If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   MLB, pending owner approval, will institute a replay challenge system beginning in 2014 - 2 challenges in the first 6 innings, 1 challenge from the 7th inning on, all challenges to be reviewed by an umpire at MLB offices   (espn.go.com) divider line 212
    More: Interesting, Major League Baseball, John Schuerholz, umpire, Joe Torre, systems  
•       •       •

645 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Aug 2013 at 2:24 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



212 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-15 05:34:18 PM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: Also 89% of incorrect calls can be fixed by the new system. Pretty farking good if you ask me.

Unless two of those calls happen in the first 6 innings and go against the same team. In which case, 50%.


Random stat I heard during the angels-Yankees I was watching. It was mike Kay so it's probably painfully wrong and he gave it a horrible nickname like "the explosive challenger." As long as the manager is right it sounded like he/or she gets infinite challenges.

Women in baseball would make me lol. It would cause epic butthurt and I can confidently say they'd do a better job than Ozzie.
 
2013-08-15 05:35:51 PM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: DeWayne Mann: thecpt: I'm confused as to why you guys don't like this. The time allotted for a review is shorter than the time managers spend arguing, you retain the right to challenge if you're right, you can't just use it if you don't like it, sending it to New York means angel Hernandez can't refuse to change his call. Wtf is wrong?

Why are we depending on managers to make sure the calls get right?

We're depending on them to challenge plays properly. I suspect baseball fans who are also bear fans before this year won't like this system. I'm okay with it.

At some point, the following question will be asked in a press conference of a manager:

"Why didn't you challenge that call in the first? It ended up being the difference in the game."

And from that point on, the umps are 100% off the hook for bad calls.


Why is that bad? Wouldn't it take their ego out of it?
 
2013-08-15 05:40:45 PM

thecpt: Why is that bad?


I'd like to see the correct call made as much as possible. If managers have to use their challenges "strategically", THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Seriously, this is a pretty big point, so I need to make sure: does the previous paragraph not make sense to you?

thecpt: Wouldn't it take their ego out of it?


You think letting umps get away with anything would take their ego OUT of it? Uhhhh
 
2013-08-15 05:44:55 PM
It definitely makes more sense to go back to the awesome theory of "alternating years" rather than making teams theoretically give a shiat about the All Star Game.  Then we can biatch and moan about how nobody cares about the All Star Game like every other sport.  Sounds much better.
 
2013-08-15 05:45:21 PM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: Also 89% of incorrect calls can be fixed by the new system. Pretty farking good if you ask me.

Unless two of those calls happen in the first 6 innings and go against the same team. In which case, 50%.


FTA
Challenges not used in the first six innings will not carry over, and a manager who wins a challenge will retain it.

So I guess this is better than the NFL system, where you have to win both challenges to get a third? If you keep challenging here and winning, you don't lose the challenge? Also the home run replay rules in effect now stay in place, so I'm guessing the managers can't challenge home runs (much like the NFL with any scoring play)
 
2013-08-15 05:48:23 PM

tenton: So I guess this is better than the NFL system, where you have to win both challenges to get a third? If you keep challenging here and winning, you don't lose the challenge?


Works great if we assume that managers will only challenge when they're 100% going to win.

Except wait....then they won't challenge on plays where they're only 75% likely to win. Uh oh.
 
2013-08-15 05:48:47 PM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: Why is that bad?

I'd like to see the correct call made as much as possible. If managers have to use their challenges "strategically", THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Seriously, this is a pretty big point, so I need to make sure: does the previous paragraph not make sense to you?

thecpt: Wouldn't it take their ego out of it?

You think letting umps get away with anything would take their ego OUT of it? Uhhhh


Legit points. I just like football's model and I think this is a pretty good duplication. I don't think they should have multiple challenges they can use because they would use it all the time. Now they can only use it if they have a legitimate beef. If they are wrong, then sit down and shut up til the seventh when you get more. (They won't but they already biatch anyways)

Do I think this is perfect? Hell naw. But it's a great attempt, it will be successful, and if it can be improved then the owners will get it straight.
 
2013-08-15 05:52:25 PM

thecpt: I don't think they should have multiple challenges they can use because they would use it all the time.


