good or bad idea?

Maximus88 · 10-04-2004, 11:49 PM

allow 2 challenges per team in every baseball game. these challenges would be very similar to football challenges.
there are many calls throughout the year that can totally alter the entire game that are sometimes miscalled. i believe that each team should be given the opportunity to have the umpires view the play from various angles to gaurantee they have made the correct call. does anyone believe this is a good / bad idea?

streetballer67 · 10-05-2004, 12:06 AM

I personally like it but I wouldn't be surprised if no is leading by a very large margin.

ihatenames · 10-05-2004, 09:58 AM

I don't think its a bad avenue, but i still voted no. I like the aspect of human error, especially behind the plate.

rudel.dietrich · 10-05-2004, 10:10 AM

The game is slow enough already.
And what is the penalty for the call not being reversed? Taking an out away?

If there is no penalty then you could use one late in the game and stop play for 5-10 minutes and then the oppossing teams pitcher would go cold. That has alot more effect on the game than people realize.
The umpires get a vast majority of the calls right anyways. They do an excellent job overall.
Finally, even using slow motion replay and viewing the play dozens of times, some plays are just too close to call.
The replay system could not be used on balls and strikes either since that is a subjective call. Balls and strikes is what 95% of the arguments are about anyways.

Now what I would like to see if some sort of mechanical system in place to keep track of the ball as it heads down the line. Those plays are usualy doubles or triples or homeruns and can change the games outcome.

PotatoPeeler · 10-05-2004, 10:39 AM

Worst.idea.ever. It's stupid in football and it's an even worse idea for baseball.

thehatfield · 10-05-2004, 11:22 AM

I also think its a bad idea for baseball. Umps can and have been much better about conferring with other umps in recent years before big calls that they are unsure of. Baseball to me, even with its frequent starts and stops, is a much more fluid game than american football to me and I would hate to see that disrupted.

The Mike! · 10-05-2004, 11:22 AM

yeah, it would take a real old, traditional feeling out of the game

jmm8356 · 10-05-2004, 01:42 PM

I voted "no" as well, but I wanted to note that a comparable game, cricket, has used video replay reviews for quite some time, I think. Not a challenge system, but if the umpire thinks the play was close, he'll make a square with his fingers (like Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction

) and the video official will come back with an out/safe light on the scoreboard.

Of course, the things they're trying to compare aren't as close together, spacially, as a tag and the base (or even a stretch at first and the base)... it's seeing if the wicket was knocked off with the ball before the player's bat touches ground across the safe line... or something like that... been a while since I caught a match on Fox Sports World

Vezna31 · 10-05-2004, 04:04 PM

I voted no. I don't mind the rule in football, but I don't think I could ever handle managers questioning balls or strikes. There's just too many situations to grind the game to a halt from it's already snail speed. Football is a little different. An individual play is much more important because they only play 16 games versus 162. Each play has much more significance in the outcome as opposed to one in baseball.

Maximus88 · 10-05-2004, 04:21 PM

i can understand what all of you are saying, but how about this then: a manager can have 2 challenges per month. this would make the challenges very rare and managers would only attempt to make them on very very close calls that could be game altering.

edit: and by the way, the challenges couldn't be used on balls/strikes.

Vezna31 · 10-05-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus88

i can understand what all of you are saying, but how about this then: a manager can have 2 challenges per month. this would make the challenges very rare and managers would only attempt to make them on very very close calls that could be game altering.

edit: and by the way, the challenges couldn't be used on balls/strikes.

Ok...if they are wrong, what is the punishment? In football, you lose, what could be, a very valuable time out in clock mgmt.

gubaru · 10-05-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vezna31

Ok...if they are wrong, what is the punishment? In football, you lose, what could be, a very valuable time out in clock mgmt.

They have to play Neifi Perez at SS for all nine innings for a week?

The Mike! · 10-05-2004, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gubaru

They have to play Neifi Perez at SS for all nine innings for a week?

yeah, so he can hit .371 with 2 home runs

UngratefulDead · 10-05-2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mike!

yeah, so he can hit .371 with 2 home runs

Shut the f*ck up.

Vezna31 · 10-05-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UngratefulDead

Shut the f*ck up.

Whoa...where did that come from?? Someone piss on someone's Wheaties this morning??

UngratefulDead · 10-05-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vezna31

Whoa...where did that come from?? Someone piss on someone's Wheaties this morning??

Neifi, while wasting space on the Giants roster and cackling gleefully: .231 (74 for 319), 2 HR
Neifi, with the Cubs: .377 (23 for 61), 2 HR

Plus, me and The Mike are buddies in real life so he knows I'm just kidding

Maximus88 · 10-05-2004, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vezna31

Ok...if they are wrong, what is the punishment? In football, you lose, what could be, a very valuable time out in clock mgmt.

either there shouldnt be a punishment or the coach should be charged a mound visit (kind of like a timeout).
but i do agree that umpires are much more accurate at calls because of their meetings with each other.

Long_Long_Name · 10-06-2004, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus88

either there shouldnt be a punishment or the coach should be charged a mound visit (kind of like a timeout).
but i do agree that umpires are much more accurate at calls because of their meetings with each other.

A mound visit isn't as valuable as a timeout... if anything, it gives time for the bullpen to work a little more, but anything more than that is esoteric. However, a timeout, in football, can be crucial.

