Instant Replay

by Longo4MVP on Aug 25, 2008 7:10 AM EDT Comment 11 comments

It has worked in football. It will work for baseball. They need to input the replay before the playoffs. We want the players to decide the game, not the umpires. That's what we saw yesterday. The umpire won the game for the White Sox, not AJ Pierzynski or anyone else. It was a bonehead call.

The MLB needs to make replays for all plays, not just homers. If we had replays, the call would've been overturned and the players would've won or lost the game. The umpires have not helped us twice in the past week. Luckily, one of them didn't cost us the game. Do umpires not respect the best team in baseball? Are they blind? Maybe Jerry Meals needs new glasses. I don't know, but the MLB should be ashamed.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

They should have it for everything except balls and strikes

by matthan on Aug 25, 2008 8:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That makes no sense

The one thing where umpires AREN’T needed is balls and strikes.

There’s no way that instant replay ever takes things over. The umps are unionized, and they’re always going to resist any change. That said, we’re at a point where the umpires might be better off making calls from a booth rather than on the field. If they can instantaneously see every play from three angles, it would make the game calling a lot more accurate, and wouldn’t slow down the game at all.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 25, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So it's ok that they totally screwed that call up with Queerzynski while the rest of the known world realized it was an error?

I’m with matthan and think instant replay should be called for everything, but balls and strikes. I mean, why be biased with just HR’s? Either do it right or don’t do it at all. And where is the accountilbility here? I mean, MLB will let Edding’s call go and he will move on to fuck up someone else’s game. And absolutley nothing will be done about it even though everyone who saw that play outside of Chicago agrees it was the wrong call. They should susupend/demote umpires who are repeated fuckups.

by Rays Rule on Aug 25, 2008 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Baseball has already been slowed down too much. IR will only slow it down more and cause more confusion. How many times do we still see calls that are wrong from a game standpoint but right as a weird rule-quirk because of instant replay? It causes just as many problems as it addresses, and it absolutely destroys the flow of the game. We should be trying to shorten games by speeding them up, not trying to slow them down further.

by rglass44 on Aug 25, 2008 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We should be trying to get the call right and let the players on the field determine who wins the game instead of allowing shitty umpiring to determine the outcome of important games because "human error is part of the game"

Your argument seems far too hypothetical to ever happen. Instant replay has helped football greatly, and it only takes about 2 minutes to look at it from like ten angles. It’s really not a problem and I honestly am baffled that people are so against it.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Aug 25, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Seriously

It took almost 10 minutes for the Pierzinski call to be made, between Maddon coming out and arguing, and the umpires conferencing, etc., and it usually takes 5+ minutes whenever there is a controversial call. Considering how infrequently there are controversial calls like this anyway (what, maybe a few games a week?), I can’t imagine instant replay would slow down the game at all. As often as it would make the game slower, it would probably also speed up the game as many times.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 25, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree that it has helped football

Refs purposely make wrong calls so they can be reviewed, plays are overturned on strange readings of the rules, etc. Replay sucks.

by rglass44 on Aug 25, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give me one example of an official purposely blowing a call or a strange reading of a rule.

I bet you can’t find one.

And in the heat of the moment, unless they’re corrupt and paid off, the ref only calls what he sees. Just a lot of refs are bad at seeing shit.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Aug 25, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't mean blowing a call

I mean calling something that might be a fumble, but isn’t, a fumble because it can then be reviewed. Off-hand I can’t come up w/ much other than the Bert Emmanual catch/not-catch, but there have been numerous occasions when the call was right by the letter of thr ule but wrong as far as the nature of the rule.

by rglass44 on Aug 25, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then it's still fixing it to be correct, if the rule was called incorrectly it's good that they get it right by the nature of the rule.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Aug 25, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My sentiments exactly

From Buster Olney’s latest blog:

• Another thought on instant replay from an NL veteran pitcher, who asked to remain anonymous:

"The one thing that can’t happen, in my opinion, is that the flow of the game is significantly interrupted. Has the possibility of a five-man umpiring crew been discussed? With one sitting in a review booth?

“Another major component of this implementation needs to be consistency. I DO expect some growing pains, but if the integrity of the game is the main focus, it will work out in the end. I’ve always enjoyed the 100-percent human element in baseball, but when it comes to something that can be quickly reviewed (and I emphasize the word ’quickly’) and can have a large impact, I understand the incorporation.”

by rglass44 on Aug 26, 2008 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs