If Woody Paige argued that it was a bad idea to keep dead hookers in the trunk of your car, I think I would reconsider my position on that and start searching craigslist.

MARIOTTI ASKED ROB NEYER, 'HAS WOODY PAIGE A BUDDHA-NATURE OR NOT?'

ROB NEYER ANSWERED: 'MU.'

If Woody Paige argued that it was a bad idea to keep dead hookers in the trunk of your car, I think I would reconsider my position on that and start searching craigslist.

I was complaining about Joey Crawford reffing last night's San Antonio game when he clearly has a bias against Tim Duncan then, when I heard Paige mention that this morning, stopped talking about it.

Not really baseball, but I'm with Cooperstown: I just can't be on the same side of the table with that guy.

"Replay in baseball would be instant hit"

People who suggest replay in baseball should be instantly hit. Over and over, until they stop coughing blood on the ground and gratefully expire.

Of course, what else can you expect from someone who evidently thinks that the DH, "This time, it counts!", and deep-fried bull testicles are all great ideas?

Just realized that I confused Woody Paige and Skip Bayliss. I really see no difference between the two, but still; my bad.

I am for instant replay (under my perfect system). Rick Morrissey is against it. Woody Paige is for it. This is quite a conundrum for me. I've really got no place to go...

When Bill Mazeroski hit a walk-off homer (before there was the term “walk-off homer") to win the 1960 World Series, instant replay wasn’t needed. The ball sailed well over the ivy-covered left-field wall of Forbes Field. I looked at the film Tuesday. There were no bleachers with fans hanging their hands and gloves over the fence, and there was no confusing yellow line

I think Woody found the problem, but is too stupid to notice.

Oompa Loompas viewing UmpiReplays? Oh, where have you gone, Joe Charboneau?

enough. The way to solve this replay situation is to switch to 3 umpires on the field and one in the press box. The ump in the box has discretion to over turn any non ball/strike call prior to the next pitch being thrown.

...there was no confusing yellow line,...

In this area, I share Woody's sentiment. There never used to be so many judgments that umps had to make; it was pretty clearly a HR or not. It seems to me that the 70's era multipurpose stadiums started featuring all osrts of funky boundaries for umpires to deal with. I know that some of these are unavoidable, but minimizing the yellow lines on continuous surfaces would help.

That said, I have to say that I grew up before instant replay was even available to viewers at home, so bad calls weren't subject to immediate slo-mo replay on TV and any resulting outrage.

People who suggest replay in baseball should be instantly hit.

Instant replay in some form or another is coming. You can't stop it. After every bad call there are more and more articles on it. People are against it until a bad call screws their team, and then they say "I was opposed, but now I realize...". Eventually every team will have that moment.

I'm not even saying it's a good thing, but it's unavoidable. The only thing we can hope is that it's implemented intelligently. Which is probably too much to ask.

I think Woody found the problem, but is too stupid to notice.

Completely agree.

I'm not even saying it's a good thing, but it's unavoidable. The only thing we can hope is that it's implemented intelligently. Which is probably too much to ask.

Also completely agree. The proof is that it has become common sense to say that replay works in the NFL when in fact it is a horrible mess that ruins the game. If the unmitigated disaster that is replay in the NFL is seen as a reason that baseball should have replay then there is no stopping this catastrophe.

I think Woody found the problem, but is too stupid to notice.

Yes, and short of redesigning stadium fences for clarity and then pushing all the nearest seats back 10 feet -- 2 things we'll never see -- replay (under certain circumstances) is the obvious solution. I haven't seen a single really good argument against it, and I continue to be surprised by the vehemence with which BTF posters are coming out against the idea.

EDIT: I haven't seen a really good theoretical argument against it. The argument that MLB will implement replay in an incredibly stupid way is granted.

The proof is that it has become common sense to say that replay works in the NFL when in fact it is a horrible mess that ruins the game. If the unmitigated disaster that is replay in the NFL is seen as a reason that baseball should have replay then there is no stopping this catastrophe.

I agree with the first part; I don't think the challenge system in the NFL makes it a better game.

Pros
-Some incorrect calls are overturned

Cons
-Some incorrect calls are NOT overturned due to poor judgment on the referee's part or poor quality of replays.
-Some correct calls ARE overturned. It's rare, but when it happens, it's infuriating.
-It adds long, boring delays during crucial moments in the game.
-Coaches challenge virtually every game-changing play, even if they have no chance to be overturned.

However, I don't think that a well-constructed replay system in MLB would suffer from these same issues. I'd like a system that is restricted to HR boundary calls, and is reviewed by an umpire in the booth automatically (no challenges).

Managers won't have the right to challenge, and it's usually immediately obvious from the television replays what the correct call is. I think it improves the game, just like the DH did, so I'll embrace it.

However, I don't think that a well-constructed replay system in MLB would suffer from these same issues. I'd like a system that is restricted to HR boundary calls, and is reviewed by an umpire in the booth automatically (no challenges).

Yes. Only HR calls and the overturn has to come within a minute. Otherwise, just forget it. The one good thing about replay we can all agree on will be the awkward, anti-climactic home run trots we'll get to see when a foul ball has been ruled a HR.

Yes.

I'd live with instant replay as long as it was NOT a challenge system. They're complaining about the game being too slow as it is.

I'd like a system that is restricted to HR boundary calls, and is reviewed by an umpire in the booth automatically (no challenges).

I don't understand this at all. Why just home runs? typically, only a few of those calls are blown a year. If you have an ump in the booth he should be looking at everything, as long as it is done with no delay in the game.

"Instant replay in some form or another is coming. You can't stop it."

Maybe not, but I can sure as hell go down with both guns blazing.

How much would it delay the game as opposed to manager aruments/ejections/tantrums and umpire conferences?

How much would it delay the game as opposed to manager aruments/ejections/tantrums and umpire conferences?

I keep hearing this, but it's really easy to prevent manager arguments if the goal is to prevent them (much easier than instituting replay).

I just look at how it's instituted in the NFL (ie., horribly) and just know that it'll be terrible in MLB, too.

I don't understand this at all. Why just home runs? typically, only a few of those calls are blown a year. If you have an ump in the booth he should be looking at everything, as long as it is done with no delay in the game.

On HR boundary calls, umpires are forced to make the call from hundreds of feet away, while it's usually obvious from the replay what the correct call should be.

Many judgment calls aren't obvious even in slo-mo, and allowing every call to be reviewed has too much downside potential, IMO. A replay system with too many type I/type II errors is worse than no replay system at all.

There were two tag plays in last night's Orioles-Yankees game (Jeter pickoff and Millar out at home), that I'm STILL not sure what the correct call should be, even after seeing slo-mo replays from multiple angles.

In both cases, the umpire was standing a few feet away, and he made a call on a very close play. I'm willing to accept his judgment rather than having another faulty human being take a look at it.

