Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Should they expand replay in MLB?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Should they expand replay in MLB?
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Jun 4, 2010 12:07 PM
I've heard the arguments for and against it.

Personally, I am 100% for expanding it. Blown calls like the Perfect Game that wasn't should never happen. I also think it would be extremely easy to expand replay without slowing down the pace of play, and I find that argument to be extremely stupid. You don't need to give coaches "challenges" like the NFL. All replays are handled upstairs in the booth. If the ump gets the call wrong, the booth beeps down to him and he reverses the call a few seconds later. Boom. Done.

I think that replay should only be expanded into the realm of calling runners out or safe on force outs or tags. It shouldn't be brought into calling balls or strikes.
Jun 4, 2010 12:07pm
gorocks99's avatar

gorocks99

Senior Member

10,760 posts
Jun 4, 2010 12:08 PM
They should replace the official scorekeeper w/ a fifth umpire and make him the replay official as well.
Jun 4, 2010 12:08pm
CinciX12's avatar

CinciX12

Senior Member

2,874 posts
Jun 4, 2010 1:06 PM
I'm only for it if it has a strict set of guidelines when it can and can't be used and there is a time limit of about 1 min on each replay. I don't want a game to go from 3 hours to 5 because everytime a manager comes out he gets a replay on a call. So I don't know, yes with an asterisk I guess.
Jun 4, 2010 1:06pm
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Jun 4, 2010 1:35 PM
the technology and the monitors are already in place,so sure---why not.
Jun 4, 2010 1:35pm
T

trackandccrunner

Senior Member

1,283 posts
Jun 4, 2010 1:54 PM
Yes and I like gorocks idea.
Jun 4, 2010 1:54pm
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
Jun 4, 2010 2:17 PM
Nope. However, I think there should be more "conferences" held by the ump crew.
Jun 4, 2010 2:17pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Jun 4, 2010 2:17 PM
No.

Only because I'm a traditionalist and one that has had to learn to live and die by good and bad calls. its been part of the game for years.
Jun 4, 2010 2:17pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Jun 4, 2010 2:50 PM
darbypitcher22;379208 wrote:No.

Only because I'm a traditionalist and one that has had to learn to live and die by good and bad calls. its been part of the game for years.

That's a really stupid argument. Anything, whether it be a sport or what not, that refuses to change with the times will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs. Refusing to use the available technology that is already used every day by the TV networks to get the correct calls just in the name of "tradition" is dumb. You watch any baseball game, they show replays of the plays, and they are seen and done with before the batter steps back into the box. The idea that the game will be any slower is just an excuse. Do like the NFL and have a 5th official in the booth watching the replay monitor. Any close call for fair/foul, home runs, bases he can quickly look at then buzz the Umps if needed. MLB's refusal to get with the times is not doing them any favors.
Jun 4, 2010 2:50pm
BCBulldog's avatar

BCBulldog

Senior Member

824 posts
Jun 4, 2010 3:29 PM
I like the idea of each manager having one challenge per game that can be used on homerun calls/noncalls, safe/out calls, foul balls called fair (not vice versa, except HRs), and strike three/ball four calls (ninth inning or later, only). I also like the idea of the manager keeping his challenge if he wins it.

It would really benefit both the umps and the managers because any argument by the team quickly could be put down with "Why don't you just use your challenge, then?"

I also believe the umpire should be allowed to call for a review of any play in the ninth inning or later, excluding balls/strikes (except check swings, dropped third strikes and foul tips dropped by the catcher).
Jun 4, 2010 3:29pm
N

Nate

Formerly Known As Keebler

3,949 posts
Jun 4, 2010 4:03 PM
I think so.

As long as it is used for the following situations

1) Tag outs
2) Force outs
3) Home Run/Ground Rule Double/Foul

I do not agree with it being used on Fair/Foul. You then have to decide what to do with runners on base if the ball was called foul and was actually fair. That in its self would open up a can of worms.
Jun 4, 2010 4:03pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Jun 4, 2010 4:23 PM
Keebler;379320 wrote:I think so.

As long as it is used for the following situations

1) Tag outs
2) Force outs
3) Home Run/Ground Rule Double/Foul

I do not agree with it being used on Fair/Foul. You then have to decide what to do with runners on base if the ball was called foul and was actually fair. That in its self would open up a can of worms.

I agree. Those are the only three instances I think it should be used in, so they'd essentially only be adding it for tags and force outs.

I guess one other instance would be whether a fielder cleanly caught a ball.
Jun 4, 2010 4:23pm
N

Nate

Formerly Known As Keebler

3,949 posts
Jun 4, 2010 4:36 PM
justincredible;379342 wrote:I agree. Those are the only three instances I think it should be used in, so they'd essentially only be adding it for tags and force outs.

I guess one other instance would be whether a fielder cleanly caught a ball.

I don't think you could do that either. What if they call the ball and out and the catch was not legit? What if a runner was on 3rd with 2 outs?,etc.....

