11/21/24
November 11, 2004
MLB - Instant review: GM's to discuss replay options: Brian Cashman wanted to make this perfectly clear: The umpires were correct when they called Alex Rodriguez out for interference on that crazy play during the AL championship series.
"They got it completely right, 100 percent," the New York Yankees' general manager said this week.
"But you would hate to have a game, or a series or even a season come down to a play where they miss it and instant replay could have helped," he said. "So as far as instant replay, I'm in favor of it."
I dont think its necceary. As long as the umps continue to discuss close calls it shouldnt be needed.
posted by daddisamm at 09:01 AM on November 11, 2004
Counting on the umps to always get the big calls right is a disaster waiting to happen. It's only a matter of time before another Jeffrey Maier moment decides a playoff series and we'll have instant replay as a result. Let's go ahead and implement it now on a trial basis, letting an ump in a TV booth communicate with field umps on calls where they huddle up.
posted by rcade at 01:06 PM on November 11, 2004
I've always wondered about calling strikes and balls, especially when I read articles or hear game commentators mention that the ump has a high or low or wide strike zone. The rulebook defines the strike zone yet clearly the umpires do not adhere to it very well--still, I don't hear any clamor over it. But, as with tennis (where boundary calls are similarly difficult) why not use technology to remove the ambiguity? Technology is surely available to do it and for little money; if anything the vendors might give the necessary products to MLB in exchange for promotional rights.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:10 PM on November 11, 2004
i don't think it will add that much time to a game. decisions shouldn't take as much time as it does in th nfl. whenever they show a replay on tv, you can usually see if they blew the call almost instantaneously from only 1 or 2 camera angles. would you put a limit on number of challenges in a game? and what would the team lose if ruling isn't overturned? there are no timeouts to take away. one thing i would miss are the manager tantrums over blown calls. there would be nothing left to argue about.
posted by goddam at 02:00 PM on November 11, 2004
billsaysthis, several stadiums already have such technology in place. It's being used to grade the umpire's performance, and bring more consistency to ball-strike calling. Still, scouting and adjusting to an umpire is one of the basic elements of the game, and won't be touched by technology for many, many, many years. You saw in the article (I hope) how quick all the pro-IR people were to assure us that it wasn't going to be used for balls and strikes.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 02:41 PM on November 11, 2004
DrJ, I don't get it. Oh well.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:13 PM on November 11, 2004
I am in favor of this, provided there are limits to when it is used. If every called strike can be challenged, I am going to turn to a more fast paced sport, like curling.
posted by Joey Michaels at 07:21 PM on November 11, 2004
DrJ, I don't get it. Oh well. Not sure what you are saying you don't understand, but I'll try to help. There's a pretty intricate system made by Questech in some stadiums. As I understand it, it projects the "real" strike zone over the plate in the game film (maybe like ESPN's K-Zone) and records the whole game. Immediately after the game, the footage is burnt to CD (seems a little lo-fi for 4 hours of video, but if they drop the TV timeouts it's probably only 45 minutes) and the umps are supposed to review it for mistakes. Makes 0 difference in the umpires' performance since there are still umps who have wide or narrow or high or low zones. Y'know, as soon as I heard about Questech I wanted to see it used for umpiring, at least on a trial basis. Upon further review, I wonder if it would be A Good Thing. Would a perfect officiant take some of the enjoyment out of sport? No more complaining about getting jobbed out of a game or a season or whatever. It might dehumanize the whole experience a bit. It'd still beat the dress pants off those umps that need to take 30 seconds to make a call and then scream "STEEEEEEEE-RUUHHHHHHKKKKK!"
posted by yerfatma at 08:14 PM on November 11, 2004
I don't get why Baseball doesn't use it during games. What's the point of rules if you don't follow them? To me, your point about taking the enjoyment or maybe taking the human element out of it is secondary to ensuring that everybody gets the same quality calls--why should one team with, for instance, a pitcher who better matches up with the strike zone of the night's home plate ump than the other team's pitcher get an outside the rules advantage? In the past we just had to live with the differences but know we don't. To give a different example, sports now use much more precise clocks and the strategies have evolved to use it (NBA seems to be the best example of this I can think of), which is what I'd expect to see in baseball. A contrasting example is soccer, where referees seem to routinely allow play to run several seconds, and sometimes up to a minute, longer than expected even in top leagues like the EPL, and have a similar looseness about spoting the ball for free kicks and throw ins.
posted by billsaysthis at 09:09 PM on November 11, 2004
ensuring that everybody gets the same quality calls That's a really good point. I guess I was lost in the pastoral happy crappy.
posted by yerfatma at 09:50 PM on November 11, 2004
Yerfatma, I do agree with your last point about showboating umps. Baseball is not a rock concert nor the circus.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:18 PM on November 12, 2004
Yeah. That'll make the games shorter. Totally unnecessary. Baseball has to be the easiest game to officiate. The Umps barely have to move and they have, what, seventeen of them on the field come the postseason? Leave it alone.