Pros
-Some incorrect calls are overturned

Cons
-Some incorrect calls are NOT overturned due to poor judgment on the referee's part or poor quality of replays.
-Some correct calls ARE overturned. It's rare, but when it happens, it's infuriating.
-It adds long, boring delays during crucial moments in the game.

I find it interesting that you, viewing whatever replays the network chooses to show you on your home TV screen, are confident that you've made a better decision on it than the refs, who may well be looking at different angles/speeds than you. While of course in every human endeavor some errors are inevitable, viewing from our perspective we really can't say with much certainty which ones of these they don't get right.

-Coaches challenge virtually every game-changing play, even if they have no chance to be overturned.

I agree with this; it's a definite flaw in the current NFL system.

However, I don't think that a well-constructed replay system in MLB would suffer from these same issues. I'd like a system that is restricted to HR boundary calls, and is reviewed by an umpire in the booth automatically (no challenges).

Managers won't have the right to challenge, and it's usually immediately obvious from the television replays what the correct call is. I think it improves the game

I'd say fair/foul calls, not just HRs, are pretty obvious candidates. And there could be some tag plays for which it would be sensible.

just like the DH did

No comment.

How much would it delay the game as opposed to manager aruments/ejections/tantrums and umpire conferences?

Does anyone really complain about manager arguments/ejections/tantrums? They seem to be welcomed whether it's the home or visiting skipper doing the arguing.

And while I would just as soon see no replay system, it could certainly be instituted less horrendously than the dreadful NFL system. Why does no one ask why the official has to trot over and duck his head under a hooded TV screen when the guy in the booth, already an NFL official, can just as easily make the damn call?

Does anyone really complain about manager arguments/ejections/tantrums?

I find them silly, but the delay isn't all that unbearable. And the NFL replay delays I actually find kind of interestingly tense: we're all waiting to hear the verdict, unlike a baseball argument, where the chance of the call being changed is somewhere south of nil.

The trouble with replay is that the game goes on after the point at which it's called. The only way this works is every ball that is close is ruled to NOT be a HR or, in the case of fair/foul, to be fair. If replay then says it was a HR, you let the guy round the bases (or just put the runs up) or if replay shows it to have been foul, reset the game with one additional strike.

Pretty much everything else can't easily be reversed. Maybe a game ending tag play at the plate, but I don't think it would be fair to reverse that and not other tag plays and pretty soon you're drowning in replay.

I find it interesting that you, viewing whatever replays the network chooses to show you on your home TV screen, are confident that you've made a better decision on it than the refs, who may well be looking at different angles/speeds than you. Well of course in every human endeavor some errors are inevitable, viewing from our perspective we really can't say with much certainty which ones of these they don't get right.

I am 100% confident that I could make a better decision that the refs. The refs make the wrong decision on instant replay almost every game. A monkey flipping a coin would be just as accurate as the NFL replay system.

It would be much easier and would cause much less controversy to engage in minor fence redesign to make the calls easier. If it leaves the park it is a homerun. If it doesn't, it isn't. There is nothing complicated about this. If Arizona wants to have a massive wall in centerfield then that is fine, there will be a lot of doubles and triples hit to CF but no homeruns. That sounds like a positive to me. If a fan catches the ball then that's a homerun just like when a fan catches a foul ball then that's a foul ball. I don't see the problem.

The problem with using it for all fair/foul calls is that often there's a questionable ground ball with men on base. If the determination that's immediately made can be overturned, what's to be done about the runners? I suppose they could just act as if the ball is fair, then if it's ruled fair, the play's outcome stands, and if it's ruled foul, everybody goes back.

So I guess it's not really a problem after all.

How much would it delay the game as opposed to manager aruments/ejections/tantrums and umpire conferences?


Does anyone really complain about manager arguments/ejections/tantrums? They seem to be welcomed whether it's the home or visiting skipper doing the arguing.

I didn't say I didn't like them, just that they delay the game. An umpire in the booth would be a reasonable solution, with the power to overturn plays before the next pitch. The arguing manager would give the guy time to look, sort of like an unofficial challenge system.

I am 100% confident that I could make a better decision that the refs. The refs make the wrong decision on instant replay almost every game. A monkey flipping a coin would be just as accurate as the NFL replay system.

Uh-huh.

So I guess it's not really a problem after all.

Except that soon every close call will be ruled fair or not a HR. Then we have a play unfold, then a review to see if it stands and, when it doesn't, we reset or have a different play. It certainly won't speed the game up.

I agree, build your wall and then a HR is a ball that ends up in the seats. Let the fans reach over, too, if you like. If they reach over and catch it, it's a HR. A bit of home field advantage.

Except that soon every close call will be ruled fair or not a HR.

I find this recurrent "slippery slope" certainty of the con-replay argument amusing. Of course replay could be managed badly, but it could also be employed in limited, specific circumstances, and managed well.

I find it interesting that you, viewing whatever replays the network chooses to show you on your home TV screen, are confident that you've made a better decision on it than the refs, who may well be looking at different angles/speeds than you. While of course in every human endeavor some errors are inevitable, viewing from our perspective we really can't say with much certainty which ones of these they don't get right.

Putting aside the question of whether I'm a smartass while sitting on my couch, the NFL has admittted that the replay referee made the incorrect call on at least one occasion.

By the NFL officiating director's own admission, the replay referee was wrong on 6 or 7 of 311 challenges in the 2006 season. I'm guessing the error rates are higher than that, but they are definitely non-zero.

By the NFL officiating director's own admission, the replay referee was wrong on 6 or 7 of 311 challenges in the 2006 season.

Let's see ... 6.5 divided by 311 ... they're wrong 2.1% of the time.

Or to put it another way, right 97.9% of the time.

they're wrong 2.1% of the time.

Which means we can say with certainty that the replay officials get some calls wrong, which was my original point.

Which means we can say with certainty that the replay officials get some calls wrong, which was my original point.

And which I, since I wrote "While of course in every human endeavor some errors are inevitable," obviously agree with.

The issue is that it isn't obvious from the home-viewer's angle which ones those are. And it is obvious that the vast majority, whether 97.9% or not, are called correctly.

I don't understand this at all. Why just home runs? typically, only a few of those calls are blown a year. If you have an ump in the booth he should be looking at everything, as long as it is done with no delay in the game.

Play continuity. Although, as mentioned above, there can be some problems with play continuity on HR or Fair/foul calls, it gets much worse withother plays:

Man on first, one out, hit and run called. Batter hits a sinking liner to deep right center which the RF makes a diving catch attempt, comes up with the ball, but it's not entirely clear if it a catch or a trap. Suppose it's called a catch and the runner is doubled off first, but then overruled to be a trap? Where do you place the runner? Suppose it's initially ruled a trap and the runner gets to third, but then it is overruled and called a catch? Do you assume the DP? What if the fielder, knowing he caught it, fires to first, even though it was called a trap? Can you assume the DP then? Or can the batting team argue that the runner was watching the ump and continued on to third based on his call, but would have made it back to first had there been a different call?

