RealGM

Bud relents:

Calling it a historic moment, Commissioner Bud Selig said Thursday that Major League Baseball plans to expand its video review process next season, giving managers a tool they've never had in an effort to dramatically reduce the number of incorrect calls made in games.

Selig made the announcement after two days of meetings with representatives of the 30 teams. The proposal is to be voted on by the owners in November.

Managers will be allowed one challenge over the first six innings of a game and two from the seventh inning until the completion of the game. Calls that are challenged will be reviewed by a crew in MLB headquarters in New York City, which will make a final ruling.

A manager who sees a call he feels is incorrect can file a challenge with the crew chief or home plate umpire. Only reviewable plays can be challenged. Non-reviewable plays can still be argued by managers, who can request that the umpires discuss it to see if another member of the crew saw the play differently. Reviewable plays cannot be argued by the manager.

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

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/95706 ... challenges

Mixed feeling for me. I know I will be the only one,,, but baseball (to me) is all about the human element, and I can tolerate a few mistakes. Baseball is a story, a drama,,,, not a computer game. But I digress... The eyes in the sky will help improve accuracy, and the challenges will be neat, I guess... provided the manager has to throw a water cooler on the field to trigger the review.

What stories are defined by incorrect calls? I'd prefer the ones about the pitcher getting his perfect game instead of the one about the umpire who had to say he was sorry. The human element and these stories exist, not because of mistakes being made and the rules not being enforced properly, but because hitting a major league curve-ball is impossible for over 99% of the population. People remember the great plays with reverence. The shot heard round the world. Joe Carters homerun. Nolan Ryan's strikes outs and no hitters. THAT is the human element and drama and stories that matter. The only time anyone remembers the human element getting calls wrong is because it is so infuriatingly unnecessary. There is absolutely no excuse to not get the calls right.

This is all window dressing until we finally get hawkeye instead of umpires calling balls and strikes.

I'm fine being alone in my opinion. God bless ya.

SharoneWright wrote:I'm fine being alone in my opinion. God bless ya.

That's great, but I still want to know why you have that opinion and what you could possibly mean when you say umpiring mistakes are the stories that matter to you. If you don't want to explain how that makes any sense, ok.

Fairview4Life wrote:

SharoneWright wrote:I'm fine being alone in my opinion. God bless ya.

That's great, but I still want to know why you have that opinion and what you could possibly mean when you say umpiring mistakes are the stories that matter to you. If you don't want to explain how that makes any sense, ok.

You are intentionally putting words in my mouth to act smart. I like watching the shot heard round the world just as much as you. In fact, I like the whole experience of baseball. Life has mistakes. Baseball has mistakes. Baseball mirrors life. It's not automated and sterilized. It part of why I connect to baseball in a way I don't connect to my ATM machine, or fake boobs, or a nutritional meal replacement. I also rooted for Paul Bunyan. But the romantic must die in the face of a chainsaw, I guess. Progress.

it's a high-stakes sport on the biggest stage, why they waited this long to implement a system that will (somewhat) prevent an ump who 95% of the audience could not differentiate from the neighbour across the street changing the outcome of a game -- or in extreme cases, players/teams legacies -- is beyond me. getting the call right and adhering to the rule book (runner tagged before touching bag = out, ball trapped instead of caught, etc) is the most important thing here and i'm glad we're taking incremental steps on eventually withdrawing the human element from the game.

if you still want umpires standing on the field, that's fine - they can stay, but they should have some handheld device that will help ascertain whether the player is out or not -- i'm sure that kind of technology is ready to go. and the sooner we strip the history-altering power from the home plate umps the better off the sport will be too.

SharoneWright wrote:

Fairview4Life wrote:

SharoneWright wrote:I'm fine being alone in my opinion. God bless ya.

That's great, but I still want to know why you have that opinion and what you could possibly mean when you say umpiring mistakes are the stories that matter to you. If you don't want to explain how that makes any sense, ok.

You are intentionally putting words in my mouth to act smart. I like watching the shot heard round the world just as much as you. In fact, I like the whole experience of baseball. Life has mistakes. Baseball has mistakes. Baseball mirrors life. It's not automated and sterilized. It part of why I connect to baseball in a way I don't connect to my ATM machine, or fake boobs, or a nutritional meal replacement. I also rooted for Paul Bunyan. But the romantic must die in the face of a chainsaw, I guess. Progress.

All replay and hawkeye, for example, will do is minimize rule and umpire errors. It doesn't change the fact that the players will still make mistakes along with their amazing plays. THAT is where the drama comes from. That is what will mirror life. It doesn't turn baseball into a computer game. If Jose Reyes has a .333 average, it doesn't mean he gets an automatic hit every 3 at bats. By playing within consistent parameters, that doesn't diminish the drama. It puts the drama and human experience back where it belongs, on the field. Munenori Kawasaki will throw it above Reyes' head and the Jays won't be able to turn a double play, allowing a run to score. There's your humanizing mistake. Wanting umpires to make mistakes is unfathomable to me. I haven't read any kind of convincing argument for it from anyone ever. I would be very interested if you could come up with some reason why we should value umpire errors.

