I cant totally understand how they don't want every ball and strike call questioned by some dude up in the box. But for plays where a base runner is out/safe and even the drunkest fan at home can tell the call was wrong, how in the world can they sit there and say that they would rather play on with the wrong call? Boggles the mind.

Fizpez: I cant totally understand how they don't want every ball and strike call questioned by some dude up in the box. But for plays where a base runner is out/safe and even the drunkest fan at home can tell the call was wrong, how in the world can they sit there and say that they would rather play on with the wrong call? Boggles the mind.

Because the Yankees won, and the Yankees sell tickets wherever they go. Now come out and root for America's Team.

/Bring money.

They're worried about the lengths of the games. But I'd rather watch a game for 20-30 extra minutes than watch the Yankee$ get over on Minnesota because of some retardedly bad call. I understand balls/strikes, but fair/foul and safe/out should be reviewed. Just put one of those 20 umpires up in a booth and give him a minute to make the call.

Not bringing it up at all because they fear the commissioner? Come on now guys grow a set.

Replay is worthless.

Prime example of a point I was arguing on a previous replay topic.

Eagles-Dallas on Sunday night. McNabb QB sneak, you can clearly see where his elbow touches and where the ball should be spotted for the measurement. Both Announcers agree, ref simply says the play stands after reviewing the replay.


Most replays decisions end up sparking more debate than solving any problems. It's a waste of time that doesn't solve anything.

I've seen it countless times in the NHL too. Ohh I think his stick was above the crossbar.. yeah it's pretty clear.. goal stands.

MugzyBrown: Most replays decisions end up sparking more debate than solving any problems. It's a waste of time that doesn't solve anything.

Naa. Id just say you remember it when they get the review wrong. I could be wrong (it happens all the time) but when a play is reviewed they get it right more often than not.

Gunny Highway: Naa. Id just say you remember it when they get the review wrong. I could be wrong (it happens all the time) but when a play is reviewed they get it right more often than not.

To make up BS stats, I would say it breaks out like this:

50% - We're not really positive, so we'll just stick with what we said.
25% - Ooops, yeah we blew that one, we'll fix it.
25% - We probably blew this one, but ya know there is a 1% chance there is something in there that's correct, plus Bill made this call and he gets really sensitive when we overturn his calls, so we'll just keep it where it is.

D-Liver: They're worried about the lengths of the games. But I'd rather watch a game for 20-30 extra minutes than watch the Yankee$ get over on Minnesota because of some retardedly bad call. I understand balls/strikes, but fair/foul and safe/out should be reviewed. Just put one of those 20 umpires up in a booth and give him a minute to make the call.

Just for the record, plenty of those bad calls went against the yankees as well. (The out for not taggin up properly in the ALCS comes immediately to mind, but there were quite a few others)

Replay needs to happen. Now.

/yankee fan

many more, can't find em though

Why does everyone want everything to be perfect? I accept the fallibility of umpires as a part of the game. I hate watching college football now because they review every god damn play.

It dstroys the ability of fans to display emotions. I don't even cheer anymore when something great happens because I know we actually have to wait for guys to watch it on TV a few more times before we really know if something great happened. What we end up with is fans who cheer for a ref making an announcement. That's not why I watch a sporting event.

I for one am glad that they are not compromising the integrity of the game by ensuring that the games have no integrity.

Part of the game of baseball is umpiring, even flawed umpiring. Removing the umpires from the game ( which is what replay would eventually do ) would ruin the game.

It would be like declaring stealing signs illegal ( or putting headsets on the players ). The game would be fundamentally changed.

I do believe there needs to be better umpiring in the post season, the umps should have gotten together more and confirmed some calls, but there should be no replay.

/You can always blame the umps for losing instead of your team.

broomballwilson: Why does everyone want everything to be perfect? I accept the fallibility of umpires as a part of the game. I hate watching college football now because they review every god damn play.

It dstroys the ability of fans to display emotions. I don't even cheer anymore when something great happens because I know we actually have to wait for guys to watch it on TV a few more times before we really know if something great happened. What we end up with is fans who cheer for a ref making an announcement. That's not why I watch a sporting event.

Well, if current TV rating of the recent World Series, which featured the f'ing Yankees for god's sake, are any indication, the rest of the general public doesn't care for the game of baseball as currently constituted, tradition or not. If baseball wants to survive, it needs to adapt to a modern world and stop listening to a bunch of crotchety 80 year old white guys about their opinions on the game.

