BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: S.I.: Sheehan: Blown calls by umps are a problem, but one that can be easily solved

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, October 31, 2009

S.I.: Sheehan: Blown calls by umps are a problem, but one that can be easily solved

Uhh...form an influential Pelosi/Colosi committee to look into it?

You fix this problem, and overcome inertia, with technology. Baseball should move to a system akin to that used in college football, in which every call is reviewed by an off-field umpire who is part of the crew. If there’s a question, that umpire can ask for time and review the play. His word is final. This system would create jobs, 20 percent more, for umpires, and the jobs could serve as sinecures for veterans, the ones most likely to resist the use of replay. This system would cover everything but pitch calls; while these form the basis for most complaints about umpires, having a review of every pitch is impractical. Down the road, automated ball-and-strike calls are plausible, but the technology needs work before it can be an every-day solution for major-league games.

The most common objection to this system is that it would cause delays, but both pro and college football have survived, in part by selling additional television ads during the breaks. Delays would happen, but the improvement in accuracy, especially on high-leverage, high-profile plays, would be worth the time investment. You may even save time by eliminating the long arguments and conferences that currently occur.

MLB tried to address the problem of failing umpires by assigning veteran arbiters to the World Series, but the problem isn’t the caliber of umpires, but the caliber of human eyes. No umpire could have made the call on the Howard play, because a well-positioned umpire would be screened by the player’s body. Only a camera could have verified what occurred. These plays expressly illustrate that the problem isn’t umpire skill, but the way in which cameras do what people cannot. We have much, much better technology for evaluating these plays, and to not use that because it’ll take a few extra minutes, or because of some misguided allegiance to a romantic notion of baseball, or just because some people don’t think it’s worth it, is wrong.

Repoz Posted: October 31, 2009 at 04:34 PM | 22 comment(s)
Related News: General, History, Special Topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. snapper Posted: October 31, 2009 at 03:54 PM (#3372504)

Disagree 100%. Reviewing every single play is ridiculous. Use technology to help the umpires improve.

2. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: October 31, 2009 at 04:05 PM (#3372511)

He doesn't even address the chief problem with use of replay. Players on the field respond to the call being made. If the ump signals an out, the players respond accordingly, advancing or retreating to the bag. Replay, on many if not most of these plays, would require far too much speculating on what would have happened to be worth it.

3. Sunday silence Posted: October 31, 2009 at 04:39 PM (#3372523)

I am not so sure that is a major problem. A lot of these calls would be like getting one base on an overthrow or something like that. I had the same concern but someone mentioned this and I think it would alleviate it to large extent.

4. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: October 31, 2009 at 04:51 PM (#3372527)

I am not so sure that is a major problem. A lot of these calls would be like getting one base on an overthrow or something like that. I had the same concern but someone mentioned this and I think it would alleviate it to large extent.

I don't know how it wouldn't be a major issue. Is the force on or off? Was the ball caught on the fly/trapped. Was the lead runner out or safe? Each of these initial calls can dictate how the rest of the play unfolds. To go back in time and reverse the initial call would then require a hell of a lot of speculation, and doesn't seem worth just living with the call the umpire made as the play unfolded.

Take a situation similar to the Howard play, but make it with nobody out and suppose it was initially ruled a trap. The runners on base proceed as if the ball wasn't caught, and reach base safely because Howard throws wild to second. Later, replay rules that Howard actually caught it. Do you just send the runners back to first and second? Is the runner on second doubled off? Is it a triple play?

5. Tricky Dick Posted: October 31, 2009 at 05:31 PM (#3372542)

Was the replay on Howard's play conclusive? The Fox guys immediately said the ball hit the ground first, and I have to say that I couldn't be 100% sure of that based on the numerous replays. In watching replays of close calls during the regular season (most of which seem to involve the runner and the ball arriving at first base or second base), it seems like they are rarely conclusive at showing whether the call is correct or not. Presumably the rule would be same as other professional sports, the replay has to be conclusive to overrule a call on the field. I think instant replay of all plays will be time consuming and controversial without a sufficient benefit to justify it.