They're still going to use it all the time. Most managers would be dumb to not use all three challenges every game.

thecpt: Now they can only use it if they have a legitimate beef. If they are wrong, then sit down and shut up til the seventh when you get more


And you don't think there's any problem here?

BAD CALLS SHOULD BE FIXED.

thecpt: if it can be improved then the owners will get it straight.


hahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2013-08-15 05:52:27 PM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: Why is that bad?

I'd like to see the correct call made as much as possible. If managers have to use their challenges "strategically", THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Seriously, this is a pretty big point, so I need to make sure: does the previous paragraph not make sense to you?


That's a good point, but realistically, we're not getting full review of every play. At least with this, we might get a few bad calls overturned. That's better than what we have now
 
2013-08-15 05:55:29 PM

Rex_Banner: we're not getting full review of every play.


How would a 5th umpire system not result in reviewing every play?

Unless you mean "some plays will be considered unreviewable" in which case that's not going to be fixed no matter what so who cares?

Rex_Banner: That's better than what we have now


I'll just repeat what I already said:

DeWayne Mann: Frankly, I'd rather have 1 more season of no replay at all followed by a 5th umpire system than 2 years of this, two more years of "ok, you get challenges back if you win", 3 years of "get 1 new replay after every third extra inning" etc etc.


(note that that was before the "keep challenges if you win" thing was confirmed)
 
2013-08-15 06:31:12 PM
Why would a fifth umpire magically fix things?

What system do you want?
 
2013-08-15 06:31:14 PM
This will likely go the way of NFL replay. Over time, more reviews will be automatic, so managers will have to be less strategic about challanging. There will be growing pains, though. And Angel Hernandez will find a way to sabatoge the whole system.
 
2013-08-15 06:37:17 PM

thecpt: Why would a fifth umpire magically fix things?

What system do you want?


Every play would be reviewed if necessary. Every review would be done incredibly quickly. The umps won't feel like some guy is New York is showing them up. The burden would be on the umps to get the call right (not the managers), but they'd also be given the tools TO get the call right.

You'd still have a problem with guys like Angel Hernandez just being massive jerks, but that's a problem in any system (and one that absolutely needs to be fixed in any system, including this challenge idea).
 
2013-08-15 06:53:44 PM
I love this idea. It acknowledges that umps make mistakes, and adds a little bit of strategy to when the manager will complain about a call. He wont come out and argue something "close" anymore, the ump will just ask "Want to use a challenge? No? Sit down"

Most challenges will be legit. Im sure there will be the occasional "issue a challenge on that walk off HR that cleared the fence by 30 feet" by the visiting managers just to tick off the celebrating home fans, but by and large I think I think it will work ok. The NHL uses the system and it works most of the time, and frankly, extremely close plays with multiple-angle replays in super-slow motion can actually be entertaining. Hockey is a much faster sport, but I think it would translate to baseball too.

I mean, imagine the facial contortions someone like Hunter Pence as he dives to try and catch a ball, in super slow mo.
 
2013-08-15 06:57:01 PM

thecpt: Why would a fifth umpire magically fix things?

What system do you want?


Review every play instead of just ones that get "challenged".  Current TV coverage already has the ability to show replays for pretty much every single at-bat without interfering with the next one, so why not have an extra official watch these replays to see if there's any need for more scrutiny.  Because a vast majority of plays in baseball have a clear outcome (or are a walk/strikeout and would therefore not be reviewable due to "balls & strikes"), reviewing every play doesn't significantly affect the current flow of the game and has the potential to reverse the most glaring poor decisions.

Having a manager request a limited number of challenges may or may not affect the current flow of the game (eventually there will be an accepted way managers handle this, but as others have pointed out, this could also be another delay for relievers to warm up, etc, so we just don't know how this will affect game times--in all liklihood, though, it won't have much of an impact on game speeds).  However, using manager challenges doesn't necessarily allow for bad calls to be corrected to the greatest extent practical...which is what replay is supposed to accomplish in the first place.  Frankly, it's not that manager's challenges is a horrible system, but it's needlessly flawed without a corresponding benefit over other options.

/yes, I know DeWayne Mann already said basically the same thing, but I decided to say it again anyway with many, many more words
 
2013-08-15 07:03:39 PM
Baseball will continue to suck until the automate the calling of balls and strikes.  Every time I try and watch, I usually turn it off after the first blown ball/strike call.  I don't normally last two innings.
 
