Bud Selig admits the 2009 World Series Playoffs had a number of flat out wrong calls, yet he still has faith in baseball’s umpires and does not believe the game should broaden the use of the instant replay. Although his reasoning is based on the instant replay’s effect of breaking the pace of the game, some may wonder what pace he is referring to, considering the lengthy interruptions of coaches and catchers, drawn out melodramatic stares of pitchers to runners, and the multiple practice swings, glove tightening, and foot position adjustments of batters. Regardless, Selig remains steadfast in the limited use of the instant replay.
Of the fifty-four times the instant replay was used, twenty-two calls were overturned. No wonder some have toyed with the idea of getting rid of umpires all together.
As it stands, the replay system, introduced in August of 2008, only reviews “boundary calls,” checking on homeruns that may have been foul balls or for fan (or video camera) interference with homeruns. Of the fifty-four times the instant replay was used as of October 27, twenty-two calls were overturned. With figures like this, it is no wonder some have toyed with the idea of getting rid of umpires all together. Considering the 100% accuracy of technological devices and drastic increase in cameras now available in every MLB stadium, the recession friendly savings of $120-350,000 a year, per umpire, seems like a decent idea.
The uselessness of umpire presence aside, the more realistic debate over instant replay’s place in baseball continues to rage. Sports commentators call for a broadening of the instant replay’s use, claiming that in time the umpires will come to love the instant technology check, saving them the headache of being confronted with the anger of fans armed with indisputable evidence of their failure to do their jobs correctly, and no ability to go back in time to fix the mistake.
Among supporters, there is a divide concerning the extent to which the instant replay should be implemented. Some argue a system similar to college football would be best. Others advocate a plan calling for two umpires in a booth reviewing each play (excluding balls and strikes), bringing attention to suspect calls.
Opponents of the instant replay, argue that the technology use should not be broadened for the purpose of protecting umpire job security. They further note that a little controversy fosters increased conversation and press for the sport. While this may sound ludicrous, I’d be hard pressed to find a Yankee fan who did not immediately call/text/email or otherwise contact someone late Sunday night when umpires failed to see that Phillies Ryan Howard never came in contact with home plate for the tying run in the 4th inning. Other “traditionalists” fear the implementation, no matter how narrow, will unnecessarily lengthen games. They argue that over time missed calls even out across the teams.
With questions of the league’s credibility on one side (Why would a governing body ever allow blatantly wrong calls to stand?) and the protection of the integrity of the game on the other side (Umpires, good calls and bad, are as much a part of baseball as Crackerjacks), where should the line be drawn? How far should technology be allowed to creep into baseball, legitimizing calls, but decreasing the presence of the always entertaining angry fan and hat stomping coach on a tirade against an umpire?
Comments
I agree it seems that the
I agree it seems that the successful implementation in football makes it hard to argue it should not be in baseball. It is also worth noting that the NBA and NHL have also implemented it on a limited baseball. In fact, the NHL system could be a good model for baseball. A limited number of reviewable plays (the scoring of a goal in the NHL) go up to a a replay official on site who interacts with a "war room" in Toronto. The war room is staffed by a number of legal officials including the VP of Hockey Operations (or a representative). This allows for some degree of consistency and oversight when as many as ten games could be going on at once.
My biggest gripe with the anti-replay side is the flow of the game argument. Baseball has already taken a number of steps to shorten the game and they have been effective. This steps should not question the integrity of the game. Much is made about the steroid era hurting the integrity of historic moments and records. What about bad calls? If A-Rod can keep on pace and break Bond's HR record - would we (or he) want it to be on a Jeffrey Mayer style HR? (sorry Katie). It's worth the extra 10 minutes per game (if its even that long).
I think the most important
I think the most important thing is to get the right call. Taking a look at the NFL I don’t think anyone can argue with replay benefitting the game. However, similar to football, there are certain cases where replay is just very hard to implement.
The tough thing with baseball is there are many moving parts. For example, if there is nobody on base and there is a questionable did he or did he not catch the ball in the outfield play, clearly the review can determine whether the runner will be on base or out. What if there are base runners though? The runners need to react off the initial call. If you were to overturn it, it might be very difficult to anticipate what the outcome would have been. For example, less then two outs and a runner on third. A deep fly that is called a hit and the guy on third walks home, call is then overturned as a catch. The guy on third probably tags and makes it but can you really assume something like that in the rules? I think the MLB should sit down and go over situations where an overturned play one way or the other yields an easily determinable result, and just allow those plays to be reviewed.