Cuss16 · 10-06-2004, 04:25 AM

I hate this idea. I believe that human errors are definitely part of sports.

Number 6 · 10-06-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmm8356

I voted "no" as well, but I wanted to note that a comparable game, cricket, has used video replay reviews for quite some time, I think. Not a challenge system, but if the umpire thinks the play was close, he'll make a square with his fingers (like Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction

) and the video official will come back with an out/safe light on the scoreboard.

Of course, the things they're trying to compare aren't as close together, spacially, as a tag and the base (or even a stretch at first and the base)... it's seeing if the wicket was knocked off with the ball before the player's bat touches ground across the safe line... or something like that... been a while since I caught a match on Fox Sports World

Actually in cricket they're only used for run outs (i.e. did the batsman make the ground in time), so they are fairly comparable. The equivalent in baseball would be, say, a close out at one of the bases. As you say the players can't request them either, it's up to the umpire. In cricket, umpires are God, even arguing with one will result in a suspension or worse, so it rarely happens.

View Poll Results: Is having challenges in baseball a good idea?
Yes, it's a good idea.	15	18.99%
No, it's a bad idea.	64	81.01%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

10-04-2004, 11:49 PM	#1
Maximus88 Bat Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14	good or bad idea? allow 2 challenges per team in every baseball game. these challenges would be very similar to football challenges. there are many calls throughout the year that can totally alter the entire game that are sometimes miscalled. i believe that each team should be given the opportunity to have the umpires view the play from various angles to gaurantee they have made the correct call. does anyone believe this is a good / bad idea?

10-05-2004, 12:06 AM	#2
streetballer67 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 2,004	I personally like it but I wouldn't be surprised if no is leading by a very large margin. __________________ Visit Here!!!

10-05-2004, 09:58 AM	#3
ihatenames Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Rockford Posts: 2,534	I don't think its a bad avenue, but i still voted no. I like the aspect of human error, especially behind the plate. __________________ New Album coming soon!

10-05-2004, 10:39 AM	#5
PotatoPeeler Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Rapid City, SD Posts: 3,639	Worst.idea.ever. It's stupid in football and it's an even worse idea for baseball. __________________ 培傑西 I have never taken a lesson on how to talk on TV in my life. - Tim McCarver Guns have only two enemies; rust and liberals. The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.

10-05-2004, 10:10 AM	#4
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	The game is slow enough already. And what is the penalty for the call not being reversed? Taking an out away? If there is no penalty then you could use one late in the game and stop play for 5-10 minutes and then the oppossing teams pitcher would go cold. That has alot more effect on the game than people realize. The umpires get a vast majority of the calls right anyways. They do an excellent job overall. Finally, even using slow motion replay and viewing the play dozens of times, some plays are just too close to call. The replay system could not be used on balls and strikes either since that is a subjective call. Balls and strikes is what 95% of the arguments are about anyways. Now what I would like to see if some sort of mechanical system in place to keep track of the ball as it heads down the line. Those plays are usualy doubles or triples or homeruns and can change the games outcome.

10-05-2004, 11:22 AM	#6
thehatfield All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: dirty jerz Posts: 1,339	I also think its a bad idea for baseball. Umps can and have been much better about conferring with other umps in recent years before big calls that they are unsure of. Baseball to me, even with its frequent starts and stops, is a much more fluid game than american football to me and I would hate to see that disrupted. __________________ AFBL - Maryland Bridegrooms SBC - Western Suburbs Magpies no pressure no problem

10-05-2004, 11:22 AM	#7
The Mike! Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 33	yeah, it would take a real old, traditional feeling out of the game __________________ Go Cubs!

10-05-2004, 01:42 PM	#8
jmm8356 All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Lafayette IN (by way of Tonawanda NY) Posts: 1,673	I voted "no" as well, but I wanted to note that a comparable game, cricket, has used video replay reviews for quite some time, I think. Not a challenge system, but if the umpire thinks the play was close, he'll make a square with his fingers (like Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction ) and the video official will come back with an out/safe light on the scoreboard. Of course, the things they're trying to compare aren't as close together, spacially, as a tag and the base (or even a stretch at first and the base)... it's seeing if the wicket was knocked off with the ball before the player's bat touches ground across the safe line... or something like that... been a while since I caught a match on Fox Sports World __________________ Jeremy from Tonawanda --- Go Cubbies! --- Unofficial Theta Tester(tm) "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western!" From OOTP 6: Designated for Assignment FAQ (Includes both problems and solutions! Ooooo! )

10-05-2004, 04:04 PM	#9
Vezna31 All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wherever My VPN says Posts: 1,986	I voted no. I don't mind the rule in football, but I don't think I could ever handle managers questioning balls or strikes. There's just too many situations to grind the game to a halt from it's already snail speed. Football is a little different. An individual play is much more important because they only play 16 games versus 162. Each play has much more significance in the outcome as opposed to one in baseball.

10-05-2004, 04:21 PM	#10
Maximus88 Bat Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14	i can understand what all of you are saying, but how about this then: a manager can have 2 challenges per month. this would make the challenges very rare and managers would only attempt to make them on very very close calls that could be game altering. edit: and by the way, the challenges couldn't be used on balls/strikes.

10-06-2004, 04:25 AM	#19
Cuss16 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: BC, CANADA Posts: 2,994	I hate this idea. I believe that human errors are definitely part of sports. __________________