2013-08-15 07:04:54 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: we're not getting full review of every play.

How would a 5th umpire system not result in reviewing every play?

Unless you mean "some plays will be considered unreviewable" in which case that's not going to be fixed no matter what so who cares?

Rex_Banner: That's better than what we have now

I'll just repeat what I already said:

DeWayne Mann: Frankly, I'd rather have 1 more season of no replay at all followed by a 5th umpire system than 2 years of this, two more years of "ok, you get challenges back if you win", 3 years of "get 1 new replay after every third extra inning" etc etc.

(note that that was before the "keep challenges if you win" thing was confirmed)


I mean, yes, the 5th umpire system is better, maybe even ideal. I'm just willing to take baby steps like this. This isn't the best system, not by a ling shot. But it's SOMETHING, and I'll take that
 
2013-08-15 07:08:43 PM

ISO15693: It acknowledges that umps make mistakes


Not really. It acknowledges that bad calls happen, but we already know that.

ISO15693: adds a little bit of strategy to when the manager will complain about a call.


And why is this something we need? Keep in mind, you think that this acknowledges that umps make mistakes.

ISO15693: The NHL uses the system


No they don't.

TheMatchHare: /yes, I know DeWayne Mann already said basically the same thing, but I decided to say it again anyway with many, many more words


And I'm glad you did.
 
2013-08-15 07:09:54 PM

Rex_Banner: I'm just willing to take baby steps like this.


I'm gonna be overly dramatic here, just because I find it funny:

Baby steps towards a cliff aren't good.
 
2013-08-15 07:20:58 PM
As long ad angel gets fired too I'm happy
/wanted replay for YEARS
 
2013-08-15 07:22:54 PM
Also I hope they get hawkeye for balls and strikes.
 
2013-08-15 07:36:04 PM
Want to speed up the game? Eliminate batting gloves.
 
2013-08-15 07:48:41 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Peter von Nostrand: Next putdrop the DH in the Nationalfrom the American League as well


The National League is almost unique in all of baseball to make people sit through watching pitchers hit.  Only Japan's Central League clings with them to that anachronism.  Every other professional league in the world, college leagues, high school leagues, etc., all have abandoned it.

I'm kind of surprised that the NL allows their players to use mitts.
 
2013-08-15 08:08:07 PM

softshoes: Want to speed up the game? Eliminate batting gloves.


It's a good idea, but I wouldn't ban them, I'd just ban adjustable ones.  Make every play wear elastic wristbands on their gloves.
 
2013-08-15 08:28:31 PM

DeWayne Mann: Baby steps towards a cliff aren't good.


First thing that popped into my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzWyOaS8kU
 
2013-08-15 09:10:20 PM

tricycleracer: ariseatex: Because baseball isn't slow enough.

MLB and NFL games average about the same duration.


There was a breakdown of game length by team a few years ago.  And shock of shocks - Yankees and Red Sox games took ten minutes longer than other teams' games.  Because they were on national television most often, which meant more TV dead time.

Not that there are other places where time can be shaved (the time between pitches needs to be cut, but how do you enforce that?), but TV is the biggest problem with games taking too long.  I really wish there were an FCC regulation prohibiting TV networks from coming back from commercial to spend 15 seconds saying "This game is brought to you by all those companies whose damn ads you just sat through".

The All-Powerful Atheismo: And it doesn't have enough tits and splosions.


What in life ever has enough nice-looking tits?
 
2013-08-15 11:36:56 PM
To those basically saying it will ruin the game, it's called progress. Get over it. Times are changing and technology is improving.

Or I suppose they could go back to only day games in the east where players can travel by train. Get rid of those damn helmets too. They're just allowing players to crowd the plate and make it harder on the pitcher.

Might as well ban black players while they're at it. Get back to the way baseball was meant to be played by god!
 
2013-08-15 11:40:40 PM

mybulkaddress: To those basically saying it will ruin the game, it's called progress. Get over it. Times are changing and technology is improving.


You may not have noticed, but most of the complaints in this thread are that they aren't going far enough.
 
