Instant Replay Proposal on MLB Agenda

[byco42]

:bs: Did Leyland ask Joyce..and the head up..? Uh huh. Did they talk it over, no way Jose.

That's a call that would not have been reversed by any umpire on sight. it can't be. The only thing that another umpire could judge on a force out is if the infielder's foot is on the base, or if he had possession of the ball. Not on the judgement of whether a runner or batter-runner was out or safe.

My example was slightly more obvious, and could have been appealed. It helps to know the rules.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That's a call that would not have been reversed by any umpire on sight. it can't be. The only thing that another umpire could judge on a force out is if the infielder's foot is on the base, or if he had possession of the ball. Not on the judgement of whether a runner or batter-runner was out or safe.

My example was slightly more obvious, and could have been appealed. It helps to know the rules.

Maybe, doesn't really matter though. If plays like that can't be overturned than umps will continue to get calls wrong.

 

[tomdalton22]

Why not? Is it gonna hurt his little feelings?

because they know the next time they miss a close call that ump is going to show him up in front of 40K. These guys have to work together all year. If they each miss a play now and then they are not going to go out of their way to show up their co-worker.

 

[Mitchrapp]

So they rather get "shown up" later that night with replay after replay shows they're wrong.

Do like the NFL does, get together and talk it through and make the right call. These refs don't seem to mind, why should an ump..

 

[kalinecountry]

I like that article. Btw, what happens when a call is reversed then the other team argues? If I learn anything from the NFL, even with replays, umps get stuff wrong.

I don't think you can ever get it 100% right, for any sport w/ umps/refs.

I do think that it is finally a good step towards fixing some problems.

The other team will in all likelihood will argue.

 

[spockmaster]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2...-consequences-of-the-replay-challenge-system/


im glad, the neighborhood play is frustratingly stupid. im glad its already disappearing. Takeout slides are part of baseball, and baseball is a dangerous game.

 

[byco42]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2...-consequences-of-the-replay-challenge-system/


im glad, the neighborhood play is frustratingly stupid. im glad its already disappearing. Takeout slides are part of baseball, and baseball is a dangerous game.

The present rule of sliding into a base has dratically reduced the hazards infielders face on the second-base turn. It used to be open season on infielders. George Scott wore a primative necklace that he said was made of "second-baseman's teeth."

I also wonder if other calls not made can be scrutinized. There are appproximately 30 ways a pitcher can commit a balk. I see where umpires miss them all the time, or allow pitchers to make them as part of their normal routine. Will managers be able to point them out?

"He balked! I want to review that!"

The 12-second rule? Structly enforced now? With a time clock and a buzzer? Check swing strikes? Runners in the three-foot zone where interference may have occured? Interference and obstruction? Live and delayed-dead-ball?

This is a Pandora's box.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

The present rule of sliding into a base has dratically reduced the hazards infielders face on the second-base turn. It used to be open season on infielders. George Scott wore a primative necklace that he said was made of "second-baseman's teeth."

I also wonder if other calls not made can be scrutinized. There are appproximately 30 ways a pitcher can commit a balk. I see where umpires miss them all the time, or allow pitchers to make them as part of their normal routine. Will managers be able to point them out?

"He balked! I want to review that!"

The 12-second rule? Structly enforced now? With a time clock and a buzzer? Check swing strikes? Runners in the three-foot zone where interference may have occured? Interference and obstruction? Live and delayed-dead-ball?

This is a Pandora's box.

I'd love to replace most calls with computers anyway. Why does the strike zone change with ever ump when every TV station can line up a box and tell you exactly where the ball crossed the plate? Why are foul balls, leaving the bag early, and force outs up to the eyes of old men when we have cameras that can hit 1000 FPS and tell exactly where the ball hit and whether a runner is out faster than our eyes can process? You want to actually enforce the pitch/batter timing, why leave it up to the guess of umps when you could have it tracked at all times?

Let the umps focus on the actual judgement calls - balks, infield fly rule, things that are more than just accurately seeing the ball. I know MLB would never do this, but it's silly that in a sport where so many things are so black and white that we continue to rely on the fallable vision of emotionally susceptible men.

