Skip to content

Expanded replay is not coming in 2013, but boy howdy, look out for 2014

Jan 17, 2013, 2:34 PM EST

Joyce blown call

I guess the post office has finally delivered those letters Bud Selig had been asking for, because Jayson Stark reports that there will likely be expanded replay in 2014.

There had been talk of expanding replay to some degree in 2013 — to fair/foul calls, mostly — but Stark reports that people in the game are taking a go-big-or-go-home approach and would prefer to implement something more comprehensive. That will take waiting a year as opposed to rushing something into place this year.  Which, OK, even though I wish we had replay yesterday, I agree is probably the best move. Let’s do this thing right if we’re going to do it.

The only unsettling part is that, according to Stark, there is still some debate about what sort of system to implement and that — brace yourselves — some version of a challenge system is still on the table. Stark refers to a plan in which managers may get, say, two challenges a game for close calls.

Which I absolutely hate.  Either commit to getting all or as many calls correct as possible or don’t. Don’t make some game out of it where — sorry, Cholly! — you just lost a big game because you foolishly wasted your challenges on clear umpire mistakes in the first couple of innings and now you’re stuck with a clear umpire mistake in the eighth!

As I’ve said umpteen times: Put an ump in a booth with the power to call down to his colleagues and overturn them. If you must, set up a mission control in MLB headquarters that is able to do functionally the same thing.  But dear God, do not turn getting the mistakes of umpires into some sort of carnival side show cum game of chance for managers.  They got enough to worry about already without making the umpires’ problems their own.

  1. nagrommit - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    The expanded replay in 2014 will be so expansive they’ll finally review the 2012 NL Wild Card Game infield fly.

    • cardinalcrazy - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

      Even if they reversed that call, I’m all but certain the Braves would have grounded into a double play and the Cardinals would have still won! Stop complaining!

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:20 PM

        I have no dog in that fight (check the name), but that call is worthy of continued gripes 3 months on.

        And uh…..don’t the Cards have a 27 year old grudge still going hot and heavy? Not that I blame you guys for that one either

    • foreverchipper10 - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM

      I have moved on. Even though my all-time favorite player’s career ended on my birthday.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

      And Armando Galarraga finally gets his 2010 perfect game?

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM

        I think a perfectly reasonable solution to that mess would have been for the ump’s union to petition Selig to overturn that ruling and give him his game & Selig to defer to their wishes. FYI, that would be the ONLY condition that I would be okay w/ the Commissioner overturning a ruling.

  2. historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    There is no way Joe West could be wrong even two times in one game. That’s crazy talk.

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM

      Joe West can be wrong twice on the same pitch :)

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM

        Slander!!!!

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM

        Did I mention I saw that pitch?

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

        Clearly, you didn’t. ;)

  3. ss - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM

    Hockey and Craig have it right – you put a guy in a booth and tell him it’s his job to make sure the correct call was made. They don’t even need to wear a striped shirt or a tie or pants, even. They call down to the field, correct blown calls, and the game moves on.

    But we should probably wait another year. Because sorting the logistics of a person with a television and a buzzer in each stadium will take at least 14 months to pin down.

    • darthicarus - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM

      The instant replay logistics is actually the next project for the Oakland A’s Blue Ribbon Committee.

    • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM

      That’s what’s so bogus about this: there’s a legit model for making this work. WTF is there to consider? Baseball’s about baseball players doing baseball things. Getting calls right isn’t part of the entertainment. What more camera’s do they need, anyways? Guy in the booth can review the call off of the game feed from cable. Almost every blown call I’ve ever seen is replayed multiple times by whatever network I’m watching. They invariably get it right in the broadcast booth so WTF is the matter with THAT feed? The tiny number of plays in which there isn’t some angle that confirms or overturns the call just means the ruling by the field umpire stands. The end.

      Dear Bud Selig: pursuant to my letter from last year, please get your wrinkled old head out of your wrinkled old ass. Thank you.