SharoneWright wrote:I'm fine being alone in my opinion. God bless ya.

I'm sort of with you. I certainly wouldn't give them the challenge in the first 6 innings. If a bang/bang play goes against you because of the ump, that can be mildly frustrating, but it's almost never game-breaking. IMO similar to how the NFL can have a booth review in the last two minutes, I'd reverse it and say only the umps or league can institute a challenge in the first two thirds of the game, but for the opposite reason that the ump mistakes made at that point aren't important enough to warrant the delay.

I do not want to be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for the review of a trapped ball catch in the OF every other game (the say 1:15, but I'll believe it when I see it).

However, I am okay with some more review later in the game. That perfect game the ump stole is a good example. I don't really like the coach challenge part though. Just get the calls right. If they're questionable, then review them yourselves. I find the coach's challenge in the NFL to be a horrifying gimmick and the burden of proof to overturn makes it incredibly frustrating to watch. I'd also be very worried about the in-game experience if they continue to fail to play controversial replays in the stadium. If I'm sitting there listening to the latest shlock rock watching an ad and some smiley kids dancing in the stands while a game-turning call is being reviewed and I'm not allowed to see it a second time on the jumbotron, I'm probably gonna puke.

Richard Griffin:

Hey maybe if umpire Jim Joyce had actually been hit in the head by a Jim Leyland delivered beanbag a couple of years ago, then Tigers starter Armando Galarraga would have had his disputed perfect game. But then again, the feel-good story of friendship and redemption, the humanity of Galarraga’s forgiveness and Joyce’s angst would not have touched us all. The next step is laser beam strike zones and the game will be changed for the worse. God bless the frailties of human judgment and the interesting interactions between players, managers and umpires. It’s part of baseball’s unique mosaic. Game-changing decisions will soon be made by nameless, faceless arbitrators in a boardroom in New York like the NHL does with Toronto to confirm goals. Just let them play ball.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/bluejays/ ... iffin.html
Simpatico.

Too many games are decided every season by terrible calls made by umps. If the technology is there then why not use it? Let the players decide the game instead of stubborn, pride filled umps. It's not as if umpires will be replaced completely.

I don't view umpire errors in some kind of romanticized way. I'm sure Galarraga's perfect game would have been much better to talk about than outrage the "feel-good story" afterwards. Baseball has too many of these unwritten rules and pointless traditions that are holding it back.

Instant replay just ruins the flow of things IMO - just look at how unbearable the last few minutes of any close basketball game are - it's a pain to watch and completely ruins the excitement when they pause every 30 seconds for 2 minutes to review a play.

I definitely don't support this - things were fine as they were. Even if they had to add these challenges, 3 per game (minimum) is way too many.

gei wrote:Instant replay just ruins the flow of things IMO - just look at how unbearable the last few minutes of any close basketball game are - it's a pain to watch and completely ruins the excitement when they pause every 30 seconds for 2 minutes to review a play.

on the subject of replay review in basketball, for one, they don't pause "every 30 seconds for 2 minutes" in a close game. that's hyperbole whoring at it's finest. and secondly, you would prefer the game to "flow" better and continue to have the wrong calls made instead? i'm actually scratching my head at the thought of this.

It's not like Baseball is fast paced and has a flow to start with. Waiting for a call to be reviewed is a lot better than watching a manager huff and puff for a couple of minutes, get thrown out, then throw some things on the field.

I still can't see why some people are ok with some of the incredibly boneheaded calls that seem to happen every few games.

anyone who watched canada vs czech republic llws game earlier today knows how effective the challenge/review system is. canada's manager challenged consecutive plays at home where the runner was initially ruled out (ball arrives before runner), a 30 second review concluded that the runner was safe both times. canada won the game 4-3 but would have been eliminated had the replay system not been in place. how can one prefer this or any game to be decided by blown calls like that?

s e n s i wrote:anyone who watched canada vs czech republic llws game earlier today knows how effective the challenge/review system is. canada's manager challenged consecutive plays at home where the runner was initially ruled out (ball arrives before runner), a 30 second review concluded that the runner was safe both times. canada won the game 4-3 but would have been eliminated had the replay system not been in place. how can one prefer this or any game to be decided by blown calls like that?

Was just coming here to post this. It's mind boggling that there are people out there who don't support using replay. The killing the flow/wasting time argument is ridiculous, a challenge/replay will be time saving in a lot of cases when you take into account how long managers argue certain plays.

The basketball comparison is even worse, the vast majority of play stoppages in the last 2 minutes of a game are due to timeouts, not replays.