 

[kalinecountry]

The present rule of sliding into a base has dratically reduced the hazards infielders face on the second-base turn. It used to be open season on infielders. George Scott wore a primative necklace that he said was made of "second-baseman's teeth."

I also wonder if other calls not made can be scrutinized. There are appproximately 30 ways a pitcher can commit a balk. I see where umpires miss them all the time, or allow pitchers to make them as part of their normal routine. Will managers be able to point them out?

"He balked! I want to review that!"

The 12-second rule? Structly enforced now? With a time clock and a buzzer? Check swing strikes? Runners in the three-foot zone where interference may have occured? Interference and obstruction? Live and delayed-dead-ball?

This is a Pandora's box.

The old 'Boomer' George Scott, may he rest in peace, man he had troubles speaking and articulating/pronouncing words. I do remember the first time they asked him about that 'primitive necklace'.

Baseball moves so slow, to get all those rules enforced.....I won't live long enough to see them. Took 20 years from speaking of replay at the GM meetings and mlb to actually getting it.

 

[byco42]

I'd love to replace most calls with computers anyway. Why does the strike zone change with ever ump when every TV station can line up a box and tell you exactly where the ball crossed the plate?

The strike zone height changes with every batter. And that box is not an accurate depiction of the strike zone. It's a relative approximation.

Why are foul balls, leaving the bag early, and force outs up to the eyes of old men when we have cameras that can hit 1000 FPS and tell exactly where the ball hit and whether a runner is out faster than our eyes can process? You want to actually enforce the pitch/batter timing, why leave it up to the guess of umps when you could have it tracked at all times?

It's not a factor of age; it's a factor of speed and proximity: and the impact of reversing a call, especially one that reverses an out or a foul ball.

Let the umps focus on the actual judgement calls - balks, infield fly rule, things that are more than just accurately seeing the ball. I know MLB would never do this, but it's silly that in a sport where so many things are so black and white that we continue to rely on the fallable vision of emotionally susceptible men.

Balks and the INF rule are equally left open to interpretation. My point is that replay will not necessarily make things right all the time. It will unravel plays and then expect the umpires to reassemble them in a completely hypothetical fashion. They have the authority to do this now, but it's rarely necessary, and with good reason. Now it will become commonplace.

 

[tomdalton22]

The strike zone height changes with every batter. And that box is not an accurate depiction of the strike zone. It's a relative approximation.



It's not a factor of age; it's a factor of speed and proximity: and the impact of reversing a call, especially one that reverses an out or a foul ball.



Balks and the INF rule are equally left open to interpretation. My point is that replay will not necessarily make things right all the time. It will unravel plays and then expect the umpires to reassemble them in a completely hypothetical fashion. They have the authority to do this now, but it's rarely necessary, and with good reason. Now it will become commonplace.

The problem with the strike zone is it is different for each umpire AND the inconsistancy during a game.

As far as replay...I am all for it. I'm sure it will take some getting used to but there are plays in a game that need to be corrected when the ump totally blows the call. They are not overturning calls on their own so let's go with replay!

 

[byco42]

The problem with the strike zone is it is different for each umpire AND the inconsistancy during a game.

As far as replay...I am all for it. I'm sure it will take some getting used to but there are plays in a game that need to be corrected when the ump totally blows the call. They are not overturning calls on their own so let's go with replay!

The strike zone is off limits, so that point is moot. As for tag and force plays with runners on base, just wait for the webs they weave when calls are reversed, especially those that are extremely close.

And ties never go to the runner, so that circumstance is also off limits, too.

 

[tomdalton22]

The strike zone is off limits, so that point is moot. As for tag and force plays with runners on base, just wait for the webs they weave when calls are reversed, especially those that are extremely close.

And ties never go to the runner, so that circumstance is also off limits, too.

I thought you were responding to the previous post about having a computer (like the box that we see on TV) call balls and strikes.

As far as tags and force plays...I am going to assume that MLB will take the same stance as the NFL....there has to be undisputable video evidence to over turn a plays like those.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

The strike zone height changes with every batter. And that box is not an accurate depiction of the strike zone. It's a relative approximation.



It's not a factor of age; it's a factor of speed and proximity: and the impact of reversing a call, especially one that reverses an out or a foul ball.