      Sincerely,

      A Fan

      • number42is1 - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM

        Dear Bud Selig: pursuant to my letter from last year, please get your wrinkled old head out of your wrinkled old ass. Thank you.

        Sincerely,

        jAy Fan

        Fixed

    • thebadguyswon - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:07 PM

      Eat a dong, Selig.

  4. 13arod - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM

    i like it that is why nfl is good too i like the two challange

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:24 PM

      Even the NFL is seeing the flaws in that system

      • kopy - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:47 PM

        Yup. That’s why touchdowns and turnovers are automatically reviewed now. Coaches can only challenge significant plays that don’t end in one of those two results. Of course, you can throw the flag anyway, like coaches are used to, but then it’s a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and the play cannot be reviewed. That is, unless they’ve already started the review, then they will finish the review fairly but still penalize the offending team.

        See why a challenge system sucks?

    • brianabbe - Jan 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM

      How about one challenge until the seventh inning, and if they win the challenge, they earn a second? All calls after the seventh are umpire reviews only, and change that part to after the sixth inning for the postseason.

  5. tc4306 - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    Pretty soon, the “get it right” lobby will have their way.

    We’ll end up with the same unwatchable mess that NFL football has become.
    If you don’t have money on an NFL game, it is unwatchable.
    Officials making the “reviewable” call rather than calling what they see.
    You have wait five minutes for replay confirmation after every apparent score before you cheer. Sort of takes the emotion out of it.

    I have not made it all the way through half an NFL game
    in over five years and it is entirely because I hate the replay.

    However, it is only a matter of time until it ruins baseball too.

    • alang3131982 - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM

      or it could be like hockey and have minimal interruptions — there i no reason MLB replay has to be like the NFL. only laziness.

    • xtracrispy79 - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM

      I actually agree that replay makes the NFL difficult to watch (hooray for Red Zone). But replay in the NFL takes such a long time because the on-field referee is involved. I feel like that decision was made to stroke the ego of the referees rather than for the good of the game.

      • alang3131982 - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM

        Also football rules are ridiculous and arcane, involving field position. So if you reverse a call, you have to go back and find where the ball was previously…it’s also impossible to spot a ball from one angle. It’s not hard to see fair/foul in baseball….

    • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

      The words these guys are leaving out are “False” & “equivalency”.

      The two sports are so unlike that there isn’t really any need to worry about football style drama. Anyone watching at home knows if the correct call is made within seconds. Every single network I’ve ever watched will have multiple camera angles showing the play. Its almost always pretty clear cut.

    • ireportyoudecide - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:12 PM

      If a computer called balls and strikes the game would actually speed up.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM

        Unless it was the Compu-Joe West E-5.

    • Ben - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:12 PM

      The NFL is an unwatchable mess because it’s football, not because of replay.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

      For the record, I am for the Can’t Get Right lobby.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 7:43 PM

        Really? Nobody? I’m that baby’s daddy, boss. Nobody? smh

  6. foreverchipper10 - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM

    A side show cum game you say? Didn’t realize we were getting set to embark on an NC-17 rated version of MLB.

  7. Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Jan 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    Selig finally got his letters, eh? I assumed we would be waiting for Kevin Costner to deliver them after the apocalypse.

  8. ireportyoudecide - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    Let’s get it right, computer calls 100% of balls and strikes. The strike zone is the strike zone. I’m not there to cheer for “human error”

  9. The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    Tennis is a perfect example of a terrible challenge system. They have the technology on every single shot to know whether it’s in or out. They HAVE the answer. They don’t need someone to go “under the hood” and look at it or anything, it’s already done. But unless the player challenges it, the sport for some insane reason prefers to have the incorrect call stand.

    This creates all kinds of strange gamesmanship where a player has to make decisions like “Is this call important enough to spend a challenge on?” when what you really want a player thinking is “How am I going to play this next point?”

