Jonathan Adler says it better than I could:
He’s right. Why can’t MLB join the current century and use replay for something more than determining whether a ball is a home run? The result of the game, as Adler points out later, should be determined by the skill of the players, not the skill of the refs.
I’m not sure how they can work out a cut off, though. Do we use instant replay for all plays at first? All plays at any base?
I’ve heard the suggestion that managers get one challenge a game - but if that is the case, situations like the current one aren’t going to be eliminated. No one would care if this had been the 2nd out of the 3rd inning… Football limits the challenges, but had to go with all plays in the final 2 minutes (?) being subject to booth called review.
I feel really bad for the kid last night, and I agree something has to be done with instant replay. The comparison to the hockey was in my mind too as I talked to a colleague about it. But I just don’t see a sensible way of saying this should be reviewed and that shouldn’t. It’s much easier for hockey, because there simply aren’t as many situations it can be reasonably used.
This thread will probably be better off in The Game Room, where there are other threads going on about the Galaraga incident.
But in essence, you’re right. Even cricket, a sport which for an embarrassingly long time struggled to exit the 19th century–and which some would say at least in England still resides there–uses instant replay in international matches. And I think that, while in the early days of instant replay it was used as somewhat of a blunt object, most sports are getting the balance between “check everything remotely suspicious” and “only check replay with a signed note from the commissioner” right.
It’s bad for Galaraga, but one hopes this is a final straw of sorts.
I don’t know about replays being used to modify an ump’s ruling. In theory it makes perfect sense but having the ability to refer to a replay of a close play might cut into my umpire effigy delivery service. I offer regular and pre-soaked with lighter fluid for your convenience. Torches, pitchfork and ominous music soundtracks available at an extra charge. Getting homicidally angry at an ump’s blown call is an intrinsic part of the game and not something I’d like to see altered.
Moved Cafe Society --> The Game Room.
The biggest problem is that it would be much more complicated to use replay in baseball than in other sports if there are runners on base. For any third out call that is overturned, you’d then have to determine where all the runners end up, essentially guessing what would have happened if the play had continued.
It could be done, I suppose, but it would either take a lengthy set of guidelines covering every conceivable situation, or rely on the umps’ judgement, which is of course imperfect, which kind of brings us back to where we started.
I would definitely like to see some some expanded form of replay implemented – IMO the quality of umpiring in the last decade or so merits it – but I’m just saying it wouldn’t be as simple as it sounds.
Okay, as far as it goes. But the result of the game lies strictly in the determination of which team won and which team lost. Sure I’d be as thrilled as anybody else if this contest had been the first time three perfect games had been pitched in a single season, but a.) it can’t be argued that that statistic is anything other than ancillary to the outcome of the game, and b.) it’s a moot point, because “perfect games” really only refer to the game of baseball, a sport in which pitchers take their own turn batting (it wouldn’t have been even the second). 
Isn’t it a bit simplistic to compare baseball and hockey?
Hockey really only has a few situations which require replay, and all of them involve the puck going into the net. Baseball has a much more diverse set of situations to be replayed, meaning that you can’t just rely on a couple of cameras. I’m not disagreeing that baseball should institute more widespread replay, but the comparison to hockey does not seem appropriate at all.
The better comparison, I think, is football, which has an even more diverse set of situations which could be replayed. The NFL replay system largely works because there is a strict series of guidelines as to how replay is to be used, and as to what set of situations reply can be used for. I think if football can do it, baseball can as well.
Why do we need challenges? Just put an umpire in a review booth. If see a wrong call they radio it in to the crew chief. Shouldn’t be a long process.
Then we can move on to arguing about automated balls and strikes.
Unless the game is between two American League teams in an American League park like the game in question, which was played in Detroit’s Comerica Park. No pitcher batted. Designated hitters were used.
Whooooosshhhh. A swing and a miss!
Good one Kaylasdad!
I’m opposed to expanding instant replay in baseball (though I do like the use of replay for disputed HR calls).
Time. The game moves slow enough as it is, and we shouldn’t be adding delays. And keep in mind that it wouldn’t just be the time spent on the actual review itself. The real problem (assuming a challenge system à la the NFL) is that there’s no play clock in baseball, so every questionable call will be followed by the potentially wronged team having its players stall while the manager waits to get word on whether or not he should challenge. Even games which feature no uses of replay will be padded by several additional minutes of standing around and doing nothing. (Of course, if it weren’t to be a challenge type system, the delays would probably be even worse. Teams would still stall to give the umpires or replay officials a chance to look a second a time, and I absolutely don’t trust the officials to use replay sparingly.)
