There is a lot of talk about expanding video review in MLB. Do you see this as a good thing?
To me baseball is sacred, and I enjoy the good calls and bad calls by umpires. I love the human element. Do you think expanded reviews will change how you will enjoy baseball?
I want it. There are too many calls that get blown and the argument that “It’ll slow down the game EVEN MORE!” is hogwash. They should do it like the NHL does with a centralized command center that oversees all the games and calls, and can quickly notify umps of a mistake via cellphone, pager or whatever.
The only human element I actually enjoy in baseball is the interpretation of the strike zone by the umpire. While I am sure they can come up with sensors and whatnot to accurately measure each player in the batter’s box and definitively ascertain what is exactly a strike or not, I don’t want that. That would be too clinical. I think players should have to adapt in game to the way an umpire calls the zone.
I am however perfectly fine and in favor of reviews of close calls on baserunning, homers, etc. I don’t ever want to see someone robbed of a perfect game again, or have a homerun taken away due to a judgement call that is wrong.
I don’t want it. I agree that bad calls are part of the game and it all evens out over the season. I would like to see umps held more accountable after games like the recent two game suspension after the Houston game.
Cricket had it for 20 years. It has made the game better and more enjoyable. And it has actually increased the standard of umpiring as the umpires are aware of the more common errors.
Angel Hernandez proved a couple weeks ago that the video review does not eliminate the human element. He was able to fuck a review up just fine!
Ever since that kid lost his perfect game on a bad call (also an Indians game, like the call above), I’ve been all for it. I think coaches and umpires alike will deign to use it and it won’t get over-used.
Baseball doesn’t have to shun technology. It should grow with technology.
Hate the idea. I do think it will drag out games even longer. If the game is delayed because of a manager arguing with an umpire, I’d rather see that than the Verizon call to the replay booth.
I’m all for it, provided there’s a separate “booth” umpire or similar. I’m happy to leave balls and strikes as they stand, but for base running, fielding, home runs, fair/foul, etc., I’m all for it.
I watch baseball for the human element, too. I’m referring, of course, to the human element of the players themselves. I could care less about the “human element” of the umpires.
Vlad Guerrero knocking a single off a ball that ate dirt before hitting his bat? Amazing.
Angel Hernandez blowing a game-determining home run call not once, but twice? Not so much.
Bring on the robot umpires. It’s about time the technology to make calls on the field was, at the very least, equal to the technology available to every random person with MLB.tv.
Agreed. Umpires exist to ensure the players follow the rules. They view the action and objectively identify what the rules say should happen as a result of the players actions.
The ball went “here” the rules say that is a strike. The ball was hit “there” the rules say that is a foul ball. The player caught the ball “then”, while stepping “there”, the rules say the runner is safe.
Their mistakes do not make the game more enjoyable. That isn’t to say that video review necessarily makes the game more enjoyable, but fewer mistakes, more certainty in calls is absolutely better.
I hate hate hate blown calls, in any sport for any reason at any time. The “human element” I want to see is in the athletes, not the officials. Give me replays, sensors, lasers, phasers–anything that will make calls more accurate.
What the hell is the human element anyway? How is baseball more enjoyable because umpires screw up on a regular basis? Blown calls annoy the crap out of everyone until the replay discussion begins- then “the human element” is somehow an important part of the experience. Is baseball less enjoyable now that they’re reviewing some home run and other calls?
Right, this is important. Basketball has gone pretty quickly from ‘no replay’ to ‘let’s use replay more than we need to, even on obvious calls, and oh, let’s make the refs walk over to a TV monitor to watch the play so that by the time they start the review the fans have already seen three replays and know the right call- and then the refs can watch the review six times to confirm the call and then watch some more to figure out how many tenths of a second should be on the clock.’ Gah.
harmonicaview:
I cannot imagine why this is so. I want the players’ performances to decide the outcome of a game. If an umpire incorrectly judges what a player does, then the outcome of the game is distorted.
And I am a Royals fan. Yes, Don Denkinger, Jorge Orta, the whole bit. You know what? I hate the fact that there are people who feel the mistake taints my team’s only championship. If we could replace umpires with perfectly accurate umpiring robots, I’d do so in a heartbeat.
Video review on home runs, foul balls, safe or out at the plate are probably fine if handled with little delay. That is no umpires traipsing into the dugouts.
Some calls would be more difficult though. For example there’s a short fly ball into the outfield. The umpire rules catch and in trying to double a runner who was halfway between first and second, the ball is thrown into the dugout. So he is entitled to third base. Video reply rules no catch. Do you put the runner on second? third? What? And what about the batter who is now safe. He’d be entitled to second if he’s not out.
Games are a competition between the two teams. Inaccurate calls mean the contest gets inaccurate results. It means I can’t actually know by the end of the season that winners were the best–it could have just been some “human element.”
And that sort of thing seems to start a ton of fights. One side will agree with the ref, the other side will say they are wrong. I’ve never seen them in person, but I’ve seen them get quite nasty online. If both sides had an objective standard to go back and look at, these fights would be over before they started.
The only problem I might have is if it somehow causes the league to try and get by with less experienced umpires, so that, rather than increase accuracy, they keep it the same. With many well-deserving people being out of a job or at least with less than they deserve.
Judging from the skit they did on Extreme Rules last night, the WWE now has a better instant replay system than any legitimate sports league.
-
The sooner they bring in instant replay the better.
-
Baseball IS sacred. That’s why they should improve it further so that the results of the games are decided by what the players do, not by what some pampered, arrogant prima donna of an ump decides they did.
-
I have spent most of my life as a baseball fan watching umpires screw things up in many cases not because of the “human element” but because they’re arrogant and entitled. I don’t spend my time and money to watch the umps and they could be replaced with robots tomorrow and I’d be thrilled. I would remind everyone that the 1999 umpire labour dispute was triggered in part because MLB wanted the umps to start calling balls and strikes more closely in line with the way the rulebook says they should be called and the umps refused. This, mind you, was two years after the 1997 Eric Gregg disgrace. Where the umpires got the balls to say “we’re going to just make up whatever rules we want” I cannot begin to imagine, but MLB’s mistake was in allowing any of the resignations to be rescinded; every umpire that submitted a resignation should have been thrown out of the game for life.
There is no reason you can’t have a system like the NHL or NFL, where league officials with access to HDTV replays can overrule calls on the field. If you can get a few more calls correct, then my God, get them correct, and do NOT allow the field umps to make the final call. If you can find a way to make Pitch F/x call all balls and strikes, I’d like to see that, too.
And while we’re at it, why are there only four umps? You know how you can make the home run calls easier? Have a couple of Fence Judges at the right and left foul poles to make those calls. Why not? Why not have a judge with access to the correct feed to make calls on whether a batter checked his swing or not? Give me a reason why tennis can have a guy whose only job is to determine if a serve ticks the net, but baseball can’t have a checked swing judge? Oh, I know why - because the umpires’ union will complain. Well screw them, because I want the games called right, and if a team of eight or ten officials will do it better than four, I say do it.
As to dragging the game out longer, I agree you need to ensure that doesn’t happen, or that the length of games should be increased by only a few minutes. There are ways to save those minutes elsewhere, and surely eliminating blown calls would save some time in arguing, anyway.