Balls and strikes would simply take way too long to review and there isn’t necessarily a defined strike zone, it’s mostly judgment. There would be so many discrepancies it would just be too difficult, leave it be, it generally evens itself out throughout the course of a game.
The pace of the game?
I don't think the "pace" will be that slowed. If you really crave lightning fast constant action, then maybe baseball isn't your sport. Maybe FOX could add some flame explosions and strobe lights to the instant reply screen to spice it up for the attention deficit fans.
The Talented Ms. Bhupathi
My condolences to Mr. Ripley, but this is a solid article by all means. I must agree that the replay (to a certain extent - defined below) should be implemented in Major League Baseball. I respect Bud's moves, but come on, man. How long does it take to figure out that Jorge Posada and Robinson Cano run the bases worse than 8 year olds (reference to Anaheim Angels double tag, game 4 of the ALCS... coming from a huge Yankees fan)? The answer is it would take two seconds. I also completely agree that balls and strikes absolutely cannot be reviewed. This is a human judgment call and to take that away would be like taking water away from the human race (it just can't be done). There obviously has to be a limit, but let's at very least allow them to review fair/foul or see if balls were caught on the fly or if they hit the ground. This review may be the least painstaking and most obvious in all of sports. It simply makes sense.
boundary calls only
I am a strong supporter of maintaining the limited use of Instant Replay in baseball. From what I understand, while players and coaches can push for a call to be reviewed, the actual request must be made by the umpire crew chief. This is an interesting difference from the NFL where coaches are allowed to make a review request, but risk burning a time-out and therefore must be strategic in only using this for key plays. If baseball coach’s had this option (for any call, not just homerun or fan interference issues) it could potentially be abused simply to get a pitcher out of his rhythm, etc. Increasing the use of technology over the judgment of trained umpires could fundamentally change the sport to become something unrecognizable and unenjoyable for this sad O’s fan.
Really?
Knowing that every material call is accurate would make the game unrecognizable to you? While something tells me O's fans would be sad no matter how games are called - if your idea of a fair game is ignoring accuracy (reality), then maybe we fundamentally disagree over the term.
I see the value in your
I see the value in your accuracy argument - the technology exists to ensure an accurate winner, why not use it? I am wondering, however, if you are at all worried about the focus on winning instead of comradery and enjoying the game?
Nemesis..
Nemesis,
I believe that eliminating umpires would make the game unrecognizable. Read my words.
hmmm
Replay should be expanded to an extent, since getting the call right should be the first priority. Living with the assumption that bad calls are unavoidable undermines the efforts and skills of the athletes on the field.
However, I don't believe technology should ever be allowed to permeate the umpire's strike zone. We've seen too many tv k-zones (not to mention the unsuccessful use of Qwestec) which appear to be just as inconsistent as the umpires themselves.
I do like the human element of an umpiring crew, but it's more important to get the calls right. Everyone else in their repsective professions are subject to checks and procedures to limit mistakes. Why not umpires?
don't we want the right calls?
Tara,
I'm all for the use of instant replay in baseball... In fact, I was just shouting at my TV about this the other day ... ;)
I understand concerns about slowing down the game... They're already SO slow already! but let's be honest here, doesn't everyone want a fair game? doesn't everyone want the right call to be made? I think you just need to limit the replay... maybe to things like a close call on base.. ala Howard at home and Utley being called out on a double play in that same game when he was pretty clearly safe at first... How about coming up with a system like they do in the NFL? If you're wrong about a challenge, you're docked an out or something... maybe that's too harsh a penalty, but I'm sure there's some sort of penalty equivalent to being docked a TO.
As for the umpire job security or the intergrity of the game... give me a break.. You don't see the NFL cutting down on the number of refs they use just because they have instant replay... and the MLB will only get more credit if they start getting more plays RIGHT. this is pretty simple, if you ask me...
Good luck with the rest of your blogging!
-Tull
Call me a traditionalist.....
but I would be personally disappointed if instant-replay was implemented and the "hat stomping coach on a tirade" ceased to be a part of the game. There's something to be said for accuracy, but for me, it's the intangibles that make the American Pastime special.
no replay
after getting rid of replay - what is next, simulating the games on computers?
umpire error is human error and humans play the game.
bad calls make the game fun.
Slippery Slope
Maybe robots should replace athletes. Human athletes, after all, make million of dollars a year for imperfect performances.
Post new comment