    Finally, making calls is the domain of the umpires. That’s their job. Their entire purpose in attending a game is to determine out/safe, ball/strike, fair/foul, whatever. That is expressly NOT the job of a manager or player, and I think the simple fact that players and managers for years have been ejected from games for asserting that they’re better at it than the officials should be a pretty good indicator of that. Yet any challenge system is based on the premise that the manager can do a better job of making a call than the umpire. There are so many issues with that premise it’s simply best to find something more sound to build upon.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM

      Ok, but I enjoy the theater of the manager coming out of the dugout, and I hate to lose that — or have to explain to a later generation how managers used to come out to argue with umps (and we used to meet disembarking plane passengers from the gate — oh, wait, I already have to explain that one). And, this’ll probably make the game all proper so we have no more bench-clearings (but I do think the world is a better place with the Nolan-noogie). Ahem, I digress…

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM

        I don’t mind letting Lou Piniella be the last of the tantrum managers. Now go explain to your kids what a phone booth was, or how someone at the gas station used to ask, “Check under the hood for you?”

      • The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM

        Ask a Cardinals fan if they preferred the theater of Whitey Herzog arguing to the correct call being made and Jorge Orta being called out.

        Theater’s all well and good, but I think baseball’s got plenty of drama in the game itself. If I want to watch people argue, I can turn on TLC.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:47 PM

        Booo!

        /throws popcorn

        (FYI, I already freaked my nephew out with RECORDS!!!!!)

      • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:31 PM

        ‘philliac, you needn’t worry about temper tantrums disappearing. There’ll be fewer of them but so long as umps can toss players for real or imagined slights (Lookin’ at YOU Scott Barry!) and so long as there is still judgement calls for the strike zones, there will still be arguments involving managers & players vs umpires.

        I know what it is you’ll miss, though. Jim Leyland’s work in 2011 with a supporting cast of Ed Rapuano and John Farrell, was legendary. I think of it as the “Gosh! What did I do? Did I miss that call? Oh GOSH! I think I’ll just reverse it and screw over the Tigers because John Farrell yelled at me!” song-and-dance. And what a loss THAT kind of theatre will be, too. Leyland was at his best. His mimicry of Ed Rapuano will live on, next to Mike Morse’s mimic homemrun swing, as some of the best on-field theatre this side of Cowboy Joe West pretending to know what he’s doing.

        Right call was made though, including Rapuano sending Jim out for a smoke.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

        I love Jimmy Smokes. I know he doesn’t have the moves like Wash, but admit it: your world is better watching him lose it. What would we do next time Joe West tries to toss V from the dugout (!) if Leyland wasn’t there to pull the heat off? Watch Gene Lamont try to activate the motorcycle girl with his pink phone? Whatevs.

        In case you needed a little Jimmy hit: (Probably shouldn’t watch that at work)

      • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 8:35 PM

        Oh, hell yeah. Jim Leyland, right up in Bond’s grill, just like it ought to have been done. Did not know that piece of film existed. Well, Jim Leyland is indeed the Goddamn Manager. If more managers had been all up in Bond’s grill then maybe some of the shenanigans he got away with on The Giants might have been avoided. Tip O’ the Hat to Jimmy Smokes.

  10. Jason @ IIATMS - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM

    And the league that uses the fewest challenge flags has home field advantage in the World Series? In the WBC?

    blerg

  11. hisgirlgotburrelled - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

    The best we can hope for is an absolutely obscene call to happen this year.
    ‘You mean like the first baseman being 6 feet off the bag and the runner being called out on a force?’
    Yes, exactly. The seed has been planted. Now we need one more super dumb call to fast-track new replay rules.

  12. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

    The only problem with NOT having a challenge system could managers like a Tony LaRussa Bellechick abusing the system for some perceived advantage. Like trying to mess with the opposition’s late game reliever’s rhythm by contesting every moderately close call and demanding some sort of review. The umps will then either have to allow his tomfoolery or risk being criticized for not following up on the call.

