Baseball might try replay in Arizona Fall League

Why not get it right?

by mxmob33 on May 22, 2008 1:32 PM PDT reply actions

Get It Right Blue

Fine when umps huddle to “get it right”. However, they need to get it right after huddling. This week alone Blue has gotten it wrong on Soto, Delgado and BMoney HRs. If they continue to get it wrong then would reconsider.

by wilriv21 on May 22, 2008 1:32 PM PDT reply actions

Alex Rodriguez last night, as well.

No, really, I have updated my blog this year: http://skaldheim.livejournal.com/tag/baseball

by Skaldheim on May 22, 2008 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

I was listening on the radio and haven’t seen the replay but Kruk and Kuip said they got the Molina call right after the huddle.

by paboperfecto on May 23, 2008 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions

There really isn’t an legitimate reason not to have it. And public pressure for Selig to implement it will be too much to not do it.

by cheno on May 22, 2008 1:44 PM PDT reply actions

I really don't want Instant Replay in baseball...

At least not during the regular season, I can see a case for using it in the playoffs to call homeruns or foulballs but thats IT.

Baseball is already a slow moving game and replay could really grind it to a halt.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on May 22, 2008 1:49 PM PDT reply actions

I'm all for it.

I liked the idea of having one replay official who is always watching tape.

However, I think the only things that should be replayable are the fair/foul and home run calls. Strikes and balls have always been up to interpretation, and safe/fair should be called right, as the ump is looking right at the play. I could see how someone would want that reviewed, but no thanks.

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on May 22, 2008 1:52 PM PDT reply actions

Fair/foul on anything but home runs is troublesome. If a ball is called foul, then the runners just stop, and the play is dead. How do you award bases on a shot down the line that should have been called fair? No one’s going to happy with any result they could choose.

No, really, I have updated my blog this year: http://skaldheim.livejournal.com/tag/baseball

by Skaldheim on May 22, 2008 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

It would have to be like the fumble rule. If something is whistled dead (or called foul) it’s not replayable. But a ball called fair that is in dispute can be reviewed.

by mxmob33 on May 22, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions

I just don't like it

And I don’t like the precident. Part of the subculture in baseball is dealing with, and to some level manipulating the umps. Part of the fun of baseball is screaming at the TV when they make a bad call, and looking at the ground and hoping no one notices when they make one that helps your team.

On the surface just using it for HR’s and Foul Balls seems innocent enough, but once it’s in it could start to creep.

Baseball is based on tradition – and bad calls are part of the tradition.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 22, 2008 4:36 PM PDT reply actions

Tradition is no excuse for getting something wrong

Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not make it the right way to do things.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on May 22, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes but the fallibility of the umpire

Is an integral part of the game – it is the human element. I don’t want baseball to become riddled with technology like Football and the NBA.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 22, 2008 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions

I know what you mean, and I agree, I kinda like that umps blow calls now and then. Thats why I would only use it in the playoffs when you want to make sure every call is right. And only use it on really close or questionable HRS/Foulballs, thats it.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on May 22, 2008 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Once the foot is in the door

Is what I am worried about. Questionable foul balls and HR’s is not so bad, but once that ball starts rolling look out.

Maybe fan’s should start throwing red flags from the bleachers.

I guess when it comes down to it, most calls in the game of baseball are a matter of inches, and as a result are fundamentally determined by the players and limits the umpires ability to influence the game. Whether or not a ball bounces on the top of the fence or 1” below the top of the fence, the batter still mashed the pitcher – it getting called a HR or not is part of the uncertainty of the game.

I’m not eloquent enough to really get my point across here, but I guess I feel that “close” calls really arent so bad even if they go one way or the other – If it’s “close” then its exactly that, close. Run that same play 10 times and you should get 50% one way 50% the other, so the ump really doesn’t factor in.

The only place I can fundamentally support instant replay is where a play isn’t close, but the ump just gets something rediculously wrong -like the timmy timeout balk or the play third a few weeks ago where the 3rd baseman didn't catch the ball. (Giants runner called out 3rd with the ball sitting on the ground).

