But, see, in baseball in the first situation this isn’t a case of that is what is would have looked like had the ump made the right call. And that was my point. In most other sports you can set the situation back to where it would have been had the right call been made.
Your football fumble rule is pretty close to the baseball situation, so baseball isnt’ as unique as I first thought. I’m wondering if the same thing in baseball would happen that is now happening in the NFL. Namely, umps (refs) don’t make a call and let the play progress and sort it out later with replay. But I do agree that replay can be used in baseball where the call is the end of the play, just as in football.
In my second scenario, the runner would have tagged up if an out call was made and would have easily attained 3rd and possibly home.
Actually, i think that Parcells’ reasoning is a compelling argument against the 2 minute provision in the NFL.
In a game that already has 3 time-outs per team per half, as well as a completely pointless (except for the advertisers) 2-minute warning break per half, any system that encourages coaches to “pocket at least one timeout” could only be good for the game. It would also have the benefit of rewarding teams that were organized and professional enough to play without needing to use all their timeouts.
I like football, but the idea that the actual rules should change during the last two minutes of each half is, in my opinion, completely retarded. If something is important enough to review in the 29th minute of the half, it should be important enough to review in the 4th minute.
I don’t know why you saw fit to add the “with replay”, since this OP is about baseball not having a replay option, but amongst those that do have video review, then cricket comes to mind.
You keep falling over this “most/all other sports” bit when what you are talking about are the US professional leagues.
In the hypothetical situation of where the officials decided to replay the play, in baseball you can put everything back precisely as it was prior to the pitch in question without disadvantage to either team. Now that’s rather unusual.
Any of the continual action sports, rather than the play-by-play sports, are impossible to reset exactly. The rugby codes, soccer, Aussie Rules, hurling, lacrosse, hockey, polo, waterpolo. Play-by-plays that are impossible to reset or replay include billiards, snooker.
It’s not like it would be impossible to encode “what would have happened” into the rules. Baseball already does this with ground rule doubles and interference plays, for instance.
But think of what this does to the players as this rule comes into effect. Now you’ve got, on every single play involving a third out and a runner in scoring position, the man in SP trying to run home. Any ball that needs to be relayed to the first baseman is going to be automatically thrown home, in order to tag the scoring runner out, just on the off chance the first base ump was wrong.
This leads to a lot more collisions at home plate, and a lot more injuries. All of a sudden, with a lot more players hurt, the AL lineups start looking like the NL ones, and the NL ones become (impossibly!) even more boring.
I think most of the potential problems would be solved if you just have a “do-over.” I.e., if a call is challenged and reversed, the runners go back to their bases and the batsman back to the batter’s box, you revert to the original count and the pitcher pitches as though the tainted play had never occurred at all.
The Flyers/Blackhawks call wouldn’t have been nearly as straight forward had Chicago scored during the ensuing 1:30. As I understand it they would have stricken the Blackhawk goal and given the original goal to the Flyers. Joyce wouldn’t have been the only controversy.
Actually that’s not what I was saying. I was saying the NFL doesn’t allow coach initiated challenges in the final 2 minutes, but that instead the game officials determine what play will be reviewed during that time.
As you make clear, though, what are thought of as limited sphere rule changes can often have effects on other aspects of the game in unplanned ways. I think there is a definite danger of instant replay (which I think has a place in baseball, but I don’t know exactly where) being rushed in and it screwing up the balance of a game I love because it has not been properly considered.
“Do-overs” are usually going to be unfair to somebody. Plays in baseball are the product of specific pitches and specific swings. Nothing happens the same way twice. If a pitcher makes a great pitch, but the play that develops is “tainted” by an umpire error, you’re probably hurting the pitcher’s team by negating the whole thing, or conversely for a batter who has made good contact.
But you can say exactly the same about any sport. What if a player is injured during a “do-over” play in the NFL? There is no “baseball exceptionalism” which makes do-overs impossible for baseball but for no other sport.