  13. tc4306 - Jan 17, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    Take the situation of a runner on first and a ball hit down the line.
    Umpire calls “Foul” and the play is dead.
    Or, he signals fair and the play continues.
    Runner scores or not; batter usually gets single or double.

    In a replay system, if the ump calls “Foul” but the replay shows “Fair”
    there is no way to fix it. You don’t know whether or not the runner would
    have scored and there is no way to know where the batter would have stopped.

    Over time, umpires will start to signal “Fair” on all of those marginal calls.
    It is the call that can be reversed…maybe not the right one; but the “safe” one.

    Sometimes, camera angles down the line and towards the corner are not very good.
    Now, you’re going to get into “not enough evidence to overturn”
    You might end up with as many mistakes that way as the current way.
    Not to mention the time it takes to do this.

    Plus, over time, the umpires will become less decisive and more dependent
    on the camera. IMHO that is not a good thing.

    I know that resisting the onslaught of technology is akin to spitting into the wind.

    However, for me, talking about the umpire’s call is as much part of the fun
    as discussing the manager’s strategy, or the importance of any given play.

    We might keep the gamblers happy, but we just lose something when we
    take the human element out of the game and allow ourselves to be ruled
    by computers and televisions.

    • alang3131982 - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:03 PM

      anything that hastens the majority of calls being taken away from humans and given to computers is fine with me. There will be flaws with any system. There are more flaws with humans…

    • alang3131982 - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM

      anything that hastens the majority of calls being taken away from humans and given to computers is fine with me. There will be flaws with any system. There are more flaws with humans…the goal should be getting as close to the correct call as often as possible…that isnt what we have now

      • historiophiliac - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        The double post is the best part of that! lol

    • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:15 PM

      That one scenario and the few others like it ALREADY exist in the game. Its a rare enough event that it comes up but a few times in the season, and the “fair” ruling on the field, and this then being overturned on replay, is the right solution. Takes but a few seconds and the game goes on. Letting it stand as a fair call is the problem. It victimizes the fielding team needlessly.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        The key is that we shouldn’t let one obscure situation (trap calls, or the fair/foul situation) prevent us from fixing all the other issues. I really don’t want to bring this up, but it’s akin to the deficit argument. Some are trying to make incremental changes to lower the deficit, some want to make large changes to fix the deficit, and some think that if the changes don’t completely eliminate the deficit it’s not worth doing. Far too many in the no-replay camp fall into that third party.

        Think of the last 10 or so egregious errors that have been made on the baseball diamond. Only one I can think of was the fair/foul call in the playoffs between the Yankees and Twins. How many Twins fans would say, no I don’t want the extra 3-4 min to sort out where people should go, keep the [wrong] call in play that could have changed the entire dynamic of the series.

      • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:01 PM

        Its amazing how easy it is to get sidetracked by “what if” bizarre error happens when BY FAR the common errors would be fixed by a few changes and result in a net gain. The “don’t fix anything if you can’t fix everything” logic is so self-defeating and pervasive that I often wonder how humanity got anywhere in the first place.

    • Kevin S. - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:14 PM

      Actually, it’s quite easy to fix a fair ball that’s called foul. Treat it like a ground-rule double.

  14. El Bravo - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    “…you just lost a big game because you foolishly wasted your challenges on clear umpire mistakes in the first couple of innings and now you’re stuck with a clear umpire mistake in the eighth!”

    Not to pick nits, but that’s not how it works in the NFL. If you challenge a blown call and win, you can challenge an infinite amount of times and are not charged a time out. It is only if you challenge twice and fail twice that you not only lose two time outs, but you lose the ability to challenge for the remainder of the game. It is supposed to prevent needless or borderline challenges of calls, but of course, its a burdensome process as you say and it certainly doesn’t translate to the MLB. Even if it did, the hockey/Calcaterra method makes waaaay more sense.