Balks and the INF rule are equally left open to interpretation. My point is that replay will not necessarily make things right all the time. It will unravel plays and then expect the umpires to reassemble them in a completely hypothetical fashion. They have the authority to do this now, but it's rarely necessary, and with good reason. Now it will become commonplace.

The height of the batter wouldn't affect a computer that can much more precisely create that box. A computer could very easily grab key points (knees, elbows, shoulders, bat rotation, sides of the plate). It wouldn't be a set box for all batters equally, it would be a box that accurately measures the dimensions of each batter, removing inconsistency (unless a batter starts changing his stance with each at bat) and stopping batters or pitchers from "cheating" the strike zone by exploiting umpire tendencies.

A high power camera feeding data into a computer could make calls just as fast as an umpire staring at the bag, and could do it with more accuracy. Where an umpire needs to see both the catch and foot hitting the bag at the same time despite obvious biases in perception and peripheral vision, a computer could judge both independently without losing data. Hawkeye tracking in Tennis can already track speeds over 150 mph down to the millimeter in real time. The human eye simply isn't that good. You could even take it one step further and put sensors on the bag and in the ball if you don't trust cameras.

I only support the idea of replay because of the current mistake capacity of the people making calls. If you took out the guesswork in the things that don't need to left open to interpretation in this day and age, at least the umpires could focus more of their attention on the things that are very much interpretive. If you took away even having the option for wrong calls on foul balls, home runs, force outs, and strikes, I probably wouldn't want replay. Second guessing an umpire on a call we can measure correct or not just makes sense. Second guess an umpire on a call that is inherently subjective would be pointless.

 

[byco42]

The height of the batter wouldn't affect a computer that can much more precisely create that box. A computer could very easily grab key points (knees, elbows, shoulders, bat rotation, sides of the plate). It wouldn't be a set box for all batters equally, it would be a box that accurately measures the dimensions of each batter, removing inconsistency (unless a batter starts changing his stance with each at bat) and stopping batters or pitchers from "cheating" the strike zone by exploiting umpire tendencies.

The strike zone is not a two-dimensional box. It's a three-dimensional shape.

I only support the idea of replay because of the current mistake capacity of the people making calls. If you took out the guesswork in the things that don't need to left open to interpretation in this day and age, at least the umpires could focus more of their attention on the things that are very much interpretive. If you took away even having the option for wrong calls on foul balls, home runs, force outs, and strikes, I probably wouldn't want replay. Second guessing an umpire on a call we can measure correct or not just makes sense. Second guess an umpire on a call that is inherently subjective would be pointless.

My problem is not with replay, per se, it's with the after effects of reversing a call with runners on base. It will get messy.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

The strike zone is not a two-dimensional box. It's a three-dimensional shape.

Completely true, but it is defined by set points. Home plate doesn't change, so the only things a computer need calculate are the top and bottom of the zone, which current technology would have little trouble handling. Again, I don't think baseball would ever use technology like this, but there's nothing stopping them from actually doing it.

My problem is not with replay, per se, it's with the after effects of reversing a call with runners on base. It will get messy.

And this goes to my original point about replay as well. I do not want replay for inherently subjective calls. That's stupid. If an umpire called a balk (or non-balk) in the first place, they certainly aren't going to be inclined to call it differently on replay. It's up to their judgement in the first place. But things like force-outs, home runs, and foul balls are black and white - the ball either hit within a defined place or it didn't. There's no reason those shouldn't be reviewable (TV networks do it all the time).

Obviously there needs to be a cutoff. A manager shouldn't be able to throw a challenge after another batter has reached base or gotten out. I would say the challenge must be thrown before the next pitch is thrown. That would even add to the gamesmanship as a pitcher might get in his stance quicker to dare a challenge or beat out a blown call. This might start forcing those clocks to really be used for a batter getting into the box or a pitcher being forced to throw. Give managers and staff something to do as they immediately pull up close ups and replays of every close call - make them use their own split second judgement. This also gets rid of managers and batters wasting time arguing just to argue. Throw that shit right out - if managers have a beef they throw their challenge, if they are just making a point or acting tough for the players don't let them waste my time.

 

[kalinecountry]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=21568
11 Plays for Which We Wish We'd Had Instant Replay Review.
from Baseball Prospectus