Those sorts of calls are just bad and clear and should possibly be subject to review. Plays where some guy hit’s it and maybe a cunt hair hit the line, maybe not – that is subjecting the call to the eye of the umpire, and I think that is an important and in some ways enjoyable (even when it goes against you) part of the game.

Does that make sense? Say a guy beats us on a XBH down the line – upon review we can see that it was actually BARELY foul… fact is he still pounded the ball hard down the line. Same with a ball ruled a HR that is actually not. That’s not flagrant and bad, that’s a fuzzy area where the player truley did 99% of the work, and it is up to the umpire to decide if he got that other 1% or not.

I’m sure that doesn’t make much sense.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 22, 2008 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions

God I hate the autoformatting. Can we turn that off?

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 22, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Did you see the Mets game on Sunday?

Delgado hit a ball that hit the foul pole and it was called foul.

I’m not sure where that comes off as a good thing for the game, whether or not it happens all the time.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on May 22, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions

No, and I understand that every now and then there is a play

that is so egregious that it seems to defy all recognition. But it’s a long season – and if the mets are in a position where that one less than no-doubter HR is called foul determines anything important about their season – then they as a team were in that position of their own doing. IE, they weren’t dominant and some of the outcome of their situation is dependent on luck. The way the Ump sees a play or a ball is partially luck.

Basically, I feel that if a team loses a game because of a bad call, what it really means is that team was really no better than the other team, and it came down to luck to determine the game. That is fundamental to baseball and I don’t see how the ump’s ability to see a play is any different than the ball landing one inch foul or one inch fair. You do the best you can in good faith but otherwise, it’s luck. If you are truly better it will show over the course of a game, series, or season. If you aren’t truly better then you cannot really complain about losing or winning by luck. It’s just how it’s going to be.

And the umpires and the way the call close plays are part of that.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 22, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Get it right get it right get it right

The third base umpire called it fair initially. Then the umpires all huddled together and decided it was foul. I really don’t see the problem, considering they already take the time to do this, why a replay official sitting upstairs somewhere can’t call down and say “It was a home run.” It’s one more opinion, just from someone who happens to be right.

And many baseball games are actually pretty close. The decision cost the Mets two runs, because Delgado ended up doubling off Wang (I think it was Wang), the guy at second scored, then Delgado and the guy at first didn’t. While the game ended up being a blowout, that doesn’t mean you should just ignore the possibility of getting the call right because that’s how it’s always been done. Throughout most of the history of baseball, instant replay hasn’t been a possibility. It’s not like Abner Doubleday sat around telling people “Hey, in case it ever becomes possible to look at plays after they’ve happened and determine whether the umpire made the correct call, just don’t. It’s not sportsmanlike.”

Arguing the tradition is just saying “This is what I’m used to and that’s why it’s right.” That’s not an argument. Saying “Well if they were good it wouldn’t hurt them” isn’t much of an argument either. Winning games is hard. In a situation like this, it is important that we get it right. Why? Because it happened. Because it’s a simple step. Because Wang deserves to have those runs on his ERA. Because Delgado should have those RBIs. Because we can.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on May 22, 2008 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions

this

appeals to tradition are among my least favorite logical fallacies. It really wouldn’t slow the game down that much, and the slippery slope doesn’t hold water either, because basketball seems fine having replay only in extremely limited situations.

by Viliphied on May 24, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Well what do you expect?

It’s the foul pole!

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Freezing Giants Blog

by WalrusMan on May 23, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

only homeruns

error by the umps is part of the game, but its impossible for an ump to see that small of detail 300 feet away

"But if he's swinging at real flies, well, in that case there are two definite solutions: 1) Fresno 2) Ritalin." - howtheyscored

by CPGiant756 on May 22, 2008 8:20 PM PDT reply actions

Which is in of itself, part of the game.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 22, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions

but it shouldn't be.

by Viliphied on May 24, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions

I know this is what the terrible Rockies announcers said, but it takes longer for the manager to come out and argue, then the umpires to meet in a little committee and discuss, then the other manager comes out and argues… I don’t really think a replay would slow the game down at all, as long as they only use it for home run balls. Even for the regular season, a 3-run home run vs. a foul ball is a huge, huge difference.

I agree with groug, there’s no sense in purposely avoiding progress. Get the call right.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on May 22, 2008 11:41 PM PDT reply actions

I agree with groug, there’s no sense in purposely avoiding progress. Get the call right.