    • albertmn - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

      Whoa! You couldn’t be more wrong. In the NFL, they only get TWO challenges, and only get a THIRD if both of the first two were correct challenges that resulted in reversals.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:44 PM

        Correct, and after the third you are screwed either way. Also, you can only challenge if you have a time out remaining.

      • El Bravo - Jan 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        Okay, you’re right, it is three max no matter what (not infinite if you get them right each time). Still, how’s the rest of what I said incorrect? I could be way more wrong, could I not?? haha

  15. pappageorgio - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM

    Flaws in any system. Baseball cannot afford any measure that significantly slows down the game…..the #1 critique of non-baseball people is that “the game is too slow”.

    For this reason I think you can’t go to a full-time booth review person who reviews every play and can over rule his on the field counterparts. I think the old college football system shows the problems with this……too often a guy like that just wants to get in the game and is looking a bit too hard. Also, I think that it promotes what is going on with the NFL right now, refs are making the call that can be reviewed rather than the one that can’t be corrected. This takes excitement out of the game.

    Unlimited challenges by a manager is not good, because that would be abused. Getting relivers ready (or extra ready) and slowing down the rhythm of relief guys, managers will do anything for a strategic advantage. Only two challenges per game does present it’s problems if you get stuck with a crap ump. A system that could potentially leave a bad call to stand in the part of the game where it’s most important that it gets done right (the end of a game)…that’s no good either.

    I propose that managers get unlimited challenges as long as they get it right. Only give the managers 2 incorrect challenges per game. This would place a high standard on getting it right. Managers won’t want to be left without challenges at the end and therefore wouldn’t want to challenge unless it’s really a bad call. Refs continue to make the best possible calls in the field, because nobody wants to be known as the ump who had 10 calls overturned in one game. This still leaves the possibility of managerial mis-use in the late innings….but as everyone has said, every system has it’s flaws.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 17, 2013 at 4:54 PM

      Baseball cannot afford any measure that significantly slows down the game…..the #1 critique of non-baseball people is that “the game is too slow”.

      Except many of these people tend to be die hard football fans and are complete hypocrites. How can you watch a sport that goes:

      Coin toss
      *commercial*
      Kick off
      *commercial*
      Run 3 plays (esp if you are the Jets, it’s almost always a 3 and out)
      Punt
      *commercial*
      Other team scores a touchdown
      *commercial*
      Kick off
      *commercial*

      And say that baseball is boring! In fact, during one of the playoff games, it went:

      2min warning
      *commercial*
      Run a couple of plays, 1 min left, timeout
      *commercial*
      Timeout again with 0:13 left
      *commercial*
      13 sec run off, half time
      *commercial*

      • grizz2202 - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM

        C’mon man. C’monnnnnnnnnn. You ever watch Skip Schumaker bat?

        Look at pitcher
        *adjust batting glove*
        Look at dugout
        *adjust batting glove*
        Look at girlfriend
        *adjust cup*
        Look at scoreboard
        *adjust batting glove*
        Foul ball
        *step out of batters box, adjust batting glove*

        Rinse, repeat. Whats’ the damn difference??

      • cur68 - Jan 17, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        What’s the difference? I dunno, maybe its that not every player is Skip Schumaker? Whereas COPO pretty much just described every NFL I’ve tried to watch in the last 2 years.

        So yeah, one or two guys are human rain delays, certainly. It varies a lot though. If you watch BeaverMen games, you’ll see a lot of guys step in, take their stance, and get ready to hack. I can’t think of anyone on that team who dicks around like Skip Schumaker. Same with pitchers. There’s guy’s who take ages about it. You’d think they were composing the Magna Carta up there. However for each of them there’s two or more guys who get a sign, come set, and let her rip. There are unenforced rules about this dicking around. If the umpires actually enforced them, things would speed up (and Skip would confine his dicking around to his girlfriend one presumes). Nothing slows a game down more though than a protracted argument and an umpire huddle followed by more arguments. A booth ump would sort that out pronto.