Runner on third, two outs. Batter hits a slow grounder to the third baseman, who fires to first. Runner takes off for home on the throw. The throw pulls the firstbaseman off the bag, but he makes a sweep tag of the batter who is ruled out, and thus no throw home required. Replay later rules that the firstbaseman missed the tag. Does the runner from third get to score, even though he likely would have been dead meat had the batter been initially called safe and the firstbaseman then fired home?

There could be a standard rule that if a play is overturned, the runners are frozen at the bases they occupied at the beginning of the play, unless the play's result forces them ahead one base. If the play isn't overturned, whatever was the result stands.

"On HR boundary calls, umpires are forced to make the call from hundreds of feet away"

The obvious solution, then, would be to add another umpire who's in position to see the foul poles.

"Let's see ... 6.5 divided by 311 ... they're wrong 2.1% of the time.

Or to put it another way, right 97.9% of the time."

No, they ADMIT to being wrong 2.1% of the time. 2.1% is a lower boundary on a range of potential estimates, not an exact figure.

No, they ADMIT to being wrong 2.1% of the time. 2.1% is a lower boundary on a range of potential estimates, not an exact figure.

Well, yes, of course. But in reality the proportion of correct calls, while no one can possibly know for certain what it is (since we're all humans here), is undoubtedly somewhere north of 90-95%.

And it is obvious that the vast majority, whether 97.9% or not, are called correctly.

I doubt it's anywhere near 98%, and it's important to remember that the vast majority of plays that end up being reviewed were called correctly on the field.

Overall, 70% of challenges are upheld. Some of those were probably upheld in error, but I think that's indicative of the referees doing a very good job calling the game in real time.

I'd guess that replay referees have a slightly better success rate than the real-time referees, but when you consider that most plays in football are either not challenged or not reviewable (PI/holding penalties), the number of plays that replay referees have influence over is just a drop in the bucket.

I don't think it's worth the hassle.

There could be a standard rule that if a play is overturned, the runners are frozen at the bases they occupied at the beginning of the play, unless the play's result forces them ahead one base. If the play isn't overturned, whatever was the result stands.

Except in the case of deep flyballs with less than 2 outs and runners tagging up? And other situations which don't come to mind offhand.

And at the time of the reviewed play would be better.

Runners at first and second, two outs. Batter singles to CF. Runner from second called out on a close play. At the time of the tag, the other runners are halfway to third and second respectively. The play is reviewed and overturned. What base are the other runners placed?

Cons
-Some incorrect calls are NOT overturned due to poor judgment on the referee's part or poor quality of replays.
-Some correct calls ARE overturned. It's rare, but when it happens, it's infuriating.
-It adds long, boring delays during crucial moments in the game.

And: unpleasant effect of official looking furtively into peep-show device

I doubt it's anywhere near 98%

Obviously neither of us knows, but there is no evidence that it isn't somewhere near 98%.

I'd guess that replay referees have a slightly better success rate than the real-time referees

Viewing a play multiple times, in slow motion and/or freeze frame, from multiple angles, rather than one-time real-time one-angle, yeah, I'd guess so too.

What base are the other runners placed?

Reasonable rules could be devised to cover all such contingencies, just as reasonable rules are currently in place to cover balls bouncing into the stands, fan interference, etc. This is hardly a show-stopper.

"the proportion of correct calls...is undoubtedly somewhere north of 90-95%."

I don't agree with this, and since you admit in the very same post that the answer is inherently unknowable, I'm not sure why you think it's impossible for someone to doubt it.

I saw a game where the referees blew THE COIN TOSS, so my threshold for belief on their potential incompetence is pretty high.

The only way to do it right is to really limit it, and stick to that.

So you limit it to home run calls. The problems with applying it ground ball fair-foul, tags and traps in less than 2-out situations are obvious, and have been outlined above.

But if it is that limited, it raises cost-benefit issues about the utility of it.

If it means paying for a 5th umpire for every game, the owners are going to balk. Yes, I know it is a very, very small cost in the grand scheme of things. Do you think that will make a difference to the guys who squeeze a quarter until the eagle screams?

I don't agree with this, and since you admit in the very same post that the answer is inherently unknowable, I'm not sure why you think it's impossible for someone to doubt it.

Obviously you're free to doubt it, but there is a difference between the inherent unknowability of a precise figure and the reasonable confidence of knowing a range of likelihood. And there's also a difference between potential incompetence and actual long-run performance.

Reasonable rules could be devised to cover all such contingencies, just as reasonable rules are currently in place to cover balls bouncing into the stands, fan interference, etc. This is hardly a show-stopper.

Yes, but those rules involve no judgement that I am aware of. One size fits all, all of the time. A ball thrown into the stands, the runners advance one additional base. If you are one foot from third base, you advance one foot. If you are one foot past third base, you advance 89 feet and score. I'm having a hard time seeing a similar possibility for IR that would be close to reasonable. In the case of the tag-up play mentioned in #41. Can the runner advance either way? Only if he was tagging up? How is tagging up defined and who makes the call?

In the case of the tag-up play mentioned in #41.

In that scenario, there is only one runner in addition to the guy trying to score, not "runners". And in any case, allowing any runner to advance to a base he was halfway or more toward when the overturned "out" call was made would be quite resonable.

"...there is a difference between the inherent unknowability of a precise figure and the reasonable confidence of knowing a range of likelihood."

But how do you know that your likely range is reasonable, when the answer is inherently unknowable? You can't.

"And there's also a difference between potential incompetence and actual long-run performance."

So we have to try the system, just because there's no way to know for sure how badly they'll foul things up until we try the system? What?

Where did I say runners? And why the scare quote? And why is it important enough to mention anyway?

edit: Line deleted due to author error.

Yes, but those rules involve no judgement that I am aware of. One size fits all, all of the time.

In the case of interference or obstruction, bases are awarded at the umpire's discretion.

So you limit it to home run calls. The problems with applying it ground ball fair-foul, tags and traps in less than 2-out situations are obvious, and have been outlined above.

Limit fair-foul calls to balls reaching the OF grass (or beyond) on the fly, thus eliminating the grounder-over-the-bag conundrum. If the umps then agree to call "fair" on all such borderline OF flies/drives, then continuity of play runs its course, and a replay overrule becomes simpler to implement. (And the replay ump gets final say on whether a hit actually reaches the grass.)

But how do you know that your likely range is reasonable, when the answer is inherently unknowable? You can't.

