Comments on: Lack of instant replay looms big in another no-hitter

By: Kevin Gillman

Kevin Gillman — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:00:30 +0000

I agree with that. In this day and age, because we have the technology, every call can be overblown, but the one thing about baseball is you can’t take the human element away from the game. Then it becomes a game controlled by computers, and really, who wants that? Home runs, foul or fair replays, yes, but not close plays at the bases.

By: jdillydawg

jdillydawg — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:19:36 +0000

Maybe we should change the goal, because even technology doesn’t always get it right.

By: jdillydawg

jdillydawg — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:15:07 +0000

So the purpose of baseball is to ensure all ballplayers are guaranteed maximum value and can make the most money possible? Isn’t that why ballplayers have agents, so they can argue their worth? I didn’t realize it was the instant replay machine that was doing all the negotiating.

Sorry, but your argument is pretty lame. And by the way, I love cricket. Probably because they don’t use instant replay.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:11:23 +0000

A reasonable person could have made the call either way. MUCH worse calls have “marred” no-hitters or broken up no-nos in the past. I was in Denver in 1995 when the official scorer ruled a clear outfield error a hit, taking away a no-no from Pat Rapp. And that was reversible!

Calling the game “marred” by that call makes the author look a fool. No, this wasn’t “one of those calls MLB must make right.” It’s a nitpick, and hindsight at that. There are times I wouldn’t mind replay, but close plays at first are near the very bottom of the list.

By: jdillydawg

jdillydawg — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:07:39 +0000

Replay is an idiotic idea for any sport. We are demanding perfection with everything we do. It’s absolutely absurd. Half the time, replay can’t tell the story. I watched that play over and over an on one angle, I’m convinced he’s out. Another, I’m not so sure. Either way, no way could anyone overturn that call with 100% conviction – or even 50%.

When refs review a play in football, that’s usually the time I get up to make a sandwich. It’s about as exciting to me as a Tide commercial. At least Tide will clean my clothes, replay just wastes my time.

Life isn’t fair. Bad calls happen. Replay won’t make it any more fair, it’ll just make it slower and, perhaps boring. Greatness comes out of adversity, no matter how it’s delivered. I just don’t think replay promotes anything positive except the unrealistic demand of perfection.

By: bleedgreen

bleedgreen — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:02:12 +0000

I’m not talking about the NFL. I’m talking about MLB. When I watch at home, I get different angles IMMEDIATELY after a close play happened. In the NFL things happen from 360 degrees. In MLB, theres only 14 players on a HUGE field at once, and more than like, only 2-3 are involved in a close play. On an NFL field there are 22 people bunched up very close together, so things are often obscured and require close look at replays. In baseball, you’d need 2-3 angles TOPS to get a clear view of whats going on.

By: xzoso

xzoso — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:52:29 +0000

Interesting thread.. when the M’s had a perfecto thrown against them by Humber, there was no talk of replay even though Humber definitely walked Brendan Ryan and he did definitely check his swing. All I heard was, “He shouldn’t have argued with the Ump and ran to 1st base!” Well Brendan got his revenge last night.

By: drewsylvania

drewsylvania — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:57:39 +0000

Agree totally. I’d much rather have bang-bang plays occasionally get miscalled than delay the game over every close play.

By: drewsylvania

drewsylvania — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:53:13 +0000

He was out. That said, we don’t need replay–we need robot umps.

By: dormied9027

dormied9027 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:26:47 +0000

I saw the game on TV as well… 90% sure Gordon was safe by a split second. But can’t blame the umpire’s call based on his angle of the play. I’m a Dodger fan, and for what its worth, don’t like the idea of instant replay unless it truly is an ‘instant’ decision and doesn’t take more than 2 or 3 minutes maximum. I don’t think that’s possible right now.

By: jimeejohnson

jimeejohnson — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:18:36 +0000

“Money, it’s a crime!”

By: drewsylvania

drewsylvania — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 16:07:09 +0000

Screw money.

By: jamessmyth621

jamessmyth621 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:08:25 +0000

I’m sure they also drag out the NFL reviews so the networks can squeeze out yet another commercial break

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:01:22 +0000

“The human error of the game comes out in the players, not the umpiring.”

Exactly. Though I don’t think EVERY effort should be made, I think reasonable efforts should be made, which, to me, includes have video review to fix errors that EVERYONE IN THE STADIUM already knows were wrong while the manager is still out there arguing.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:50:54 +0000

In this case, one could argue it would interrupt the drama of the game….of course, that is probably a loosing argument. The drama/excitement could have been heightened as everyone waited for the review, with another round of “excitement” when the call was confirmed.

However, consider alternative scenarios. What if the 1B ump called him safe and replay showed he was out (or could have been out)….what would your feeling about replay have been at that moment…sitting in your seat, the no hitter gone…but you KNOW that it shouldn’t have been? Would you still argue that replay would have disrupted the moment?

People have made those arguments against replay for decades, but during the games (NFL or NCAA) those slight delays have absolutely no effect on drama or excitement of the game….during a close game no one says “boy I don’t care if they get the call right or not, let’s just get this thing over with”….replay has extended and preserved far more drama than it has the potential to “kill”.

By: toewsingkaner

toewsingkaner — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:20:21 +0000

The human error of the game comes out in the players, not the umpiring. The umpiring should not be part of that. Every effort to make the CORRECT call should be made using any technology possible & to make sure the game is decided by the players and not the umpiring.