  16. albertmn - Jan 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    How is it, that with the NHL trying to kill their league, they are the only ones to get replays right? The NFL system is stupid. You already have a guy in the booth, and yet the on field ref needs to run over to a machine and look under the hood? Are they too sensitive to having their calls overturned, that no one but themselves can overturn it? With baseball starting essentially from scratch, get it right.

  17. bh192012 - Jan 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM

    Another possible way is to have a guy upstairs to get the video ready quickly, then if the on field umpires want a “man in the sky” ruling they can ask for it. Managers will continue to storm out of the dugout and argue and sometimes get thrown out if the ups feel like they’re getting abused or trying to abuse the system. Some calls will get overturned some will not. Personally only the really obvious calls should get overturned. Also, for now anyways, leave out balls and strikes calls. This will leave much of the “feel” of the sport while also fixing the glaring errors.

    • dubeedubeedu - Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM

      If it is only the feel you want with balls and strikes just have the plate ump receive a signal from the computer on strikes and balls that only he can hear. He still makes the call but only if he hears the beep for a strike or buzz for a ball.

  18. joerymi - Jan 17, 2013 at 11:37 PM

    That picture does nothing but remind me of the time I nearly threw a flat screen down some stairs.

    But seriously, end managers yelling at umps, institute replay. You will get more calls correct and the game will actually go quicker. We get it, scream at umps is “tradition,” but it is past its time.

  19. niner707empire - Jan 18, 2013 at 3:49 AM

    .

  20. moogro - Jan 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM

    Watching bad calls by umpires and manager tantrums. Yea, I’ll miss that. I also thought I’d miss bars that allowed smoking because they had more “character.”

    That lasted about two months.

    Anyone who really imagines it, really thinks it through, will conclude that at-bats will be WAY more exciting with a pitch-tracker calling balls and strikes. You really have to pitch, and you really have to defend that plate as a batter. It’ll be nuts. And no more will the batter be able to deflect the man-against-man intensity of the at-bat by shooting the hairy eyeball at the umpire on a called third strike- he’ll have to look back at pitcher who stands there being awesome. Think about it. Watching the outcome of an at-bat based on merit. Not pitch-framing, the terrible positions that umpires often take to watch pitches, the general laziness or any of the other silly random distracting theatre unrelated to competition that happens around home plate. Think about it.

    This issue, like most, is all visual: The breakthrough we all need is someone posting a video of a game called by a computer for us to get used to. When those videos start proliferating and become commonplace, everyone will demand it. Please can someone start this?

  21. anxovies - Jan 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM

    Forget it. The reason that I have lost interest in pro football is the interminable delays caused by challenges from the coaches and the booth. Also the absurdity of having batters and pitchers dawdle waiting for a call from the booth or the manager to wake up and throw a flag, and corresponding sprints to the batter’s box or the pitcher’s mound, would tend to put me off.

  22. leftywildcat - Jan 18, 2013 at 8:43 PM

    I think it’s tough to find fault with Craig’s idea noted above; let the guys on the field make the call and the guy in the booth buzz them if it’s the wrong call. No need at all for the initial ump to have to agree to request the appeal.

    Better yet, let the additional ump in the booth buzz a different signal to them if he needs to say “wait a minute, I need time to review all the angles.”

    Isn’t the official scorer (hit vs. error guy) already in the booth seeing all the footage? And, aren’t many of managers’ challenges based on someone in the clubhouse already seeing the various angles on TV and informing the dugout?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Ramirez (4422)
  2. P. Sandoval (4252)
  3. Y. Tomas (3725)
  4. J. Lester (3096)
  5. C. Headley (2910)
  1. Y. Cespedes (2398)
  2. M. Kemp (1934)
  3. C. Hamels (1757)
  4. M. Scherzer (1660)
  5. C. Davis (1567)