The Gentleman Caller I cant totally understand how they don't want every ball and strike call questioned by some dude up in the box. But for plays where a base runner is out/safe and even the drunkest fan at home can tell the call was wrong, how in the world can they sit there and say that they would rather play on with the wrong call? Boggles the mind.

Because the Yankees won, and the Yankees sell tickets wherever they go. Now come out and root for America's Team.


2/10. You made a good point about replay but your nonsensical rant failed to properly tie in why this is the fault of the Yankees. Maybe your lovable losers who only play for the love of the game, hot dogs, mom and apple pie will have a better shot next year.

Lost Thought 00: If baseball wants to survive, it needs to adapt to a modern world and stop listening to a bunch of crotchety 80 year old white guys about their opinions on the game.


Why do you think more people would watch baseball if there was replay?

That theory doesn't make any sense. The sport is the sport, you can't make it better with window dressing. You either like it or you don't. I submit the NHL and the glowing puck as evidence.

Lost Thought 00: Well, if current TV rating of the recent World Series, which featured the f'ing Yankees for god's sake, are any indication, the rest of the general public doesn't care for the game of baseball as currently constituted, tradition or not.

The ratings look pretty good to me.

WS Ratings (new window)

MugzyBrown: I submit the NHL and the glowing puck as evidence.

Oh, Jesus. Let us never speak of that abomination again.

MugzyBrown: Lost Thought 00: If baseball wants to survive, it needs to adapt to a modern world and stop listening to a bunch of crotchety 80 year old white guys about their opinions on the game.


Why do you think more people would watch baseball if there was replay?

That theory doesn't make any sense. The sport is the sport, you can't make it better with window dressing. You either like it or you don't. I submit the NHL and the glowing puck as evidence.

If there continue to be massive amounts of blown calls as bad as the ones were in the postseason, people will stop watching simply because the umpiring is so farking bad.

Fizpez 2009-11-11 06:23:11 AM I cant totally understand how they don't want every ball and strike call questioned by some dude up in the box. But for plays where a base runner is out/safe and even the drunkest fan at home can tell the call was wrong, how in the world can they sit there and say that they would rather play on with the wrong call?
=====================================================

At home with super-slow motion replays, sure. In the game, no.

There's mistakes. There's equal chance to make them on both teams. Live with it.

jake3988: At home with super-slow motion replays, sure. In the game, no.

I don't think the discussion should be about super-slow motion replays. It should be about plays like this:



Give each manager one challenge, no ball/strike challenges allowed.

Tsunami Ditka: MugzyBrown: I submit the NHL and the glowing puck as evidence.

Oh, Jesus. Let us never speak of that abomination again.

that was actually the only time I could stand to watch hockey

D-Liver: They're worried about the lengths of the games. But I'd rather watch a game for 20-30 extra minutes than watch the Yankee$ get over on Minnesota because of some retardedly bad call. I understand balls/strikes, but fair/foul and safe/out should be reviewed. Just put one of those 20 umpires up in a booth and give him a minute to make the call.

So what happens if:

A ball is called "foul" by the base line ump. The batter jogs back to the box, all the runners go back to their bases. Then, upon review, it turns out it was fair. How do you determine where all the runners should go?

You would end up with a standard rule, but how far down the foul line constitutes the difference between a single and a double? Are you going to give every bad call one base? What if the foul ball is in the corner, almost out of the park? Where do you draw the line? Every use of replay in a live ball situation creates as many problems as it solves.

The Yankee were burned by as many calls as they got over. Stop whining.

Orgasmatron138: D-Liver: They're worried about the lengths of the games. But I'd rather watch a game for 20-30 extra minutes than watch the Yankee$ get over on Minnesota because of some retardedly bad call. I understand balls/strikes, but fair/foul and safe/out should be reviewed. Just put one of those 20 umpires up in a booth and give him a minute to make the call.

So what happens if:

A ball is called "foul" by the base line ump. The batter jogs back to the box, all the runners go back to their bases. Then, upon review, it turns out it was fair. How do you determine where all the runners should go?

You would end up with a standard rule, but how far down the foul line constitutes the difference between a single and a double? Are you going to give every bad call one base? What if the foul ball is in the corner, almost out of the park? Where do you draw the line? Every use of replay in a live ball situation creates as many problems as it solves.

That's a retarded argument, how do you know how far the runners would have advanced if a player were forced to climb into the stands for an over thrown ball? Why are they automatically given the next base, why not 2 or 3?????? Hell why not just give them all home and call every ball out of play a home run?