2013-08-15 11:44:49 PM

dywed88: mybulkaddress: To those basically saying it will ruin the game, it's called progress. Get over it. Times are changing and technology is improving.

You may not have noticed, but most of the complaints in this thread are that they aren't going far enough.


Look, he had a strawman that needed fighting. He had no time for facts!
 
2013-08-15 11:54:20 PM

desertgeek: If that doesn't work, managers could be allowed 1 or 2 such "arguments" per game and any other time he comes out, he has to make a substitution. If that happens while on offense, the next batter has to be pinch hit for (it doesn't matter who that batter is).


Now THAT is a rational, baseball-style penalty for losing a challenge. However, I would just keep it offense OR defense, the next batter must be pinch-hit for (the start of the next inning if the team is currently on defense). That might make a manager more likely to challenge if his pitcher's spot is up the 7th inning or later, or less likely in the earlier innings when he can't afford to take out his pitcher. That adds strategy and a manager will have to be damn sure he is right. It hurts, but it's not such a penalty that it's going to cost a decent team the game.
 
2013-08-16 12:01:15 AM
Maybe then they could save infield fly calls for balls actually, you know, in the infield or when the call is obviously wrong.
 
2013-08-16 12:17:15 AM

steamingpile: Maybe then they could save infield fly calls for balls actually, you know, in the infield or when the call is obviously wrong.


Thank you fellow Braves fan.

Unfortunately, the infield fly rule, once invoked, would not be subject to replay.
 
2013-08-16 05:39:36 AM
Is there a definitive list of what can/can't be challenged? How about "on-field" fair/foul balls (I know that potential HRs are currently reviewed if necessary)?

My problem with reviewing and changing on field decisions is what do you do with baserunners who may have been able to advance but did not due to a wrong (and subsequently challenged and overturned) call? Example: bases loaded, batter hits a sharp drive down into the corner which bounces close to the LF line. The ump immediately calls it foul. The manager of the batting team challenges the decision and on replay the ball is deemed fair. What happens to the batter/runners? With a speedy guy on 1st, this could have been a 3-run play. Even a 2-base award penalises the batting team by taking away the opportunity to score that 3rd run. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where overturned decisions would present problems with baserunner placement.
 
2013-08-16 06:52:20 AM

Soup_In_A_Basket: Is there a definitive list of what can/can't be challenged? How about "on-field" fair/foul balls (I know that potential HRs are currently reviewed if necessary)?

My problem with reviewing and changing on field decisions is what do you do with baserunners who may have been able to advance but did not due to a wrong (and subsequently challenged and overturned) call? Example: bases loaded, batter hits a sharp drive down into the corner which bounces close to the LF line. The ump immediately calls it foul. The manager of the batting team challenges the decision and on replay the ball is deemed fair. What happens to the batter/runners? With a speedy guy on 1st, this could have been a 3-run play. Even a 2-base award penalises the batting team by taking away the opportunity to score that 3rd run. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where overturned decisions would present problems with baserunner placement.


How do you feel about ground rule doubles and its rules?
 
2013-08-16 06:59:25 AM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: Why would a fifth umpire magically fix things?

What system do you want?

Every play would be reviewed if necessary. Every review would be done incredibly quickly. The umps won't feel like some guy is New York is showing them up. The burden would be on the umps to get the call right (not the managers), but they'd also be given the tools TO get the call right.

You'd still have a problem with guys like Angel Hernandez just being massive jerks, but that's a problem in any system (and one that absolutely needs to be fixed in any system, including this challenge idea).


That's assuming it could be done quickly and accurately though. From the nfl, I know sometimes someone has too look at a gray area play for 3 minutes to get it straight. Baseball is normally a simpler sport so that will be far less common, but pausing play often for something iffy could be detrimental. If they prove they can do it that quickly then I'm on your side (not going to argue "added strategy" bs). I just don't think they will be able to in practice.

Maybe I just have less faith in umps than I should, and more in the owners' ability to amend the rules. Yes, I know what you're going to say to this.
 
2013-08-16 07:49:50 AM

ox45tallboy: steamingpile: Maybe then they could save infield fly calls for balls actually, you know, in the infield or when the call is obviously wrong.

Thank you fellow Braves fan.

Unfortunately, the infield fly rule, once invoked, would not be subject to replay.