I think you have to eliminate any situation on whether or not the safe/out call could influence another run besides the batter at the plate.
Jun 4, 2010 4:36pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Jun 4, 2010 5:50 PM
I don't want to see it used and have a situation that looks like college football where absolutely every close play during a game is looked at and reviewed and ultimately finds that the official gets it right 90% of the time (I think that most MLB Umpires get the call right night in and night out). You're also talking about using a challenge system that would add to pace of play issues that already exist at the major league level
Jun 4, 2010 5:50pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Jun 4, 2010 6:33 PM
darbypitcher22;379448 wrote:I don't want to see it used and have a situation that looks like college football where absolutely every close play during a game is looked at and reviewed and ultimately finds that the official gets it right 90% of the time (I think that most MLB Umpires get the call right night in and night out). You're also talking about using a challenge system that would add to pace of play issues that already exist at the major league level

No, it wouldn't. There is an ump up in the booth. He is just watching a replay of all close plays. If the ump gets it wrong he buzzes down a few second later and the play is overturned. No added time. No "coaches challenges." And the official shouldn't get it right 90% of the time. That would be absurdly low. Comically low.
Jun 4, 2010 6:33pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Jun 4, 2010 9:00 PM
I still don't like it.

let it go the way it is now.
Jun 4, 2010 9:00pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Jun 4, 2010 9:08 PM
You would've probably been opposed to batting helmets when they were introduced.
Jun 4, 2010 9:08pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Jun 4, 2010 9:36 PM
justincredible;379474 wrote:No, it wouldn't. There is an ump up in the booth. He is just watching a replay of all close plays. If the ump gets it wrong he buzzes down a few second later and the play is overturned. No added time. No "coaches challenges." And the official shouldn't get it right 90% of the time. That would be absurdly low. Comically low.

I think he means that the official is right 90% of the time on the replays anyway.
Jun 4, 2010 9:36pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Jun 4, 2010 11:36 PM
^^^^^

this.

and I know you'll still vouch that a 10% variance in a game of inches is way too much too.
Jun 4, 2010 11:36pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jun 4, 2010 11:58 PM
No.
Jun 4, 2010 11:58pm
D

dave

Senior Member

4,558 posts
Jun 5, 2010 12:09 AM
There will be too many times where replay will make it very hard for umpires to decide what to do with runners on base during a review. It will be like fixing a play half way. Bad calls happen. All of this talk after something that didn't even effect the result of the game which in the end is all that matters.
Jun 5, 2010 12:09am
killdeer's avatar

killdeer

Hat Trick

1,538 posts
Jun 5, 2010 12:13 AM
gorocks99;379014 wrote:They should replace the official scorekeeper w/ a fifth umpire and make him the replay official as well.
this is the brilliant response.

gorocks for the new commissioner.
Jun 5, 2010 12:13am
killdeer's avatar

killdeer

Hat Trick

1,538 posts
Jun 5, 2010 12:20 AM
let me add...
the amazing thing to me, is...and i have seen a huge number of baseball games...both amateur and professional...

I rarely see a professional umpire miss a call,

I mean, that is freakin' amazin!

But, for the rare ones that slip through,
put a little buddy in the booth, buzz down on the review,
do a little brief consultation,
keep it discrete and on the down low,

this would be the legacy of Bud (douchebag) Selig if he can accomplish something as simple and commonplace as this.
Jun 5, 2010 12:20am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jun 5, 2010 12:32 AM
darbypitcher22;379208 wrote:No.

Only because I'm a traditionalist and one that has had to learn to live and die by good and bad calls. its been part of the game for years.
I think that's as stupid as eating a shit sandwich.

Why would you want to have bad calls if you can make the right call? The whole "it's the way it's always been is absurd". You're arguing that foul balls being called fair, home runs not being called when they should have been, etc are an important part of the game. This is absurd. You should want to have the correct call every time.
Jun 5, 2010 12:32am
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
Jun 5, 2010 12:35 AM
See, here's how I see it. Umps have this thing about "whatever they call on a play is right and that's it".

Get rid of that notion.

If the ump makes a call........and there's a big hoo-ha about it, then call a little conference.......then make your decision.

Voila!

If Joyce (or any other umpire for that matter) would have called a time out and went to the head of the crew and had a conference.........I believe that the others would have given their opinion and the game would have been over. Out!

The umps have to get off of this thing about whatever they call on the bases or the walls is the WORD. Take a little step down and confer with your colleagues and THAT keeps it human and out of the hands of technology.

IMO, in the situation at hand...............when Joyce called the runner out..........then saw the reaction.............he should be able to call an immediate conference of all the umpires............then make the ruling.
Jun 5, 2010 12:35am
killdeer's avatar

killdeer

Hat Trick

1,538 posts
Jun 5, 2010 12:39 AM
^^^if I understand this rambling diatribe....
I agree; calls should be handled in 'real time'....
if it is a conference with the crew, or a conference with the 5th official in the booth...
keep the decision-making with the field crew and keep the commish office OUT OF IT!
Jun 5, 2010 12:39am