Fair ball = 1 base...ta-da!

Replay in the NFL meant a relatively limited number of plays to review. This is achieved by limiting the number of red flags and because the game is itself finite. Baseball isn't like that.

So there's a close ball down the line - fair or foul? Okay, let's spend thirty seconds, a minute, five minutes reviewing it. It's foul. Oh, the hitter put another one down the line. Another review. And on and on. Sure, you can limit replays by a set number challenges, which then still doesn't guarantee that a big call late won't get missed, or with booth challenges, though if college football has taught me anything it is that those officials are as arbitrary and flawed as their real-time counterparts.

My main issue with replay - sure, it clarifies the six or eight plays a game that were questionable to the naked eye, but it also raises six or eight other plays that the naked eye missed. Pretty soon, we're wasting forty minutes trying to figure out when an elbow hit, where a ball precisely bounced, what happened in that tenth of a second that's blocked from view...

And I seriously don't care. So my team gets screwed every now and then. Fine. It comes out in the wash. Just let me watch the fracking game. Nothing drives me crazier than having to listen some fourth-string hack-announcer repeat his opinion on a replay for three minutes straight. I just want to watch football. That's it. It's already hard enough with the endless stream of boner pill and watery beer commercials. Please, can I just watch the game.

Honestly after watching much of the playoffs and WS I don't know why they let that fat prick behind the plate call balls and strikes. Let the machine do it and the fat prick can just yell out what he is told.

I'm sick of replay. In the NFL they should limit it to scoring plays as far as if the ball broke the plain, and that's it.

I'm sick of analyzing if a knee was on the ground and if the ball was moving some and if that was a "football move" etc, it's idiotic.

Not to mention, I think the fumble rules these days are way to strict. It should be in the judgement of the ref, and the runner should have to complete the play with possession.

There is a review process already - if an umpire makes a call that's wrong to everyone in the park, one of the other umpires walks over and they decide what to do. Egregiously bad calls are overturned in this way.

Of course, you have to have proper respect for the play as it happened with the call that was made. It's asinine to have a play unfold and then have the umpires move everyone around to a different base because of what might have happened if a call went differently.

The real problem here is television insisting on showing everything from a chosen angle or three at the level where you can see people's pores.

Honestly, most calls could be made by computers at this point. It's not too hard to envision a system that takes over calling balls/strikes and can accurately judge each foul/fair call without any need for human umpires. The only thing you'd need umps for would be out/safe calls.

That would speed up the game tremendously, as biatching at PitchTrax about balls and strikes is pointless.

The only way expanded replay should happen is if the crew chief had a hand held video player that he could instantly huddle with the other umps to see what happened. Going down into the video player in the dugout ends up taking forever, and if they had to do it every other inning the games would be 4 hours long.

They already take an insane amount of time reviewing plays in the NFL, which hits the brakes on the game, and they still get a good number of calls wrong.

Mr. Slippyfist: The only way expanded replay should happen is if the crew chief had a hand held video player that he could instantly huddle with the other umps to see what happened. Going down into the video player in the dugout ends up taking forever, and if they had to do it every other inning the games would be 4 hours long.

They already take an insane amount of time reviewing plays in the NFL, which hits the brakes on the game, and they still get a good number of calls wrong.

All they have to do is have a guy up in the booth that could call down the correct call.

You see the replay right away from several angles-- the average fan can make the right call within a minute or two of the play.

lacydog:

That would speed up the game tremendously, as biatching at PitchTrax about balls and strikes is pointless.

I'm sure that it is possible technology wise, but don't confuse it with the current Pitchtrax system used by Fox and TBS during the playoffs. That's no more than a guy relaying pitch location to the tv truck, and then turning it into shiny graphics.

Wise_Guy: Mr. Slippyfist: The only way expanded replay should happen is if the crew chief had a hand held video player that he could instantly huddle with the other umps to see what happened. Going down into the video player in the dugout ends up taking forever, and if they had to do it every other inning the games would be 4 hours long.

They already take an insane amount of time reviewing plays in the NFL, which hits the brakes on the game, and they still get a good number of calls wrong.

All they have to do is have a guy up in the booth that could call down the correct call.

You see the replay right away from several angles-- the average fan can make the right call within a minute or two of the play.

That is even better. It would take seconds and the calls would be correct.