Equity. This has generally not been one of my more popular opinions, but it doesn’t bother me much when an extremely close call goes the wrong way.* If a batter beats the throw to first base by two one-hundredths of second, I’m *fine *with him having only earned the right to be called safe 80% of the time; if he wanted the right to be called safe 99.9% of the time, he should have been a half-step faster. By their play, athletes earn *equity *in (for example) safe/out calls, and if you look at it like that, then mostly what replay adds is wasted time.
Baseball is pretty unique in that what happens in one instant can cause a completely different set of events to follow. In both hockey and football, one outcome of a debated call is almost always the completion of the play. If the puck was in the goal the play was over. If a player was down by contact the play was over. Same for out of bounds. The only exception I can think of right now is a fumble. But in football players don’t usually stop just because they think it wasn’t a fumble. They fall on the ball and hope it was ruled a fumble.
In other words, for both hockey and football the play after a blown call is either wasted effort or simply a continuation of the proper call. But with baseball what you do after a call is made is very, very much dependent on which way the call was made.
For those in favor of review, I’d really like to hear your plan for how to implement it. As an example from another thread, how do you handle these situations:
Runner on 3rd, 2 out. Ground ball to the left side of the infield. Very close play at first base in which the umpire has called the batter-runner out. Runner on 3rd, who was taking off for home on the throw to first, abandons his attempt to score when the out call is made at first. In other words, he walks over to the dugout. Replay shows the wrong call was made at first.
Runner on 2nd, 1 out. Line drive to right-center field that the umpire rules is trapped (not caught). Runner takes off from 2nd once the ump calls it a trap and tries to score. A good throw would have been very, very close, but the throw is wild (or hits a bird) and the runner is easily safe. Replay shows the fielder caught the ball.
These are just two examples (again, presented by someone else in another thread) but they are by no means a stretch.
I think you’re saying this to mean that 9th inning (or later) plays shouldn’t be subjected to replay because the NFL system doesn’t allow late-game reviews. That’s not a fair representation of the NFL system, though. The only reason the NFL doesn’t allow challenges in the last 2:00 or overtime is because teams lose a timeout on a failed challenge. (And they’re not allowed to challenge if they have no timeouts left.)
They needed to make a challenge cost a timeout in the NFL because there is a clock, and coaches could effectively game a system of two challenges into 5 timeouts otherwise.
The system originally proposed did not include the 2:00 / overtime provision, and Bill Parcells made the compelling argument that he would always pocket at least one timeout just in case he needed to make a challenge, meaning he’d only really be getting 2 timeouts instead of 3. That would alter the game enough that they felt the 2:00 / overtime provision made sense as a compromise.
Obviously none of this would be an issue for an MLB replay system, meaning the fact that this happened in the 9th inning doesn’t automatically mean it wouldn’t be challengeable just because the NFL doesn’t allow challenges in the final 2:00.
While it is clear that what you do after a call is made in baseball is dependant on which way the call was made, this does not contradict the statement (which you didn’t make) that baseball plays “after a blown call is either wasted effort of simply a continuation of the proper call.” Can you refute this assertion, or show in some other way that baseball is unique among the sports?
For conditional play, consider a sack/forward fumble/incomplete pass?/tuck rule?! situation in football. These happen all the time.
My NFL mindset goes straight to the disputed fumble replay rule: possession can be awarded on replay, but you can’t advance the ball. Let’s say you sack the QB, the ball comes flying out forward, a DL scoops it up and returns it for a TD while the ref is whistling the play dead as an incomplete pass. On replay it shows a fumble, not a forward pass. The review will award the ball to the defense where they gained possession, but they don’t get to keep the touchdown.
Utter, unmitigated frogshit.
You need to do some work with your remote and watch greater variety of sports.
I feel the same way about soccer. There are times when it’s warranted to use an instant replay to make sure a call was made correctly, or fix it if it wasn’t. I also like Football’s system on this where a team gets a certain number of call challenges. If they’re proven correct no penalty is given, if they’re incorrect than they’re penalized a time-out. Obviously that last wouldn’t work in soccer or baseball, but yea, something could be done.
Care to elaborate instead of just insult? What other sport, with replay, has the same dependence of actions?