Then its a moot point since the biggest blown call involved an umpire that had no clue what the rule means.
 
2013-08-16 08:43:14 AM
Mangers will be able to use it to give their reliever some extra time too.  Wait for it - top of the 9th, 2 on/1 out.  Manager challenges a foul ball - 4 min, then a mound visit - another 3 minutes, then a pitching change - another 3 minutes.  You just wasted 10-12 minutes.
there's better ways of doing this, having a 5th ump at the game is definitely one of them.
 
2013-08-16 08:45:04 AM

thecpt: Soup_In_A_Basket: Is there a definitive list of what can/can't be challenged? How about "on-field" fair/foul balls (I know that potential HRs are currently reviewed if necessary)?

My problem with reviewing and changing on field decisions is what do you do with baserunners who may have been able to advance but did not due to a wrong (and subsequently challenged and overturned) call? Example: bases loaded, batter hits a sharp drive down into the corner which bounces close to the LF line. The ump immediately calls it foul. The manager of the batting team challenges the decision and on replay the ball is deemed fair. What happens to the batter/runners? With a speedy guy on 1st, this could have been a 3-run play. Even a 2-base award penalises the batting team by taking away the opportunity to score that 3rd run. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where overturned decisions would present problems with baserunner placement.

How do you feel about ground rule doubles and its rules?


But we're not talking about a ground rule double here. We're talking about an in-play fair ball which is wrongly called foul then overturned on appeal. Sure, MLB could rule that in this circumstance a runner gets 2nd and all other move up 2, but the hitting team are still penalised through losing the potential opportunity to score a 3rd run on the play. Also, from a defensive standpoint there might be an argument that the positioning of the fielder may have been such that a play at 2nd (or elsewhere) might have been possible.

All I'm trying to illustrate here is that resetting the field after an overturned decisions may not be as straightforward as many who are in favor of replay may think. From what I'm reading, balls/strikes and plays at bases (forces/tags) will not be subject to review. Does anyone know if fair/foul would be considered (if not, it makes my illustration above moot)? How about things like leaving a bag too early when tagging up? Running outside the baseline? Trapping or otherwise dropping a catch?

Until we see a full list of whats reviewable and what the precise outcomes of an overturned review would be, its hard to say whether I like this or not (for the moment, I'll go with not!)
 
2013-08-16 08:51:57 AM
Funny that we complain about the poor quality of umpires but the prevailing opinion in this thread is that we need more of them.
 
2013-08-16 09:24:58 AM

thecpt: That's assuming it could be done quickly and accurately though. From the nfl, I know sometimes someone has too look at a gray area play for 3 minutes to get it straight. Baseball is normally a simpler sport so that will be far less common, but pausing play often for something iffy could be detrimental. If they prove they can do it that quickly then I'm on your side (not going to argue "added strategy" bs). I just don't think they will be able to in practice.


I don't understand the objection. Isn't that going to be a problem in any system?

thecpt: Maybe I just have less faith in umps than I should, and more in the owners' ability to amend the rules. Yes, I know what you're going to say to this.


I think most umps want to get things right. Not all, but most.

I think ALL owners want to make the game as profitable as possible. Since I see no difference in profit between the two systems (and, depending on how it's implemented, I can see how the 5th umpire would cost them money), I don't understand why they would bother.

steamingpile: Then its a moot point since the biggest blown call involved an umpire that had no clue what the rule means.


For the 800th time, you are the one who doesn't know what the infield fly rule means.
 
2013-08-16 09:41:29 AM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: That's assuming it could be done quickly and accurately though. From the nfl, I know sometimes someone has too look at a gray area play for 3 minutes to get it straight. Baseball is normally a simpler sport so that will be far less common, but pausing play often for something iffy could be detrimental. If they prove they can do it that quickly then I'm on your side (not going to argue "added strategy" bs). I just don't think they will be able to in practice.

I don't understand the objection. Isn't that going to be a problem in any system?

thecpt: Maybe I just have less faith in umps than I should, and more in the owners' ability to amend the rules. Yes, I know what you're going to say to this.

I think most umps want to get things right. Not all, but most.

