, low level college games? I am sure NAIA players would be thrilled with the notion that their play is being watched by MLB types as they see what works and doesn't work with replay.

There are lots of places that MLB can use as petri dishes for enhanced replay experimentation.

The Major League game should not be the guinea pig.

[Déjà Bru]

I hear Sweed and VG and all you other guys but I don't think anybody has mentioned the effect this will have on game time. Three challenges per manager per game? Look for ballgames to average over 4 hours from now on - don't care what they say about how quickly they can do things.

By the way, this thread was about introducing the challenge/replay system in OOTPB. I hope we killed that idea dead! But if you want to debate it IRL, I invite y'all to the thread that I opened in the Talk Sports forum today.

[The Wolf]

Don't allow any batter timeouts except for valid reasons and enforce the 30 second rule on pitchers and even with instant replay games would be well under 3 hours.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Don't allow any batter timeouts except for valid reasons and enforce the 30 second rule on pitchers and even with instant replay games would be well under 3 hours.

Don't allow catchers to talk to pitchers more than once each out. I've seen 3 catcher pitcher visits per AB in the late innings of many games.

[Nunyer]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Any ball down the line ruled fair is a double? What if it's a texas leaguer that just gets over the firstbaseman's glove, double? If thats a single where does it have to land to be a double? Or will it be up to the ump and his potential for human error to place the runners where he sees fit?

So... forcing the 'human element' into the discussion when it comes to umpires placing base runners after an overturned foul ball is OMG CAN OF TEH WORMS THE SKY WILL FALL!! But allowing the 'human element' to completely blow the call on a potentially game changing hit is just fine and dandy?!?

I just cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion that getting a call 100% wrong is the preferred outcome.

For all the warts inherent in trying to use replay in the dynamic, controlled chaos car crash environment of the NFL... It's still better then it what before... and games still take three hours... and we're still forced to watch over an hour of commercials for crappy beer... and more bad calls are corrected then allowed to stand... and the players decide more of the outcomes then they did previously. The pros outweigh the cons.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Nunyer

I just cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion that getting a call 100% wrong is the preferred outcome.

.

And yet you can comprehend the mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion that getting a called strike three, that is obviously actually ball four, 100% wrong because the "powers that be" determine that call cannot be reviewed. OK, gotcha

Have yet to see anyone explain why a runner called out on a throw can be put on first base when the call is overturned by replay. Yet a batter called out on a third strike that can be shown by replay is obviously ball four cannot be put on first base because his play is determined to not be reviewable. Care to explain why the runner's call is more important than the batter's call? Both calls 100% wrong only one can be reviewed. Nice system.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by RchW

Don't allow catchers to talk to pitchers more than once each out. I've seen 3 catcher pitcher visits per AB in the late innings of many games.

Good idea.

[D-BacksJosh]

Any time an umpire has the audacity to speak or are within 50 yds of a play it should be reviewed just to make sure it is 100% right. Games can take 8 or 9 hours, it's okay, we can implement a nap system so the players won't get too fatigued.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

Any time an umpire has the audacity to speak or are within 50 yds of a play it should be reviewed just to make sure it is 100% right. Games can take 8 or 9 hours, it's okay, we can implement a nap system so the players won't get too fatigued.

Actually most MLB games are much quicker unless they involve the Yankees or the Red Sox. Maybe players on those teams should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by RchW

Actually most MLB games are much quicker unless they involve the Yankees or the Red Sox. Maybe players on those teams should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

I agree. I would rather MLB focus on speeding up the game first. How about the pitcher clock, there is already a rule for it (MLB rule 8.04), actually enforcing it would be a novel idea! The rule is 12 seconds to deliver a pitch or it is a ball. Back in the 70's games averaged 2.5 hours. I guess those were the days.

[Walsh06]

What an odd topic. I have never seen a topic for any sport saying they'd rather wrong calls in a game or would rather not have something to get calls right. Very strange.

In terms of ootp though it's redundant because you can't see a wrong call.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

I agree. I would rather MLB focus on speeding up the game first. How about the pitcher clock, there is already a rule for it (MLB rule 8.04), actually enforcing it would be a novel idea! The rule is 12 seconds to deliver a pitch or it is a ball. Back in the 70's games averaged 2.5 hours. I guess those were the days.

Now now, the time it takes for a pitcher to throw a pitch or for the batter to step back into the box is just a part of the human element, which must be preserved at all costs, despite the specific criteria for correctness being established in the MLB rulebook. Who wants to accurately enforce the rulebook, anyway?

[Honorable_Pawn]

I think Bru nailed it

[RchW]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

I agree. I would rather MLB focus on speeding up the game first. How about the pitcher clock, there is already a rule for it (MLB rule 8.04), actually enforcing it would be a novel idea! The rule is 12 seconds to deliver a pitch or it is a ball. Back in the 70's games averaged 2.5 hours. I guess those were the days.

Let's not blame the players for the extra 90 seconds of commercials in every half inning. That's 27 minutes every 9 innings.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

I agree. I would rather MLB focus on speeding up the game first. How about the pitcher clock, there is already a rule for it (MLB rule 8.04), actually enforcing it would be a novel idea! The rule is 12 seconds to deliver a pitch or it is a ball. Back in the 70's games averaged 2.5 hours. I guess those were the days.

I have always wondered why teams bother to throw the ball for an intentional walk with this rule in place. It's completely dumb. I would never have my team throw the ball.

What would this lead to?

Would it possibly lead to others following suit? What if every team started doing that? The wild-pitch on intentional walks would be eliminated. I have never looked up the rule before. Is there a ball 4 clause or something?