Fairview4Life wrote:What stories are defined by incorrect calls? I'd prefer the ones about the pitcher getting his perfect game instead of the one about the umpire who had to say he was sorry. The human element and these stories exist, not because of mistakes being made and the rules not being enforced properly, but because hitting a major league curve-ball is impossible for over 99% of the population. People remember the great plays with reverence. The shot heard round the world. Joe Carters homerun. Nolan Ryan's strikes outs and no hitters. THAT is the human element and drama and stories that matter. The only time anyone remembers the human element getting calls wrong is because it is so infuriatingly unnecessary. There is absolutely no excuse to not get the calls right.

This is all window dressing until we finally get hawkeye instead of umpires calling balls and strikes.

If you throw in a computer calling balls and strikes, there won't be any more Nolan Ryans, because pitchers with good "reps" won't get the benefit of called strikes for pitches thrown outside the zone.

I'm not against it. But I understand the game will change so much if they ever do that for balls and strikes. We'll reach a point where the strike zone will have to be re-defined, to make it bigger, imo.

SharoneWright wrote:... provided the manager has to throw a water cooler on the field to trigger the review.

Actually, I think under the proposed system a review can only be triggered when an umpire's pants and shoes accumulate three cubic inches of dirt [edit - or six cubic inches for home plate].

Video review in most sports is pretty boring, but most of a baseball game can be boring anyway, so it's not like the additional wait will represent a dramatic shift in the flow of the game.

The only "fun" review in sports is the challenge in tennis using the Hawkeye system. I've watched Rogers Cup games live, and it really becomes part of the enjoyment of the game. The whole crowd oohs and ahhs as the virtual ball approaches the virtual line.

That's not going to happen this time out, but my point is that the obvious way for baseball to duplicate that vibe is computer-judged balls and strikes. It will be so much more meaningful for casual fans to see the movement of the ball on the Jumbotron.

tecumseh18 wrote:

SharoneWright wrote:... provided the manager has to throw a water cooler on the field to trigger the review.

Actually, I think under the proposed system a review can only be triggered when an umpire's pants and shoes accumulate three cubic inches of dirt [edit - or six cubic inches for home plate].

Video review in most sports is pretty boring, but most of a baseball game can be boring anyway, so it's not like the additional wait will represent a dramatic shift in the flow of the game.

The only "fun" review in sports is the challenge in tennis using the Hawkeye system. I've watched Rogers Cup games live, and it really becomes part of the enjoyment of the game. The whole crowd oohs and ahhs as the virtual ball approaches the virtual line.

That's not going to happen this time out, but my point is that the obvious way for baseball to duplicate that vibe is computer-judged balls and strikes. It will be so much more meaningful for casual fans to see the movement of the ball on the Jumbotron.

I've said this time and again, but you can introduce this technology while not removing umpires. If you want to give the coaches challenges, give them three a game and they can be used for balls and strikes using the Hawkeye system. All other reviews are made by a central staff in New York. If challenging manager is correct, you keep the challenge.

Santoki wrote:

tecumseh18 wrote:

SharoneWright wrote:... provided the manager has to throw a water cooler on the field to trigger the review. :curse:

Actually, I think under the proposed system a review can only be triggered when an umpire's pants and shoes accumulate three cubic inches of dirt [edit - or six cubic inches for home plate].

Video review in most sports is pretty boring, but most of a baseball game can be boring anyway, so it's not like the additional wait will represent a dramatic shift in the flow of the game.

The only "fun" review in sports is the challenge in tennis using the Hawkeye system. I've watched Rogers Cup games live, and it really becomes part of the enjoyment of the game. The whole crowd oohs and ahhs as the virtual ball approaches the virtual line.

That's not going to happen this time out, but my point is that the obvious way for baseball to duplicate that vibe is computer-judged balls and strikes. It will be so much more meaningful for casual fans to see the movement of the ball on the Jumbotron.

I've said this time and again, but you can introduce this technology while not removing umpires. If you want to give the coaches challenges, give them three a game and they can be used for balls and strikes using the Hawkeye system. All other reviews are made by a central staff in New York. If challenging manager is correct, you keep the challenge.

Why wouldn't every single home team just use Hawkeye or something similar to automate challenges. Meaning we should probably just let the computer call balls and strikes in the first place. Every 3 second delay after a pitch would be all the time a manager would need to throw a challenge flag after being alerted by Hawkeye that the call was incorrect. And the opposing team would have someone in the stands or watching on TV doing the same thing. Just let the calls be right the first time and no balls and strikes challenges. Each team sends independent hawkeye monitors, like a mic check, before each game to check the calibration or whatever. "Yes, we both agree this system is fine, let's play" 5 minutes before batting practice.

Keep the umps and challenges for homeruns and tags and plays at the bases and to see if the first baseman's foot was off the bag and all of that stuff. Foul balls and balls and strikes are for robots.

The arguing while your guy figures out if it is worth it aspect is gonna be time consuming.