I think ALL owners want to make the game as profitable as possible. Since I see no difference in profit between the two systems (and, depending on how it's implemented, I can see how the 5th umpire would cost them money), I don't understand why they would bother.

steamingpile: Then its a moot point since the biggest blown call involved an umpire that had no clue what the rule means.

For the 800th time, you are the one who doesn't know what the infield fly rule means.


The objection is I assumed you meant a review system that is constantly working outside of the game. (Might not have been what you meant, I'm on oxycodone right now so I might have interpreted what a purple dragon said instead of what you wrote in your post). That system would have to study out each play, even ones where managers aren't going to argue. Wouldn't they have to stop the game, every pitch, until their review is done?


Now back to making sense perhaps. I think owners understand that if they improve the quality and result of the game then they would retain and increase the fan base. I wish they would lower ticket prices cause I think they're on the opposite side of the laffer, but hey I've been wanting review since the nfl did it.
 
2013-08-16 09:45:15 AM

DeWayne Mann: thecpt: I don't think they should have multiple challenges they can use because they would use it all the time.

They're still going to use it all the time. Most managers would be dumb to not use all three challenges every game.


And yet in tennis, you could say it would be dumb for players not to use all three challenges every set, yet they don't.  Very rarely you have a player waste a challenge to catch his breath after a long rally, but that's usually late in the set and when they haven't used one yet, so they don't have to worry about needing a challenge but not having any left.

Based on that, I could believe baseball would not abuse the system either.
 
2013-08-16 09:47:08 AM

thecpt: The objection is I assumed you meant a review system that is constantly working outside of the game. (Might not have been what you meant, I'm on oxycodone right now so I might have interpreted what a purple dragon said instead of what you wrote in your post). That system would have to study out each play, even ones where managers aren't going to argue. Wouldn't they have to stop the game, every pitch, until their review is done?


I'm talking about something akin to this:

desertgeek: The easiest way to do this was to just have a 5th umpire in the press box with a TV monitor who could review plays before the next batter and if he needed more time to review a play, he could request that play be held up while he does that


Next time you watch a game on TV, pay attention to how often they cut away from actual game action to look at a possible bad call. It's not much; usually they just cut away from managers arguing or batters going through their pre at bat ritual.

That's roughly how often this system would slow down play.

thecpt: I think owners understand that if they improve the quality and result of the game then they would retain and increase the fan base.


Do you think the casual fan cares about the distinction? Shoot, they might even like the challenges more because it's exciting and strategeric.
 
2013-08-16 09:52:28 AM

idesofmarch: And yet in tennis, you could say it would be dumb for players not to use all three challenges every set, yet they don't.


I know nothing at all about tennis, but ok.

idesofmarch: Based on that, I could believe baseball would not abuse the system either.


All I'm going to say is that there would be sound tactical reasons to not let any challenge go to waste, without any real downside. Managers do sub-optimal things all the time, so it's possible they would here too. But a smart manager would not.

Now, maybe there will be a penalty of some sort for a frivolous challenge, which would change the equation. But that would open up a whole other set of issues.
 
2013-08-16 10:00:30 AM

DeWayne Mann: idesofmarch: And yet in tennis, you could say it would be dumb for players not to use all three challenges every set, yet they don't.

I know nothing at all about tennis, but ok.

idesofmarch: Based on that, I could believe baseball would not abuse the system either.

All I'm going to say is that there would be sound tactical reasons to not let any challenge go to waste, without any real downside. Managers do sub-optimal things all the time, so it's possible they would here too. But a smart manager would not.

Now, maybe there will be a penalty of some sort for a frivolous challenge, which would change the equation. But that would open up a whole other set of issues.


The US Open starts Mon., 8/26, on ESPN2 - you should consider watching some to see what I'm talking about.  The players really use them sparingly, because they don't want to be out of challenges for when they really need one - and I think that's the reason managers in baseball won't fritter them away for the sake of being "strategic."

Just imagine this scenario: a manager for a team down 4-1 in the bottom of the 8th calls a challenge on a fair/foul down the line that would mean a run scoring from second.  It wasn't very close, but he figures, eh, maybe we get that run in.  The call stands, and now he's out of challenges.  In the bottom of the 9th, the team rallies, and the tieing run is at third with one out.  The batter hits a fly to the outfield where it is caught - the runner goes from third and is called out at the plate - the game is over.  TV replays show the runner got his foot in before the tag.  If only the manager had a challenge left to use.