Crew Chief to guy in booth: "Was that called correctly?"
Guy in booth: "No, it was fair"
CC: "Cool"

Then they might have to write some rules up about calling it a single, double and where the runners on base would go, but it doesn't seem too difficult.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I'm sure that it is possible technology wise, but don't confuse it with the current Pitchtrax system used by Fox and TBS during the playoffs. That's no more than a guy relaying pitch location to the tv truck, and then turning it into shiny graphics.

That is not correct. The TBS system was real-time, it couldn't have been a guy in the truck, but i think the idea of a computerized ball/strike system is stupid.

I don't understand the fascination of having sports be accurate to the billionth degree. It's just sports. If there's a bad call, that's good for the sport, it causes discussion and interest.

Tsunami Ditka: jake3988: At home with super-slow motion replays, sure. In the game, no.

I don't think the discussion should be about super-slow motion replays. It should be about plays like this:

Give each manager one challenge, no ball/strike challenges allowed.

I would agree as long as you don't lose your right to challenge if the call was overturned as a result of your challenge. i.e. you get one challenge card at the start of the game. You give the up the card and challenge a call. If the call is overturned because of your challenge, you get the card back (and can continue to use it). If the call is upheld on your challenge, the ump keeps the card.

wage0048: I would agree as long as you don't lose your right to challenge if the call was overturned as a result of your challenge. i.e. you get one challenge card at the start of the game. You give the up the card and challenge a call. If the call is overturned because of your challenge, you get the card back (and can continue to use it). If the call is upheld on your challenge, the ump keeps the card.


Or they could get rid of replay, limit visits to the mound, and make the game enjoyable.

Wise_Guy: You see the replay right away from several angles-- the average fan can make the right call within a minute or two of the play.

The average Sox fan can do it quicker, those Yankees fans take a bit longer though.
Hello friend.
----------
I'd really like to see a much more consistent strike zone, the calls/non-calls in the playoffs this year were godawful.

Dr.Knockboots: The average Sox fan can do it quicker, those Yankees fans take a bit longer though.

I've heard that about you guys.

One thing that is great about baseball: Unless the bad call happens in the bottom of the 9th, your team always has a chance to make up for the bad call.

There's no clock, it's always in your hands.

But home field advantage in the world series is decided by who wins the all star game. Makes a whole lotta sense.

erupt2001: But home field advantage in the world series is decided by who wins the all star game. Makes a whole lotta sense.

You're right, but I have no idea what this has to do with instant replay.

DoBeDoBeDo: Orgasmatron138: D-Liver: They're worried about the lengths of the games. But I'd rather watch a game for 20-30 extra minutes than watch the Yankee$ get over on Minnesota because of some retardedly bad call. I understand balls/strikes, but fair/foul and safe/out should be reviewed. Just put one of those 20 umpires up in a booth and give him a minute to make the call.

So what happens if:

A ball is called "foul" by the base line ump. The batter jogs back to the box, all the runners go back to their bases. Then, upon review, it turns out it was fair. How do you determine where all the runners should go?

You would end up with a standard rule, but how far down the foul line constitutes the difference between a single and a double? Are you going to give every bad call one base? What if the foul ball is in the corner, almost out of the park? Where do you draw the line? Every use of replay in a live ball situation creates as many problems as it solves.

That's a retarded argument, how do you know how far the runners would have advanced if a player were forced to climb into the stands for an over thrown ball? Why are they automatically given the next base, why not 2 or 3?????? Hell why not just give them all home and call every ball out of play a home run?

Fair ball = 1 base...ta-da!

Oh yeah everyone would love that. The ball that falls between the third baseman and the left fielder inside the line is a single and so is the ball that lands in the right field corner an inch from the wall.

It would have to come down to the umpire's discretion in regards to double or single with other runners advancing one base on a single and two on a double. Of course people will complain about that as well because eventually you'd see a guy awarded a double when "there was no way that guys could have stretched that into a double!11!1!!11!"

That was actually part of the discussion on MLB with Bob Costas interviewing Satan last night. The big difference between baseball and football is the continuity play. You just can't have challenges on continuity plays because if you think the vagina sand is rough now, wait until there is a review on a trapped line drive to second with men on base.

There obviously needs to be more review

/And if you want to speed up the game, don't let batters call time out every farking pitch and enforce the time to the plate rule for pitchers.
//Seriously. Watch an old ballgame one of these days.

Rex_Banner: DoBeDoBeDo: Orgasmatron138: D-Liver: They're worried about the lengths of the games. But I'd rather watch a game for 20-30 extra minutes than watch the Yankee$ get over on Minnesota because of some retardedly bad call. I understand balls/strikes, but fair/foul and safe/out should be reviewed. Just put one of those 20 umpires up in a booth and give him a minute to make the call.