Funny, but you seem awfully confident that the proportion of correct replay calls isn't somewhere north of 90-95%, given that you "can't" know this.

#1: Outcomes based on ground rules or fan interference suck. They are necessary evils because a) players can't pursue balls beyond the walls and b) some fans are stupid. Using these as a precedent for creating more scenarios in which the outcome is artificially determined means creating more suckiness.

#2: There is a difference between using replay "only for home runs" and using it for "only determining if home runs are fair or foul." The former scenario would apply to home runs that go over the wall in center but bounce back onto the field and appear to umpires to never have left the park. To me, it's not enough to say "only for home runs" because it introduces scenarios that are just as sticky as potential non-home-run uses of replay.

#2a: Creating a scenario where an umpire's default judgment is that the ball is in play, even if he is more than 3/4 certain that it is, in fact, not, will mean more unnecessary bang-bang plays on the bases, which will result in more injuries. You can roll your eyes at that, but if replay changes the instincts of the umpires so that they abandon the right call in favor of the call that is easier to reverse, and an A-Rod or a Pujols or somebody breaks an ankle on an unnecessary sliding tag play at second base because an umpire was afraid to rule a home run, there's going to be some serious backlash against the system.

#824: I have introduced this notion of mine in other discussions and most people seem to find it ridiculous (or at least not really worth discussing), but I consider the umpires to be characters in the drama of the game. I accept the errors by the umpires as easily as I do an error by a third baseman in determining the outcome of events. I am perfectly happy to have the story unfold through the eyes of the umpires rather than that of the cameras or broadcasters or even my own eyes, and to have that story colored by their imperfections. The outcome of any game can fall in a moment on the judgment of any one participant in the game, and I don't see why that list shouldn't include the umpires. But, that's just me. I'm weird.

I actually often agree with you on that last point, but I generally take the point of view of the season as a whole rather than the individual games, or any single team. In the cases where I do have a rooting interest, I want the calls right, but errors by umpires are part of the overall drama, and entertaining in that context.

"Funny, but you seem awfully confident that the proportion of correct replay calls isn't somewhere north of 90-95%, given that you "can't" know this."

Given that I'm correct if it's anywhere from 0% to 90%, there's a lot more real estate under my wild-ass guess than yours. Who wouldn't like those odds?

I'm with MHS on this for the most part. An ump in the booth reviewing calls and overturning calls on his own makes the most sense. His review would have to be nearly instantaneous and he would have to feel pretty right about the overturn, but I agree that is the best way. Also last thing the reviewing umpire has to be part of the umpire rotation, meaning not a specialist that could create an antagonistic jibe with the rest of the umpiring crew, but the guy who manned homeplate the night before. (I go with the homeplate ump because I'm assuming that is the highest wear and tear position so a 'rested' day would be a nice bonus)

And I see arguments against replay all the time talking about live ball or not, but the truth is that almost all plays that replay would help are usually at bat ending plays. I wouldn't want them to review whether the phantom tag happened at second base or not, but yes a stolen base that the throw beat the runner, but a high tag clearly indicates he was safe, while the umpire is judging based upon the throws timing, that is something I wouldn't mind a review on.

of course implementation is going to be difficult, as I would want this to be as seemless as possible

Each team gets to challenge one call per game with replay. It wouldn't delay the game much and would actually add to the game by requiring thought and strategy as to when to use your replay.

Given that I'm correct if it's anywhere from 0% to 90%, there's a lot more real estate under my wild-ass guess than yours. Who wouldn't like those odds?

I would if I were making a wild-ass guess. But given many years of practical observation of officials making calls in many sports, it isn't just a wild-ass guess, but instead something about which it's reasonable to have a certain degree of confidence. Which is, of course, the middle ground between a wild-ass guess and absolute precision.

"But given many years of practical observation of officials making calls in many sports, it isn't just a wild-ass guess, but instead something about which it's reasonable to have a certain degree of confidence."

Aren't you the guy who said, in post #22: "I find it interesting that you, viewing whatever replays the network chooses to show you on your home TV screen, are confident that you've made a better decision on it than the refs, who may well be looking at different angles/speeds than you. ...viewing from our perspective we really can't say with much certainty which ones of these they don't get right."?

Given that you've already said that the fan's perspective on whether a call is right or not is basically valueless, how educated can your guess really be?

f the umps then agree to call "fair" on all such borderline OF flies/drives

How would that work? The Umps are going to reflexively call it fair or foul immediately. They are trained to make calls, not sit and ponder, gee, is this sufficiently "borderline" to call it automatic fair and wait for the reply guy to sort it out? Or should I call it now?

#2: There is a difference between using replay "only for home runs" and using it for "only determining if home runs are fair or foul." The former scenario would apply to home runs that go over the wall in center but bounce back onto the field and appear to umpires to never have left the park. To me, it's not enough to say "only for home runs" because it introduces scenarios that are just as sticky as potential non-home-run uses of replay.

How is that in any way sticky? If the ball disappears and does not come back, even if it bounces off the top of the wall, it is going to be a home run. He is not going to say, well, it left the park, but not cleanly, so it is a double. If it bounces back from out of the park, the cameras can -- and have -- caught it. So everyone then scores. No problem.

The only real issue I could see is if it hits below the yellow line, the umpire calls it above the yellow line, and then it turns out it was not a home run. What do you do then? Best result would probably be to treat it as an automatic double.

How would that work? The Umps are going to reflexively call it fair or foul immediately. They are trained to make calls, not sit and ponder, gee, is this sufficiently "borderline" to call it automatic fair and wait for the reply guy to sort it out? Or should I call it now?

This is my fear - replay ruined NFL officiating because it made referees terrified of being second-guessed and having their calls reversed. So they became passive and over-reliant on replay for anything remotely questionable, which slowed the game down to a crawl.

So to solve that problem, they introduced the "challenge" concept, which fixed that problem, but created other, worse problems.

The net benefit of instant replay simply does not overcome the myriad drawbacks.

Sometimes the umpires are going to "miss" a call. Unless the umpires are biased towards or against one team or players, I don't see that as a big enough problem to institute rule changes.

One thing people have to realize is that instant replay won't fix every bad call, yesterday there was a game (Minnesota-Cuddyer I believe) where the ball hit in fair terriatory and the Ump ruled it foul, it was fair after replay. If there was nobody on base I could see how replay would have helped there and made it an automatic double, with there being runners on base it would have been a little tougher to call the results (although I think it would have been fairly safe to say second and third with one run scored) That particular play may not be reviewable, and people would have to accept it. I'm fine with it not fixing every mistake, but even fixing 1 out of 100 mistakes, with it not interferring in the game, is a good thing.

Heck people forget that replay has been used at least once in a major league game (Cardinal Brewer game) a homerun call which was overturned (or a non-homerun called that was overturned, can't really remember) the umpires made the call, then when another umpire disagreed they went to the camera well, looked at the actual replay and overturned the call they originally made. It was very well done, and then the umpires got reprimanded by the league.

This is my fear - replay ruined NFL officiating because it made referees terrified of being second-guessed and having their calls reversed. So they became passive and over-reliant on replay for anything remotely questionable, which slowed the game down to a crawl.

which is part of the reason I want the replay official to be a part of the crew. It may make the replay official more conservative which is fine. Nobody thinks they are going to get all the calls right, but the truly egregarious(sp) calls they should be able to fix rapidly.

Why does no one ask why the official has to trot over and duck his head under a hooded TV screen when the guy in the booth, already an NFL official, can just as easily make the damn call?

Apparently it's important to the NFL that the guys on the field are the final arbiters. I personally don't get this. By the time a coach in the NFL throws his flag, an official in the booth could have reviewed the play a dozen times and made his decision. The coach throws the flag, the official on the field gets a buzz, and the play's overturned (or not). No delays at all.

I consider the umpires to be characters in the drama of the game. I accept the errors by the umpires as easily as I do an error by a third baseman in determining the outcome of events.

I consider the players to be the characters in the game and the umpires to be a neccessary evil to make sure that the rules are enforced. I want to see a player get credit for a SB when he beats the tag. I want to see a batter get credited with a walk when the 3-2 pitch is an inch outside. I want to see a pitcher get a strikeout when his huge curve actually crosses the plate in the zone, even though it started high and ended low. I want to see the batter who hits the ball over the fence get credit for a home run. How can you want to introduce errors where these things don't happen?

I want the best officiating I can get without ruining the game. Give me Questec for all balls and strikes, assuming that it's as fast as the umpire. Give me an official in the booth that can tell that a HR is not a HR before the batter makes it around the bases. Don't give me three officials huddling around a field-level camera because they can't figure out if a ball hit the line or not and where all of the baserunners would be if it was fair.

I just don't see that there are enough "blown" calls to warrant slowing down the game at all any more.

Sure, it happens once in a while, but not enough to get exercised over.

If people are really freaked out about the occasional bad home run call, just put a RFID chip in the core of the ball, and a row of RFID detectors linked to lights on the edge of the wall. If the ball's chip passes the detector, the lights light up. Easy as pie.

You're welcome.

Man on first, one out, hit and run called. Batter hits a sinking liner to deep right center which the RF makes a diving catch attempt, comes up with the ball, but it's not entirely clear if it a catch or a trap. Suppose it's called a catch and the runner is doubled off first, but then overruled to be a trap? Where do you place the runner? Suppose it's initially ruled a trap and the runner gets to third, but then it is overruled and called a catch? Do you assume the DP? What if the fielder, knowing he caught it, fires to first, even though it was called a trap? Can you assume the DP then? Or can the batting team argue that the runner was watching the ump and continued on to third based on his call, but would have made it back to first had there been a different call?

This basically happened in a Mets-Braves game this year, just not with replay. Jose Reyes (I think), with runners on, hit a ball that Mark Kotsay trapped. The umpires ruled it a catch, the Braves got a double play and after the play was over, another umpire overruled him. It was called a single and they used discretion to put the runners where they thought they should have been.

Aren't you the guy who said, in post #22: "I find it interesting that you, viewing whatever replays the network chooses to show you on your home TV screen, are confident that you've made a better decision on it than the refs, who may well be looking at different angles/speeds than you. ...viewing from our perspective we really can't say with much certainty which ones of these they don't get right."?

Yes. And I'm also the guy who said this:

While of course in every human endeavor some errors are inevitable

And this:

The issue is that it isn't obvious from the home-viewer's angle which ones those are. And it is obvious that the vast majority, whether 97.9% or not, are called correctly.

Emphasis on the "which ones."

And this:

But in reality the proportion of correct calls, while no one can possibly know for certain what it is (since we're all humans here), is undoubtedly somewhere north of 90-95%.

And, of course, this:

there is a difference between the inherent unknowability of a precise figure and the reasonable confidence of knowing a range of likelihood

Your fixation on an exact percentage seems to have blinded you to the fact that there are many things in the world that we know with confidence without the ability to pin a precise figure on it. The fact that it's far more difficult for us watching at home to make the call as accurately as the ref viewing the replays at the game doesn't mean that neither of us don't predominantly get the call right.

Moreover, if indeed the officials in any sport got no more than 50% of the calls correctly -- a number you want to pretend is about as likely as 90% -- then it's rather obvious that the sport would simply be unplayable, quickly rejected by contestants and spectators alike as a joke, an exercise in randomness.

If what you're honestly asserting is that you simply don't have any degree of confidence whether professional officials at the highest levels of a sport tend to get the calls correct on replayed, slo-mo'ed, multiple-view plays 0% of the time, 50% of the time, or 90% of the time, then I really don't know what to say.

I consider the players to be the characters in the game and the umpires to be a neccessary evil to make sure that the rules are enforced. I want to see a player get credit for a SB when he beats the tag. I want to see a batter get credited with a walk when the 3-2 pitch is an inch outside. I want to see a pitcher get a strikeout when his huge curve actually crosses the plate in the zone, even though it started high and ended low. I want to see the batter who hits the ball over the fence get credit for a home run. How can you want to introduce errors where these things don't happen?

I want the best officiating I can get without ruining the game.

Me too. And I don't reject the concept of replay without carefully considering in what manner it might be sensibly and practically used to help make the game better.

"Moreover, if indeed the officials in any sport got no more than 50% of the calls correctly -- a number you [believe] is about as likely as 90% -- then it's rather obvious that the sport would simply be unplayable, quickly rejected by contestants and spectators alike as a joke, an exercise in randomness.

If what you're honestly asserting is that you simply don't have any degree of confidence whether professional officials at the highest levels of a sport tend to get the calls correct on replayed, slo-mo'ed, multiple-view plays 0% of the time, 50% of the time, or 90% of the time, then I really don't know what to say."

This is actually a pretty good summary of my reasons for not wanting replay review for baseball. The process, as currently practiced in the NFL, IS a joke and an exercise in randomness. Even the TV commentators, a group of highly-trained observers who watch games for a living and have access to the same footage as the referees, can't predict the outcome of a replay review more than maybe half the time.

On a NFL-style review, how often do the referees say that there was "no conclusive evidence", so the ruling on the field stands? And how is that any different than the referee saying, "#### if I know whether the initial call was right or not"? If the referees themselves don't know whether their initial call was right, how can you assume that it was?

I just don't see that there are enough "blown" calls to warrant slowing down the game at all any more.

Sure, it happens once in a while, but not enough to get exercised over.

That's why I would support using the replay only for home run calls. Home runs are big enough so that they really do change the game, or even the entire season -- if the Rockies hadn't come back to win Game No. 163 against the Padres last year, blowing the call on Garrett Atkins' homer/oops double would have cost them the postseason. Plus, homers are probably the easiest call to make on replay, a lot easier than safe/out calls, so it would hardly slow down the game.

Even the TV commentators, a group of highly-trained observers who watch games for a living and have access to the same footage as the referees, can't predict the outcome of a replay review more than maybe half the time.

Really. You know this for a fact? I can assert with just as much certainty as you that in my experience of watching NFL games on TV, the commentators predict the outcome correctly a whole lot more frequently than half the time.

On a NFL-style review, how often do the referees say that there was "no conclusive evidence", so the ruling on the field stands? And how is that any different than the referee saying, "#### if I know whether the initial call was right or not"? If the referees themselves don't know whether their initial call was right, how can you assume that it was?

In that particular instance, obviously there is no reason to assume anything other than a 50/50 chance that the initial call was right.

But if indeed the video replay evidence is in fact inconclusive, then it's the correct call by the replay official to say that. And if the replay evidence isn't inconclusive, then the replay official makes a "call stands" or "call overruled" decision. And while obviously we can't know the precise percentage of those decisions that are in accordance with the evidence, I don't find the insistence that they're equally likely to be so 0% of the time as 90% of the time to be at all persuasive.

"Really. You know this for a fact? I can assert with just as much certainty as you that in my experience of watching NFL games on TV, the commentators predict the outcome correctly a whole lot more frequently than half the time."

Then maybe the local crew for Niners games takes lessons from Kreskin. In my experience, the booth crew comes up with the same call as the refs on about half of the calls.

"But if indeed the video replay evidence is in fact inconclusive, then it's the correct call by the replay official to say that."

You don't think you're missing the point, there?

In that situation, the officials are saying that after repeated viewings of video evidence, they have no idea whether the initial call was correct or not, so they're going to make an arbitrary determination and let the ruling on the field stand. It is, in the narrowest sense, correct of them to say that the review was inconclusive, but that does absolutely nothing as far as getting an accurate resolution to the situation, WHICH IS THE POINT OF REPLAY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Try looking at it like this:

A) Initial call was right:

1) Replay correctly confirms call.
2) Replay incorrectly overturns call.
3) Replay inconclusive, defaults to correct call.

B) Initial call was wrong:

4) Replay incorrectly confirms call.
5) Replay correctly overturns call.
6) Replay inconclusive, defaults to incorrect call.

For B-6, even if it's correct for the referee to say that the replay evidence was inconclusive, you still end up with The Wrong Call. And any time you end up with The Wrong Call, that's a failure of the system.

For B-6, even if it's correct for the referee to say that the replay evidence was inconclusive, you still end up with The Wrong Call. And any time you end up with The Wrong Call, that's a failure of the system.

Well, duh. And if there were a way to avoid that, obviously we would and should.

Guess what: replay isn't perfect. I don't recall anyone asserting that it was. And to reject it simply on the basis of the fact that it isn't perfect is a classic illustration of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."

As far as how they implement, they'll need more cameras. The ball travels much faster than a football or a WR's toe. The cameras are usually not zoomed in on the ball itself. Most replays are very blurred and inconclusive. They should put a camera on top of each foul pole, pointed down, for HR fair/foul calls. And I'm not sure how you do the "did it go over the wall" call.

If people are really freaked out about the occasional bad home run call, just put a RFID chip in the core of the ball, and a row of RFID detectors linked to lights on the edge of the wall. If the ball's chip passes the detector, the lights light up. Easy as pie.

That's not how RFID works. It's not like a trip sensor, it just goes off when you get in range. You'd have to put the sensors a certain distance behind the wall, and even then I don't think it's accurate enough. Someday, though...

replay isn't perfect. I don't recall anyone asserting that it was. And to reject it simply on the basis of the fact that it isn't perfect is a classic illustration of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."

This comes up in the argument against having Questec used for ball/strike calls as well. "It might miss a knuckleball that darts a half-inch at the last second." Well, guess what, it'll get many more calls correct than a human will. I'll take an extra 10 bad calls of one type to eliminate 500 bad calls of another type any day of the week.

Well, guess what, it'll get many more calls correct than a human will.

Will it?

"And to reject it simply on the basis of the fact that it isn't perfect is a classic illustration of 'letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.'"

I'm not rejecting it because it's good. I'm rejecting it because it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Unless you assume an unreasonable level of competence for the referee, then B-6 comes up a lot more often than you seem to think. And unless you ARE getting correct calls out of a replay official 98% of the time, it's not worth delaying the game just so you can hear "the ruling on the field stands". Especially since there are many other ways that the accuracy of home run calls could be improved without adding the attendant problems of a replay system.

"Will it?"

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

The situation with QuesTec isn't completely analogous, though. QuesTec doesn't really impact the pace of the game on the field, so there isn't the same potential downside that there is with instant replay.

#2: There is a difference between using replay "only for home runs" and using it for "only determining if home runs are fair or foul." The former scenario would apply to home runs that go over the wall in center but bounce back onto the field and appear to umpires to never have left the park. To me, it's not enough to say "only for home runs" because it introduces scenarios that are just as sticky as potential non-home-run uses of replay.

How is that in any way sticky? If the ball disappears and does not come back, even if it bounces off the top of the wall, it is going to be a home run. He is not going to say, well, it left the park, but not cleanly, so it is a double. If it bounces back from out of the park, the cameras can -- and have -- caught it. So everyone then scores. No problem.

The only real issue I could see is if it hits below the yellow line, the umpire calls it above the yellow line, and then it turns out it was not a home run. What do you do then? Best result would probably be to treat it as an automatic double.


You're right. I should have used the reverse example, as you did, where the ball bounces off the wall but in the umpire's judgment cleared the wall and returned from contact with something on the other side.

I am totally bristling at the introduction of more "automatic" outcomes than is absolutely necessary. Don't get me wrong, I love backyard whiffle ball, but I don't think MLB's goal should be emulate it as much as possible. It's a slippery slope to "invisible runner on second."

I consider the players to be the characters in the game and the umpires to be a neccessary evil to make sure that the rules are enforced. I want to see a player get credit for a SB when he beats the tag. I want to see a batter get credited with a walk when the 3-2 pitch is an inch outside. I want to see a pitcher get a strikeout when his huge curve actually crosses the plate in the zone, even though it started high and ended low. I want to see the batter who hits the ball over the fence get credit for a home run. How can you want to introduce errors where these things don't happen?

I don't want to introduce errors. I'm not really introducing anything. I'm asking for the status quo, in which the game is played, human error plays its role, and there is an outcome. This passionate outcry to get every call "right" comes across as a bit too compulsive for me.

Unless you assume an unreasonable level of competence for the referee

Actually, I think I assume a reasonable level of competence for the referee. I think your insistence that we shouldn't be confident that officials can get replay calls right the great majority of the time is quite unreasonable. They're just as smart as you and me, and they're trained and experienced.

Especially since there are many other ways that the accuracy of home run calls could be improved without adding the attendant problems of a replay system.

Other measures can and should be taken. It isn't necessary to consider any approach as exclusive.

I'm not rejecting it because it's good. I'm rejecting it because it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Unless you assume an unreasonable level of competence for the referee, then B-6 comes up a lot more often than you seem to think. And unless you ARE getting correct calls out of a replay official 98% of the time, it's not worth delaying the game just so you can hear "the ruling on the field stands". Especially since there are many other ways that the accuracy of home run calls could be improved without adding the attendant problems of a replay system.

considering that there is no system in place I find it hard to say it's not good enough. Considering what people have proposed on this thread and then to automatically assume that the only option is an NFL retarded system that works a vast majority of the time but isn't perfect, means that you aren't reading everything.

Ask a question what would be a good system? Let's say that a system happens to work 100% correctly at overturning calls and has absolutely zero effect on the time of the game, would that be a good system if it only made 10 calls a year?

say it has 99% accuracy and over the course of the season it affects the time on the field an average of 10 seconds a game played but it makes 100 calls a year would that be good?


etc. Imagine what would be ideal and realistic and think of the best way to attempt to implement it. Propose solutions and argue for it. Argue against other peoples ideals etc. But to dismiss the replay concept out of hand because it isn't going to be perfect makes no sense. At least it's not being dismissed because of the ridiculousness of claiming tradition.

I don't want to introduce errors. I'm not really introducing anything. I'm asking for the status quo, in which the game is played, human error plays its role, and there is an outcome. This passionate outcry to get every call "right" comes across as a bit too compulsive for me.

Once again, though, nobody is calling for "every call right". I, personally, am calling for "every call right that can be gotten right without affecting the flow of the game". A guy in the booth reviewing a home run and deciding before the runner even makes it around the bases will not slow down the game. Whether MLB will implement what I want is doubtful.

And if you have the ability to reduce errors and you don't take it, then that's the same thing as introducing them. The net result is the same: more errors. I'm fine with human error when the errors are players. Why would you want human error from those enforcing the rules?

"Imagine what would be ideal and realistic and think of the best way to attempt to implement it. Propose solutions and argue for it."

I Already Did This. Read Upthread, Dammit.

[Hint: Post #68]

"I think your insistence that we shouldn't be confident that officials can get replay calls right the great majority of the time is quite unreasonable. They're just as smart as you and me, and they're trained and experienced."

If officials were that infallible, then we wouldn't need a replay system in the first place, since they wouldn't be blowing the home run calls from the field. You don't see the huge contradiction there? We need replay because they screw things up, but they won't screw up the replay, because they're too competent? My head hurts.

Why would you want human error from those enforcing the rules?

Because they are human, and contribute to the theater of the game. That's not to imply I don't want them to pursue perfection. I don't look forward to the next blown call. It's just that I'm very satisfied with their success rate, which I consider quite high, so high that the anomalous slip comes as a great surprise and generates a really strong emotion -- great relief or wild frustration. Don't get in front of me during the wild frustration, but down the road I recognize it as an integral part of the storyline, not a system flaw.

Here's a few other thoughts as they occur to me:

- I want the game at the major league level to most closely mirror the game at every level below that in terms of how the game is played. I think one of the cool things about the major leagues is that when you step on a sandlot you are not so far removed from the game you watch on TV. Replay would put some distance there - not an overwhelming amount, but some.

- I like the idea that the game is contained within the field of play. Maybe I'm more compulsive than I want to believe I am.

- I really hate the notion of FOX having a voice in the outcome of baseball games. And I have this terrifying nightmare-feeling that this is what replay would feel like. I'm not saying it's a rational feeling. I didn't feel that twinge when football adapted it, but I already felt that football was a television event. I don't have that feeling at all when I watch baseball now.

Dick Stockton: "There it goes, a long drive, if it stays fair... I'm not sure. There's confusion on the field. Fisk hit a long drive, tried to wave it fair, did it hook around the foul pole? The Reds say no. Fisk is circling the bases, Darcy is yelling for him to get back into the box, and the Red Sox are milling around at home plate. Sparky Anderson is out on the field now, pleading his case to the umpires, and yes, it looks like they're going to call for a review.

Let's take a moment now for a word from our sponsor while the official in the booth sorts this one out..."

Yeah, that's much better.

If officials were that infallible, then we wouldn't need a replay system in the first place

You're displaying an amazing eagnerness to comprehend things only in all-or-nothing extremes.

No one has suggested that officials are "infallible." What they are is human: well-trained, hard-working, highly competent humans who, by and large, do as good a job as anyone could be expected to do. Which means they're very good -- reliably getting the great majority of the calls right -- but not perfect. Which means their fine work could be enhanced with an overlay replay system deployed in special circumstances.

You don't see the huge contradiction there? We need replay because they screw things up, but they won't screw up the replay, because they're too competent? My head hurts.

It shouldn't. In between perfection and incompetence is where the vast majority of human endeavor is conducted, as in this case.

Ask a question what would be a good system? Let's say that a system happens to work 100% correctly at overturning calls and has absolutely zero effect on the time of the game, would that be a good system if it only made 10 calls a year?

But to dismiss the replay concept out of hand because it isn't going to be perfect makes no sense. At least it's not being dismissed because of the ridiculousness of claiming tradition.

See, the problem is, I can't imagine a system that doesn't impact the flow of the game. I'm not talking about taking time, but artificially placing runners at bases after the call is overturned. This isn't football where the 80 yard punt return becomes a 10 yard loss due to a holding penalty. If Jose Reyes hits a ball down the RF line with the RF shading him toward CF, he's on third easily. If David Ortiz hits the same ball with the shift on, he stays at first. But an overturned foul call probably puts both those guys on second.

I Already Did This. Read Upthread, Dammit.

[Hint: Post #68]

If officials were that infallible, then we wouldn't need a replay system in the first place, since they wouldn't be blowing the home run calls from the field. You don't see the huge contradiction there? We need replay because they screw things up, but they won't screw up the replay, because they're too competent? My head hurts.

I thought post 68 was a joke. I will actively oppose anything that changes the equipment to the game. An RFID chip is changing the basic equipment of the game.

Not sure about your second part, most here are proposing a system where the replay official feels very confident with the replay ruling before making an overruling. If the replay official isn't confident the play stands as called. And yes there are dozens of plays a week in MLB that a replay is pretty conclusive and should be done. The real argument isn't the accuracy of the replay call but the implementation and time taken to reach the proper conclusion. I think only one person on this thread has proposed anything resembling NFL's version of it. MHS has argued for seemless integration which is called from a dedicated ump making the calls on his own with no challenge rule (I'm also in favor of this type of system. I want it to be happening without anybody knowing about on the field, the call comes down, the appropriate changes are made, if it's not done fast enough then the play stands)

- I really hate the notion of FOX having a voice in the outcome of baseball games. And I have this terrifying nightmare-feeling that this is what replay would feel like. I'm not saying it's a rational feeling. I didn't feel that twinge when football adapted it, but I already felt that football was a television event. I don't have that feeling at all when I watch baseball now.

agreed about FOX or any network having a hand in the call, It should be a MLB ump with a crew, and as I have mentioned it should be a member of the crew on the field, two reasons as mentioned it will prevent resentment to an extent from the umpiring crew, and second off, it will make the Umpires happy as that will mean another 30 jobs in MLB become available. This would probably eliminate one of three of the potential most vocal opponents to this addition.


Again seemless integration has to be considered in any proposal to be taken seriously. I imagine that the first year it will be homerun calls only (although, contrary to the past week, it's never been a big issue in the past) and eventually other stuff will be added per year.

Dick Stockton: "There it goes, a long drive, if it stays fair... I'm not sure. There's confusion on the field. Fisk hit a long drive, tried to wave it fair, did it hook around the foul pole? The Reds say no. Fisk is circling the bases, Darcy is yelling for him to get back into the box, and the Red Sox are milling around at home plate. Sparky Anderson is out on the field now, pleading his case to the umpires, and yes, it looks like they're going to call for a review.

Golly, that's cute.

In reality, of course, there was no controversy whatsoever as to whether Fisk's ball was fair or foul. It wasn't a tough call; the Reds didn't argue it because there was no argument to make.

But suppose it had been an extremely tough call. Suppose, indeed, the umps had called the ball fair when in fact it was foul. Would that have been a satisfactory way for such an historically tremendous game to have finished? On a blown call, the Red Sox getting a tainted victory, the Reds making the valid claim of having been hosed by an official's mistake?

Or suppose it had been fair, but the umps called it foul, and the Red Sox were denied a just victory? Would that have been a satisfactory outcome?

A play of that magnitude is exactly the sort that it would be wonderful to be able to get right as reasonably and practically as possible, and have the winning and losing teams be determined by the performance of the players.

agreed about FOX or any network having a hand in the call, It should be a MLB ump with a crew, and as I have mentioned it should be a member of the crew on the field, two reasons as mentioned it will prevent resentment to an extent from the umpiring crew, and second off, it will make the Umpires happy as that will mean another 30 jobs in MLB become available.

But they would have a hand in it as they provide the camera coverage. What if the camera that would have provided the crucial angle is instead focused on some D list celeb in the stands?

See, the problem is, I can't imagine a system that doesn't impact the flow of the game. I'm not talking about taking time, but artificially placing runners at bases after the call is overturned. This isn't football where the 80 yard punt return becomes a 10 yard loss due to a holding penalty. If Jose Reyes hits a ball down the RF line with the RF shading him toward CF, he's on third easily. If David Ortiz hits the same ball with the shift on, he stays at first. But an overturned foul call probably puts both those guys on second.

I can see a system that doesn't impact the flow of the game, in the example you cited, it's not reviewable, there you now have a play that relies entirely on the umpire on the field decision. Replay doesn't have to attempt to make every play called perfect, just make the calls that can be made without impacting the flow of the game. I proposed that any replay system be used on only bat ending plays. I don't think any system will ever be perfect but if a system is put in place that can improve a few calls a week and eliminate that inning ending, play ending incorrect call then it should be looked into.

But they would have a hand in it as they provide the camera coverage. What if the camera that would have provided the crucial angle is instead focused on some D list celeb in the stands?

then the call on the field stands. I don't see what is so hard about this, replay fixes plays that are easily fixable and leave the plays that aren't fixable to the domain of the original call.

I can see a system that doesn't impact the flow of the game, in the example you cited, it's not reviewable, there you now have a play that relies entirely on the umpire on the field decision. Replay doesn't have to attempt to make every play called perfect, just make the calls that can be made without impacting the flow of the game. I proposed that any replay system be used on only bat ending plays. I don't think any system will ever be perfect but if a system is put in place that can improve a few calls a week and eliminate that inning ending, play ending incorrect call then it should be looked into.

I'm not sure what you mean by bat ending plays, but tweak my hypothetical a bit. Instead of fair/foul, suppose it's a sinking liner in the corner in which the RF makes a diving attempt angeled away from the IF. The call is out, but overturned to a trap. Reyes still probably makes third on a correct initial call, but Ortiz, may stay at first. Where do you put them?

But they would have a hand in it as they provide the camera coverage. What if the camera that would have provided the crucial angle is instead focused on some D list celeb in the stands?



then the call on the field stands.

Yeah, that'll go over real well.

Because they are human, and contribute to the theater of the game.

And I would vastly prefer that the players, and solely the players, determine the theater of the game. I mean, sure, we still talk about Denkinger, so there's some theater there, but one team got screwed even though they performed as they were supposed to. How is that better?

Don't get in front of me during the wild frustration, but down the road I recognize it as an integral part of the storyline, not a system flaw.

But the next step is "get off my lawn". You enjoy error introduced into the game because that's just how it's always been and you like it that way. While I understand that you like it, it's not a convincing argument.

"But suppose it had been an extremely tough call. Suppose, indeed, the umps had called the ball fair when in fact it was foul. Would that have been a satisfactory way for such an historically tremendous game to have finished? On a blown call, the Red Sox getting a tainted victory, the Reds making the valid claim of having been hosed by an official's mistake?

Or suppose it had been fair, but the umps called it foul, and the Red Sox were denied a just victory? Would that have been a satisfactory outcome?"

Not having a replay system allows us to avoid several outcomes that are even worse:

1) Having the umps on the field make the right call, which the umps in the booth ("well-trained, hard-working, highly competent...but not perfect") incorrectly reverse.

2) Having the umps in the booth say that they can't tell, throwing it back down to the field and discrediting any decision that the field crew are able to come up with.

3) Interrupting a game for a marathon review, and then reversing a game-ending call, resulting in a half-hour delay while they pull players out of showers and try to get the shortstop to drive back to the stadium so they can finish the 9th inning.

"I will actively oppose anything that changes the equipment to the game. An RFID chip is changing the basic equipment of the game."

They've already changed the internal composition of the ball several times. String, cork, even rubber golf ball cores during WW II. There's a hell of a lot more precedent for messing with the ball than there is for adding instant replay. There's even a modern precedent, thanks to the humidor at Coors Field.

This change shouldn't have much effect, if any, on the way the ball acts. We put a chip in my cat - it's about the size of a grain of rice. Compare that to the potential disruption from replay review...