Imagine the flak he would get - so I think that's why managers won't (or shouldn't) squander them.
 
2013-08-16 10:05:28 AM
Just an addendum  to my post above. I was under the impression (for some reason....don't know why) that base calls wouldn't be reviewable, but lots of people are citing some notable bad calls at first as examples of things that would be "put right" by replay.

Does this mean that calls at ALL bases will be reviewable? Or just those at 1st?

MLB seem to be screwing this up already by not providing enough clear and concise info....or is it that they simply haven't figured it out themselves?
 
2013-08-16 10:09:10 AM
So the new rumor is that the umpires want to be able to challenge plays on their own if a manager is out of challenges. In which case....why are there challenges?

idesofmarch: and I think that's the reason managers in baseball won't fritter them away for the sake of being "strategic."


So, let's take a simple situation. It's the bottom of the 6th, 2 outs. The pitcher has suddenly lost his control and has walked 2 straight. Both teams are losing their challenge as soon as the next out is made. Why wouldn't the following happen (assuming everything I suggest is challengable is challengable):

Away team has the pitcher throw to first. Runner is called safe; away manager challenges. Meanwhile, a pitcher is warming in the pen. Challenge concludes, new pitcher is brought in. New pitcher gets set, home manager challenges that he balked. Now he gets to go several minutes without throwing a pitch.

Where's the downside for either challenge?

idesofmarch: Imagine the flak he would get


Oh hey, it's like what I said before:

DeWayne Mann: The idea of replay is SUPPOSED to be "Umpiring is hard. Let's do whatever we can to help them out and get the calls right."

This is "If an ump blows a call, which they probably will because we're not helping them at all, blame the manager for not getting it overturned."


That's one of my biggest issues with it: that the manager would get flak for running out of challenges.
 
2013-08-16 10:10:51 AM

Soup_In_A_Basket: Just an addendum  to my post above. I was under the impression (for some reason....don't know why) that base calls wouldn't be reviewable, but lots of people are citing some notable bad calls at first as examples of things that would be "put right" by replay.

Does this mean that calls at ALL bases will be reviewable? Or just those at 1st?

MLB seem to be screwing this up already by not providing enough clear and concise info....or is it that they simply haven't figured it out themselves?


They've yet to do the final approval. May be that's the problem. Also, I said this earlier but lovie smith is a fine example of reviewing done wrong.
 
2013-08-16 10:10:56 AM

Soup_In_A_Basket: Just an addendum  to my post above. I was under the impression (for some reason....don't know why) that base calls wouldn't be reviewable, but lots of people are citing some notable bad calls at first as examples of things that would be "put right" by replay.

Does this mean that calls at ALL bases will be reviewable? Or just those at 1st?

MLB seem to be screwing this up already by not providing enough clear and concise info....or is it that they simply haven't figured it out themselves?


MLB is being incredibly vague, as usual, but it sounds like the only things you can't challenge involve the batter at the plate: ball/strike, hit by pitch, did he swing, etc. Additionally, you can't challenge HRs, but that's because the umpires will handle those.
 
2013-08-16 10:24:58 AM

DeWayne Mann: So the new rumor is that the umpires want to be able to challenge plays on their own if a manager is out of challenges. In which case....why are there challenges?


Oh, well that's an easy one - because of guys like Angel Hernandez.

If the goal of replay is to get the calls right, then the challenge system isn't perfect - it does put an onus on the manager, and if he runs out of challenges, then for the time being it's as if replay doesn't exist anymore.  So I guess when an ump makes a blatantly bad call and the other umps saw it differently, they want to put in their two cents and get it fixed.

DeWayne Mann: Where's the downside for either challenge?


Yeah, I'm not super in love with the whole 1 challenge before the 6th, one after - or whatever it is - since it does encourage the use-it-or-lose-it mentality.  I think it should be a certain number for every 9 innings played.  Maybe 2, with the manager keeping a challenge if he is correct.  Add a challenge at the beginning of the 10th, 13th, 16th etc.   (Very similar to tennis.)
This way, if the manager ran out of challenges because he wasted them, it was his fault and he deserves the flak he gets.
 
Displayed 50 of 212 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report