No one wants to avoid progress. Baseball does not have to be “perfect”. One of the charms and challenges of baseball is the Umpires. Baseball is a human sport. It’s a game with no time limit that can last 90 minutes or 5 hours. It’s quirky. If we try to make everything perfect, the game loses some of it’s soul.

Umpires “Getting it Right ” happens more often than not. So there have been a few missed calls this week. All of the sudden, HDTV makes everyone at home with a DVR the perfect umpire. There have been about 1500 official games played so far this season. They might have missed a call in 10 of them. Let’s just play the game.

My adopted son Matt Downs. Bill Mueller without the two-flap helmet .

by nvsfg on May 23, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

I bet you’d be singing a different tune if, for example, the umps missed a HR call that would have propelled the Giants into first place in late september.

by Viliphied on May 24, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Please see “How About No” Below

My adopted son Matt Downs. Bill Mueller without the two-flap helmet .

by nvsfg on May 25, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd take it even further

Nothing is more exasperating to me than a home plate umpire with a ridiculous strike zone. I can only hope that the QuesTec system that’s currently being used can be expanded eventually (somehow) to eliminate human error in calling balls and strikes. How that technology would work, I have no idea. It’s just a dream of mine.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on May 23, 2008 6:19 AM PDT reply actions

I voted yes, but what it really comes down to is proper application of replay. The points brought up here about how it would slow down the game are valid. Is there a way to keep teams from abusing the ability to review a play? Like in the NFL where you have to essentially bet a time out to throw out the challenge flag? There’s no real way to have that in baseball. You can’t put up your last ups or ban a reliever or something in exchange for a chance to challenge a call.

The question of when and where the replay would be used is a big one, too. Home runs? Balls hit down the line? Bad strike three or ball four? Balks? Where does it start and where does it end? And how exactly would they determine the “correct” call following the review? Would the umpiring crew have to agree unanimously or is it up to the ump whose call was challenged?

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 23, 2008 7:16 AM PDT reply actions

just like basketball

it’s automatic, and only used in certain very limited situations.

by Viliphied on May 24, 2008 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions

and it starts and ends with

HR balls and questionable line drives/fly balls initially called fair.

by Viliphied on May 24, 2008 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions

The only way I can see this working, is on HR calls, and maybe safe/out calls on the basepaths (think Dinkenger, 1985 WS). I don’t think it could be used on balls down the line, because they play essentially stops if the ruling on the field is foul. It seems to me to be more of a headache than it’s worth in the long run.

BTW, just to pitch in on replay in general, I hate the NFL version. Just have the guy in the booth review the play and move on. I think it’s stupid to have a challenge system where a coach has to strategically use his challenege (because he only has two!) or even bet a timout on a close call. Just get it right, or kill the system all togeather. The challenge seems the worst possible compromise, to me.

by tyrannoman on May 23, 2008 8:22 AM PDT reply actions

I think one of the biggest problems

Is that baseball is a dynamic game. You start second-guessing calls and you screw stuff up. If the runner 2nd is safe or out may effect the decision of the runner 3rd to break for home, etc. If you start making calls on HR’s and foul balls non real time, how do the players know when to run, stop etc.

DP’s and things like that all happen dynamically, and you can’t stop the game for someone from upstairs to radio down to the umps what the correct call was.

And if you are going to do that, why even have umpires at all? We can all see the plays 10x better than the umps at home on TV – why don’t they just have some guy sitting in a booth watching a tv and announcing calls over the PA ?

Baseball is a human game, and umpire error is as much a part of it as anything else. I am big time opposed to this.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 23, 2008 8:50 AM PDT reply actions

STUPID AUTOFORMATTING

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on May 23, 2008 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions

SMASH

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 23, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions

How does everyone keep doing this?

I don’t understand how it happens.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on May 23, 2008 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Same. I just don’t see the “white out” button on my comments box.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on May 23, 2008 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Now that I said that, though, it’s going to happen to me today.

It’s just fate.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on May 23, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it’s the at-sign. Or more to the point, I think it might be two at-signs cause everything between them to do the weird formatting.

test between at signs