So what happens if:

A ball is called "foul" by the base line ump. The batter jogs back to the box, all the runners go back to their bases. Then, upon review, it turns out it was fair. How do you determine where all the runners should go?

You would end up with a standard rule, but how far down the foul line constitutes the difference between a single and a double? Are you going to give every bad call one base? What if the foul ball is in the corner, almost out of the park? Where do you draw the line? Every use of replay in a live ball situation creates as many problems as it solves.

That's a retarded argument, how do you know how far the runners would have advanced if a player were forced to climb into the stands for an over thrown ball? Why are they automatically given the next base, why not 2 or 3?????? Hell why not just give them all home and call every ball out of play a home run?

Fair ball = 1 base...ta-da!

Oh yeah everyone would love that. The ball that falls between the third baseman and the left fielder inside the line is a single and so is the ball that lands in the right field corner an inch from the wall.

It would have to come down to the umpire's discretion in regards to double or single with other runners advancing one base on a single and two on a double. Of course people will complain about that as well because eventually you'd see a guy awarded a double when "there was no way that guys could have stretched that into a double!11!1!!11!"

No. Just call them all a single. You seem to think replay needs to perfectly fix all issues. It doesn't. A single is better than a strike. QED. Fans will still biatch about the original missed call but that's life.

SkittlesAreYum: No. Just call them all a single. You seem to think replay needs to perfectly fix all issues. It doesn't.


If we're going to delay the game to come up with a solution that doesn't make any sense, then what's the point?

A single better than a strike? That really depends who is at bat, who is on base, who is on deck, the count etc.

Situation:

#8 batter up with a 3-0 count and runner on 1st and 1 out.

Shot down the line, called foul. Replay shows it's fair. Ok, by your rule it's a single. Now it's first and third with 1 out and the pitcher up.


So who makes out in that exchange?

Instant replay isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

/Just sayin'.
//Hot like my temper after that blown call.

Wise_Guy: erupt2001: But home field advantage in the world series is decided by who wins the all star game. Makes a whole lotta sense.

You're right, but I have no idea what this has to do with instant replay.

The commissioner makes changes for things that need no change; like making the all star game "matter". But baseball needs instant replay and nothing changes on that front. That's the point I was trying to make.

MugzyBrown: One thing that is great about baseball: Unless the bad call happens in the bottom of the 9th, your team always has a chance to make up for the bad call.

There's no clock, it's always in your hands.

I think I just have to summarize my thoughts by saying I disagree with pretty much everything you have posted on this topic. NFL replay is fine the way it is and could only be improved by having a dedicated official who reviews the plays instead of the on the field ref (the college system).

No sports shouldn't just have human error in officiating because "it's always been there" or "its a part of the game." The worst argument is that we should allow it because it creates controversy. Really? You honestly think that? I won't bother to point out how stupid an argument that is with analogies, I think deep down you know how dumb a statement that is.

justtray: No sports shouldn't just have human error in officiating because "it's always been there" or "its a part of the game." The worst argument is that we should allow it because it creates controversy. Really? You honestly think that? I won't bother to point out how stupid an argument that is with analogies, I think deep down you know how dumb a statement that is.


Way to go tough guy.

Replay has not cleared up controversy in the NFL, if anything, it has increased controversy. Now you have 3-4 minutes of replays to see if a piece of a runners knee hit the turf and if the ball was moving a little bit before or after it happened.

After wasting all of that time and energy, half of the people watching still won't agree with the final outcome.

It's just a game. In the end, it doesn't matter if there was a blown call. If you're so upset at a ref who thinks a toe touched some white chalk when you're convinced it didn't, then you have a problem.

MugzyBrown: SkittlesAreYum: No. Just call them all a single. You seem to think replay needs to perfectly fix all issues. It doesn't.


If we're going to delay the game to come up with a solution that doesn't make any sense, then what's the point?

A single better than a strike? That really depends who is at bat, who is on base, who is on deck, the count etc.

Situation:

#8 batter up with a 3-0 count and runner on 1st and 1 out.

Shot down the line, called foul. Replay shows it's fair. Ok, by your rule it's a single. Now it's first and third with 1 out and the pitcher up.


So who makes out in that exchange?

My baseball knowledge is somewhat limited, but I would have thought the batters would do better. I mean, if the pitcher wanted a single in that situation he could have pitched ball #4.