Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was preposterous to have a situation where the least well informed people were the ones charged with making the calls.
Junk the new replay rules and we are back to that situation, one where the people least qualified to make the decisions are making the decisions.
The problem is that same scenario is still true even with this new system. What they've done is added a bad ingredient to a bad dish. A manager may now lose his ability to challenge an important play that everyone at home can see with their own eyes is the wrong call, and I'm not so sure I see the benefit of slowing down a game many already believe is too slow simply to try institute what the NFL has done.
I get that the challenge system adds another tactical layer to the game, but at best that should be distantly secondary to making sure critical calls are made correctly. If we compromise that greater goal simply for the sake of adding another twig to the manager's decision tree, we're not accomplishing your thesis.
If nothing else, the review process can be taken entirely out of the clubhouse's hands and placed upon the shoulders of a referee/official whose sole job is to oversee the quick review of all scoring plays regardless if the manager in question has any lucky-best challenges left.
In the bottom of the 7th in LA today, Hanley Ramirez attempted a steal of second and was ruled safe. Giants manager Bruce Bochy challenged the play and long before the umps started their call, the telecast had provided viewers with a no doubt angle showing that Ramirez was tagged before he reached the base.
While the umps were talking with NY, Ramirez departed, trotted into the Dodger dugout and got himself some water...and just stayed there waiting for the decision. I guess he knew that he was out and thought "Why stand in the sun for no reason?"
Bochy and Ramirez were validated by NY, he was ruled out.
I watched the game and according to the announcers, the replay review wasn't to determine if the tag beat the runner, but whether or not the plate had been blocked improperly according to the new rules.
It all could have been avoided, the inning could have ended with Punto striking out on that fantastic curve that was so clearly a strike, but Elias and Zunio screwed it up by showboating, heading for the dugout before the umpire made his ruling. That apparently pissed off the ump and he called a punitive ball to send them a message about waiting. What other explanation can there be? It was not some borderline pitch which could have gone either way, it dropped right across the center of the plate.
Oddly, apart from that one uncommonly tiny interpretation of the strike zone, the ump maintained a rather large strike zone all night, especially on low pitches, If it was above the ankles, it was a strike.
What does it matter what the replay was about? The ump is standing over the play; made a correct call. It would be a stretch to even call it a close play. Yet...we get the replay comedy of errors. For me it's the definition of arbitrary review and wasted time.
I understand that there are plays out there that are being corrected with this process. I just personally don't believe the gain will ever compare favorably to what has been lost...what is being lost.
You stated that it was clear that the umpire made the correct call. That the tag beat the runner was not clear until the slow motion replay confirmed it. The original angle shown live was from the rear and the catcher's back blocked our view of the tag, so it could not possibly have been clear to you at that point.
What apparently was not clear to the umpires was whether or not the catcher was violating the new rules about blocking the plate, they wanted to confirm things, they called for the replay delay, not the manager. The technical difficulties with the headset extended matters, but hopefully that is an exception, not the rule.
Besides, I'm an A's fan, I didn't mind waiting around if it meant that the call might get reversed.
I love correct calls, hate incorrect calls, and don't give two flips about how long it takes to get them right. Pitchers can take 30 seconds between being set and throwing the dang ball and batters can back out as often as they want. Neither of those things makes the game more fair. Replays and stalling for replays only makes the game more fair.
Someone needs to add up all of time that was spent arguing over close plays last year and compare it to how much time is spent reviewing and stalling this year. I say the two will be pretty close but who cares if the latter takes more time? It will be the only method of the two that doesn't involve getting thousands of calls wrong per year. Yes, thousands.
If you think unfair calls should remain in the game, just wait for a neighborhood play at 2B. Or for that matter, a ball/strike call against a player who dared to glare at the home plate ump on a previous pitch. For some reason, those two gigantic flaws in the game will be grandfathered into the "rules" forever.
. For some reason, those two gigantic flaws in the game will be grandfathered into the "rules" forever.
The reason that the phantom double play will not be subject to review is the same reason that it came into being in the first place....injury prevention. If the tradition of fudging the rules to allow the "vicinity play" had not come into being, then middle infielders would be required to hang around the bag longer, and collisions with baserunners would be more frequent. An unwritten custom sprang up which held that it was better to avoid injuries then demand precision calls on that particular play. In a sense, the new rules codify the tradition by not covering it.
A replay error today in the Oakland - Seattle game I attended, and I supported the wrong call that went against Oakland (my team).
I'll explain:
Sam Fuld gets aboard with a "sun single" that dropped between multiple infielders that couldn't see the ball. Fuld rounds first too far and has to go diving back to beat a really nice throw by Ackley. The throw is right on target and the first base umpire calls Fuld out on a close play.
Upon further review, it was OBVIOUS that in fact, Fuld's hand got back to the base before the tag was applied. He was safe.
In my seat right behind first base, I'm thinking to myself as I have time to ponder during this delay, "Okay, I see that Fuld is safe. But you know what? He made a poor decision to round first and the throw was fantastic. In my mind, on a bang-bang play, just like always, he's out. That's how we would all call it. No sport can get every call right, but philosophically, he should be called out. That's final."
To everyone's surprise (mine only mild based on the above), they actually maintain the wrong call and despite the overwhelming evidence on hand, the umpires in New York state that the original call was correct and that Fuld is out.
Cue the boo birds, and for good reason.
There are a lot of reasons I don't like replay; simply confirming what we want to be true about a play using replay and all of our valuable time isn't what I wanted this to be. If we're instituting replay, then we can't think philosophically about the play the same way we always did. And if we're going to change, then umpires need to be okay overruling other umpires and thus, Sam Fuld is safe.
"Okay, I see that Fuld is safe. But you know what? He made a poor decision to round first and the throw was fantastic. In my mind, on a bang-bang play, just like always, he's out. That's how we would all call it. .
Yipes...you want a regulatory system which incorporates moral judgments on the player in determining the outcome of the plays?
"Hmm, that pitch was right down the middle, but the pitcher looks hungover, I bet he was out drinking last night instead of resting for his start. I'm calling a punitive ball."
Yipes...you want a regulatory system which incorporates moral judgments on the player in determining the outcome of the plays?
"Hmm, that pitch was right down the middle, but the pitcher looks hungover, I bet he was out drinking last night instead of resting for his start. I'm calling a punitive ball."
I'm glad you didn't go to some off-the-wall, extreme example or anything.
In a bang-bang situation, part of the predictable beauty of baseball is that we all know, for the most part, what the call is going to be, and in most cases, we're content with that outcome.
Let's go with more realistic examples:
A batter smacks a double off the wall in right field. Vladdy Guerrero bare-hands it on one hop as the runner hits the bag at second and rounds for third. From nearly the warning track, Vlad rears back and fires a rope which ends up in the glove of the third basemen who swipes at the runner sliding into third. Bang bang. In live television, it's impossible to say for sure if he was safe or if he's out. The call? He's out. And you never minded before. You don't even realize that you're in the same boat as me and are okay with the occasional philosophical, romantic, or emotional call on bang-bang plays, but you are.
What's worse is that those calls are still being made on the field - because that's baseball - but now when each one is under scrutiny, the umpires judging the play from time zones away do not have the fortitude, let's say, to overturn a call made by someone of their ilk.
You're most concerned about fans at home knowing a call was blown in live time without replay. What's worse is a broken system in which fans at home know a call was blown finally by people watching the exact same replay they did and still turning in a wrong conclusion. That's far worse and we'll never get those 3-7 minutes of our lives back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