I don’t think anybody here is arguing that every minute detail of baseball should be subject to review. The NFL tried that and it was an unmitigated disaster. As just MHO I think replay in baseball, if it’s ever tried, should be limited to a few very specific situations:
“Line” calls (regarding fair/foul balls in the outfield, or if there is a line above which a home run is awarded)
Fan interference calls (aka the Jeffrey Meier rule)
Close plays at first base (mainly because the first-base umpire is almost always unsighted)
Probably true, but so what? Volleyball, for example, seems to do perfectly well with do-overs. They are rare, but I suspect that they would be rare in baseball as well.
Close calls at first and not home? That seems very strange. The latter potentially have much more impact: an out v. a run compared to an out v. a runner on 1st.
No, his argument is compelling. Your argument is irrelevant, and it really boils down to changing the game to more closely resemble the European sports you grew up with, where stoppages in play are a bad thing and fluid, continuous motion is prized. American sports thankfully do not have the arbitrary restriction of continuous motion, allowing for a much greater depth in strategy.
Now you’re contradicting yourself. The coaches are free to determine for themselves if something is important enough to review in the fourth minute. But you seem to be saying that the final 2:00 policy should be in effect for the whole game. This has been tried before, and it was a disaster. Way, way too many stoppages, and too many stoppages is your stated reasoning that coaches pocketing timeouts is a good thing.
This is silly. First, the play at first is still the much higher percentage play even with the chance of an overturned call. This is obvious because right now there’s a(n almost certainly identical) chance for a bad call anyway. Any player throwing home for fear of a replay overturn would get rightfully reamed by everyone (teammates, manager, pundits, reporters, and fans) for being an idiot.
If my interpretation was incorrect, how was your remark about football relevant to the thread in any way? Go slow to ensure I understand.
No, his argument is not compelling, and my argument is completely relevant. You need to learn that, just because you disagree with someone about a sporting rule does not make their position irrelevant. It just means that they disagree with you.
And my argument would, arguably, maintain and even increase the level of strategy in the game, because part of the strategy would involve how and when to use the challenge, and whether or not to keep one in reserve. The fact that you don’t like the idea, again, doesn’t make it irrelevant.
No contradiction at all, unless you’re simply looking to characterize a position you don’t like as contradictory. My argument is not specifically that “the [current] final 2:00 policy should be in effect for the whole game.” My argument is that, whatever system they choose should be consistent throughout the game. My argument is that there is nothing inherently special about the final two minutes of each half that warrants changing the rules. If coaches challenges are used, they should be allowed in the final 2 minutes.
The whole 2-minute thing is an unnecessary attempt to artificially create advertising space in a game that has too much, and to artificially create tension and excitement in a game that already has plenty of those things.
Yes, his argument is compelling, by definition, as evidenced by the fact that it convinced the competition committee to adopt the scheme we currently have.
Your argument that you personally don’t like play stoppages continues to be irrelevant, regardless of how much you stamp your feet.
Also, learn your history before criticizing the sport lest you end up with egg on your face. The 2:00 warning was instituted long before advertising was a consideration. The official clock used to be held by the ref, who would halt the game at the 2:00 mark to ensure that both teams knew how much time was left. It’s similar in concept (though opposite in intent) to extra time in soccer.
His argument was compelling to other people, so it must therefore be compelling to me? What sort of stupid logic is that?
Some people find compelling arguments in the moon landing or 9/11 conspiracies. Are you going to argue that this makes those arguments compelling by definition?
I would have thought you were intelligent enough to recognize that, when someone describes an argument as “uncompelling,” they are talking specifically about their own reaction to it, not about the reaction of hypothetical third parties.
My argument in this thread is not about whether or not i like stoppages. In fact, even if i loved them, my argument about changing the rules in the final two minutes would still stand.
I’m well aware of the origins of the rule. But your explanation only highlights how stupid it is in a modern era where not only the teams, but every one of millions of TV viewers can see exactly how much time is left on the clock. The only reason to keep it is to allow more advertising time, or perhaps simply as a sop to tradition.
I recognize that traditions are important in sports, but to keep something that has had its original rationale completely eliminated, and that was only ever introduced to ensure fairness rather than to change the way the game was played, seems the height of head-in-the-sand conservatism.