By: nofunleague

nofunleague — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:46:38 +0000

I have said this in other forums and will repeat. Nothing a player does in the course of a game could cost the umpire money. However, a player with a no hit game in his contract for say 10,000.00 could get screwed by a bogus, lazy umpire. A call could determine a championship where much money is affected. We do not live in the 1890′s with three finger gloves. This is 2012 and if we have the technology to get it right then it should be used. For those that want to keep the game pure, too late. Designated hitter, baloney. Jugs gun, who cares. Get it right and move on. If you don’t like long games then don’t watch, and don;t take an interest in Cricket. Their games go on for days. Wake up America.

By: rooney24

rooney24 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:38:09 +0000

I would hope they did not go with the NFL system. The NFL system takes way too much time, and if you happened to challenge something early, you may have a challenge later for an obviously wrong call.

I would rather see the umpire crews go to 5 guys, and they would rotate through the 4 bases and the booth. There should be no reason one guy in the booth can’t see when something needs to be reviewed and then review it in the booth and let the other umps know if it needs to be changed.

By: philcommander

philcommander — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:59:39 +0000

Why not just institute a system like the NFL? The manager gets to demand a replay for no more than two calls during the game. Home runs would not count as one of his allowances…they would be reviewed automatically. Balls and strikes would not be reviewable. Just fair vs foul balls…was the ball caught…was the man safe. You might not review a stolen base call in some circumstances but in others you might. A tag at home plate you might want to review.

By: 18thstreet

18thstreet — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:51:09 +0000

Well, then let’s stop a game in June for 20 minutes to make sure every last single call is exactly right.

I expect the get dozens of thumbs down for this, but here goes: “Close enough” is perfectly fine with me.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:57:17 +0000

Does the 1985 World Series — and especially the errant call in Game 6 — still leave a bad taste in your mouth?

No, it’s over and done with. The only thing that leaves a bad taste in your mouth is to not make an effort to get it right. I’m asked a lot about instant replay. If the goal is to get it right, and we have the technology, I don’t care how much time it takes — especially in postseason — let’s get it right. Even if it goes against me, I can live with that.

Ozzie Smith

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/2276/qa-hall-of-fame-shortstop-ozzie-smith

By: johnnyb1976

johnnyb1976 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:45:09 +0000

Baseball needs to be left alone. Human error is part of what makes baseball great. If you take that out of the equation it’s a far less interesting game.

By: florida727

florida727 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:19:44 +0000

Actually, kudos to you “samu”. “Continuousness” is NOT a made up word. It’s a noun. It’s listed as such on dictionary.com. Thanks for making me think this morning. It didn’t hurt… too much.

By: buddaley

buddaley — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:05:50 +0000

I never understand the notion of those who want replay that managers should be limited in the challenges they can make. The object, I assume, is to get calls right, not to add another bit of managerial strategy to the game. If the idea is to get calls right, then any questionable call should be reviewable. It makes little sense to allow a bad call to stand in the first inning so that the manager will have a challenge left in case one arises later on.

By: buddaley

buddaley — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:56:33 +0000

I am not taking a position here on the need for instant replay, but I think the specific issue in this case is not whether the replay slows down the game but whether it interrupts the excitement. That is, once the call was made, everyone knew the no-hitter was intact, and the tension remained. Had the call been safe, the climactic moment would have arrived and the crowd would have exhaled and probably applauded the pitcher. Chances of the decision being overturned are practically nil. As nworka says, it would happen in real time.

But with replay, the next few moments, whether seconds or minutes, would have been an artificial kind of tension. It would not be about whether the no-hitter was intact but whether the call was going to remain. In this instance, I agree with nworka that such a development would interfere with the enjoyment and flow of the game. That is a completely different sort of interruption than the manager coming out to argue.

By: letsgonuclear

letsgonuclear — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 09:20:03 +0000

In the NFL the ref has to look at the play, if it was called right, where the ball goes, what the right time on the clock should be, and oh yeah has to find an example in a lot of cases where he can see the ball amidst a bunch of big men. In baseball it’d only usually involve one or two players and there’s no spot and no clock to account for. Most calls should take less than a minute. Easily. You can further restrain it by only giving managers one challenge, maybe two if their first is in their favor, and let an ump upstairs determine if a scoring play should be looked at. It can work.

By: samu0034

samu0034 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:55:39 +0000

Because the NFL has just as many cameras from just as many angles and it frequently takes them several minutes to decide close plays.

By: samu0034

samu0034 — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:40:09 +0000

Yeah, I made up a word. Deal with it. I liked the way “continuousness” sounded better than “continuity” at that point.

By: bleedgreen

bleedgreen — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:27:54 +0000

If we get 5 replays at home in the span of 1 minute after the play, from different angles, and the league can put big hits/defensive stops up on the MLB at bat app and on the website within 5-10 minutes, why do you think that having a guy who’s SOLE JOB is to watch replays of plays is going to take more than 30-45 seconds before radioing down to all 4 umps on the field? And at that, its only going to be maybe 2 plays a game. I don’t think the replay ump should have anything to do with balls and strikes, ONLY plays in the field.

Was the ball caught or trapped?
Was he tagged or not?
Was he safe or not?
Did he leave the base paths?
Was the ball fair or foul?
Was it a home run or not?

Those are probably the only calls an ump in the booth should be making, and all of those can be made VERY quickly, without having to even convene everyone. Ear piece connected to said replay ump in every other ump’s ear. Not tough at all, really.

By: juanquixote

juanquixote — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:00:57 +0000

Continuity