The White Sox were one out away from losing, and that last call was a doozy. But I think the umps just didn’t see the right call. I don’t blame anyone really, because all parties involved just didn’t know, and the batter took a chance on what he couldn’t really tell himself, it’s up to the umpires to make the call. And they have to decide on a call. But only the camera could tell the real story. A close-up clearly proves Pierzynskis’ ball was caught. That game should have been over right there. I like tradition in the rules of baseball and all, but I really think they need to add the dispute feature, like they do in the NFL. It would be super easy to implement, and the technology is there. There is no reason not to. Should baseball implement this? And if it’s been questioned before by the organization, what’s stopping them?
No, NO, NO!. A thousand times no!
The instant replay rule is just about the worst thing that has ever happened to professional football. Most of the time the replay shows that the refs got it right in the first place (or at least fails to show otherwise), and there are an alarming number of instances in which the “replay official” appears to be watching something completely different than the thirty-seven different angles that we see on the V replays.
Replay sucks.
There will always be an element of human error in sports officiating, no matter what anyone tries to do to eliminate it. I’d rather see MLB leave the technology out of it, and leave the decisions to the umpires on the field.
I agree with Suburban Plankton.
Instant replay is a pox on the NFL.
It was wrong when they first instituted it. No one cheered louder than me when it was taken away.
Now that it’s back…<sigh>…I just don’t like it.
Bad calls are a part of the game.
Using technology to increase safety is one thing.
Using it to second-guess officiating is entirely another.
No they weren’t!
They were one out away from going to extra innings.
As for the instant replay idea: NO WAY!
They don’t have to be.
Even if it proves that a call was wrong? :dubious:
Well, the question is whether the drawbacks from using technology like instant replays outweighs the possible benefits. And many football fans feel that the extra delays incurred by the replay system delay an already rather prolonged event even more than necessary. Especially given the number of plays in which the call on the field is not overturned after consulting the video evidence.
Furthermore, the presence of the replay function doesn’t even eliminate the possibility of human error or disagreement; it simply transfers those things to a different medium. I’ve seen quite a few occasions in which the decision made by football umpires based on the instant replay was doubtful or even, in some cases, blatantly wrong.
From what I have seen in the NFL, the average game delay caused by replay is only a few minutes per game. That’s not much of a price to pay for ultimately getting a call right or substantially increasing the probability that any given call is correct based upon the evidence at hand.
I think just last weekend Dallas had two turnovers reversed because the ball carrier had a knee down before the ball came out. That’s HUGE.
I think the Patriots or Chargers had a 40-yard touchdown reversed because the ball carrier was down by contact. Again… HUGE potential impact on a game. Personally, I don’t think the TD should have been called back because the evidence I saw was not “indisputable” and the TD should have stood.
All-in-all, the NFL system works well, IMHO. Ultimately, the refs get it right upon replay review from what I have seen, both in upholding and reversing field calls.
Also, the NFL delay factor is not substantial. If the challenging team is right, then they get justice in about a minute. If the challenging team is wrong, the delay of game caused by the replay review is offset by the loss of a time-out that the team can’t use later to delay the game.
Cost-benefit analysis weighs in favor of replay.
Why no instant replay in baseball? My guess is that both the games and the season are long enough that no one bad call is going to change the fortunes of a team. Even if an entire game goes the wrong way, it doesn’t mean all that much over an entire season. Even the playoffs (where there really haven’t been that many horrific injustices) are long enough where a blunder probably won’t actually decide the World Series champ.
Compare that to the NFL’s 16-game season, and ONE game per round of the playoffs. Far, far less leeway for blunders. Far greater risk for gross injustices. Here, I’ll give you an example. New England Patriots, three seasons ago, wild card playoff agains the Raiders. Tom Brady drops the ball; it’s ruled a fumble. Only problem was, it wasn’t; according to the “Tuck Rule”, it was actually an incompletion. Obscure, almost-never-comes-into-play rule, perhaps, but a rule all the same. Call reversed on review. Patriots complete an incredible turnaround and never look back. In other words, if that one bad call is allowed to stand, the wrong team wins the Super Bowl. Believe me, compared to this, missing out on a third or fourth chance to win some DS is nothing.
Anyway, baseball shouldn’t incorporate instant replay unless the fans really want it (which doesn’t look like the case). As for football, I think an extra ten or fifteen minutes a game is well worth some measure of fairness.
It’s irritating when a coach issues a replay challenge just because he can, which sometimes happens late in a game. But I do think it’s worth it.
In baseball, there are so many more judgment calls that the MLB may just not want to open that can of worms. I really wouldn’t mind. Some degree of error is unavoidable and the results of replays can be sily, but I don’t spend the time watching a game to see it decided by a fuckup. That is not part of the game.
Tennis is going to have some sort of limited replay soonish, or at least the US Open will. It’s about damn time. Usually it proves the officials right and the players wrong, but it would still prevent disasters like the one that befell Serena Williams in 2004.
There is a lot of debate currently about the use of technology to assist umpires in international cricket with their decisions. This is being driven by the TV companies inventing better ways of proving how wrong they can be: watch any Test match these days and there will be 2 or 3 decisions per innings that are either blatantly wrong from the outset (e.g. a batsman - usually Australia’s Damian Martyn - being given out LBW having got a huge inside edge or the ball having clearly pitched outside the leg stump) or which are proved to be marginally right or wrong half an hour later following minute dissection through slow-motion replays.
At least the umpires now have the option to refer certain decisions - on their own initiative - to a 3rd umpire. This does not currently include LBW decisions, which are the most prone to errors of judgment. But there is no provision for the players to appeal aganst a decision. One argument being rehearsed against allowing the players that right is that (ahem!) it would slow the game down…
A bit of an FYI: Technically, the team’s manager can lodge an appeal about the call with the league (or commissioner’s office, these days) if he feels that the umpire has misinterpreted the rules; however, this is pretty rare, and doesn’t apply to disagreements about calls, only whether the call was consistent with the rules.
The reason I’ve heard (the one most plausible to me) goes like this. Errors are part of the individual game. When a player makes an error, it goes down in the record book, as does the effect it had on the game. There are no do-overs. When an umpire’s call is in doubt (aside from balls and strikes) sometimes the umpires confer to make sure they all saw the right call. Tag-out calls are rarely reversed. A conference will sometimes reverse a homer-or-not call or a rare-case application of rules.
However, it all comes down to human eyes and human judgement. It’s not a game played or officiated by machines.
And having watched the video clip of the call, I’m convinced the ump’s call was correct. The ball does not angle up into the catcher’s glove unless it has bounced off the ground first.
The one that should really have his ass reamed is the catcher who tossed the ball and went to the dugout before hearing the out clearly called. That’s a mistake that you are taught to avoid down at Little League level.
This, for me, is one of the worst things about the replay rule in football.
Personally, i think the use of instant replay should be totally, utterly, and completely at the discretion of the officials. If they are in any doubt about what the call should be, then they can ask for a reply.
As seosamh points out, that’s how it works in cricket. And, in my experience, it generally works pretty well. The umpires are, for the most part, not afraid to go to the video replay if they are uncertain about the call. But at the same time, they don’t have to heed the pleas of petulant players and coaches.
Take that stupid red flag away from the football coaches, i say!
… but NFL coaches can’t challenge plays after the two-minute warning. Is that not good enough?
Personally I am all in favor of every bit of replay checking you can get. Make the call right, don’t let an idiot ref change the outcome.
On the other hand the college football system is so much better than the pro system. It should be about getting the damn call right, not just another strategy point, with odd little restrictions to arcane things up.
Who do you think is watching the videos?
In my opinion, NFL challenges are an incredibly stupid way to deal with viewing replays to stop incorrect calls, but a system done correctly would be unintrusive and would greatly increase the number of correct calls. As wolfman said, it’s become one more arcane strategy point, rather than a good faith effort to make the right call.
The simple and IMO correct way to implement this is to have one ref/ump who only views the replays, and only is involved when he can clearly see that the call made was incorrect. There’s no need for official challenges or delays. Any play that’s borderline enough to want the replay is going to have a meeting of officials and possible argumentative coaches anyway. And since the default is for the camera official to stay quiet unless the call was clearly wrong, the officials on the field don’t have to second guess themselves and reveal that they couldn’t see what happened by calling for the replay.
In my opinion, the replays are unneccesary (and thus unwanted) because there is an equal chance that either side will get a beneficial, bad call. Thus keeping the integrity intact. In order for this to work, you have to accept the idea that umpires are professional and completely unbiased in their evaluation of the game. Which I do.
Sorry - forgot to mention that international cricket matches are scheduled to last for five days, with 6 hours’ play per day (5½ in Pakistan). The forthcoming game in Sydney between Australia and a Rest of the World XI is scheduled for six days.
Is this some sort of sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek commment?
Because, in my opinion, arbitrarily deciding that the coach can challenge a play before the two-minute warning, but not after it, makes the whole system even more ridiculous.
Then again, i’m a bit biased about the issue, because i think that the very existence of the two minute warning is the singular most idiotic thing in the history of sports.