6. Srul Itza Posted: October 31, 2009 at 05:38 PM (#3372548)

Was the replay on Howard's play conclusive?

On one angle, it was -- you could see the ball change trajectory before it hit the glove.

7. sunnyday2 Posted: October 31, 2009 at 05:44 PM (#3372555)

There would have to be a bright line between reviewable calls and non-reviewable. I agree the Howard short hop could not be reviewable because you couldn't know where to put everybody. The Mauer "foul ball" OTOH is easily handled. The missed pickoff at 2B is easily handled. The tag up at 3B is easily handled. That could be the bright line. If there's no ambiguity of what to do regardless of whether you affirm or overturn, then review. If overturning creates ambiguity it's not reviewable.

And either way, it could be a system where the teams get X number of challenges--3, say--and if you miss one you lose one. Make a challenge and you're wrong, you're down to 1. Even then, if there's a challenge, maybe it's a non-reviewable call (based on the above), then you don't review.

OTOH a determination that umps should be better and the use of technology in training is also a good idea. But if Bruce Froemming is any indication, you don't have a commitment to get better and therefore the threat of a review system is even better.

8. Guapo Posted: October 31, 2009 at 06:11 PM (#3372566)

I recommend my approach:

I came to grips a long time ago with the fact that baseball, like everything else I love, is flawed. Umps blow calls, or have lousy strike zones, and occasionally it affects the outcome of a game. While we shouldn't accept continued incompetence on the part of any particular ump, and we should certainly encourage improvement in the profession, you're never going to get every call right. It's better to accept that bad calls sometimes happen, like bad hops, bad weather, blown hamstrings, and the fake-to-third-throw-to-first pickoff move, and move on with life.

9. Greg Pope Posted: October 31, 2009 at 06:14 PM (#3372568)

I am fine with very limited reviews on boundary calls. But get rid of the stupid "ump on the field needs to review". By the time the people on the field realize it's a questionable call, the ump in the booth can have watched the play 5 times and can radio down a ruling.

I'd be in favor of them concentrating more on automating ball and strike calls than "every play reviewable".

10. SteveF Posted: October 31, 2009 at 06:16 PM (#3372570)

The best is often the enemy of the better.

Just because you can't return the game to the state it would have been in had the right call been made to begin with doesn't mean you can't get closer to the correct state than you would otherwise be with the wrong call.

For instance, on a ball hit down the line with the bases loaded incorrectly ruled foul, just because that fast runner on first probably would have scored doesn't make reversing the call allowing two runs to score and putting runners on 2nd and 3rd somehow not an improvement over the initial ruling.

11. Justin T Posted: October 31, 2009 at 06:19 PM (#3372571)

The Utley DP and the Howard liner were real close, and not something to get worked up about in my book. At this point, it is true that Fox and Friends have latched on to the story and are looking to advance it with any little thing.

But, all season long and into the postseason, there have been lots of judgments that were simply way, way too bad to shrug off. There is a line where the game's integrity can be threatened by bad enough umpiring. At this point, it's just been a bad year. But if it stays this bad into the future, the game is put at risk.

12. Snowboy Posted: October 31, 2009 at 06:32 PM (#3372578)

Okay, so maybe having a full-time ump reviewing every play on video won't work...but how about giving each manager two red flags (one for each tail pocket) which they can throw on the field to request that a play be reviewed? A challenge flag, if you will.

Oh, and while you're at it, rip a flat face on every bat, so they can cut down on foul balls.

13. RayDiPerna Posted: October 31, 2009 at 07:39 PM (#3372606)

I fully get the problem people have about deciding where to put runners, etc.

I think a lot of this is avoided if you simply give all the runners a single base, just one. So on Mauer's ball he goes to first. If there was a runner on first that guy goes to second. Not to third, not home, nowhere but second. Yes, the offense kind of got screwed, but they got LESS screwed than they otherwise would have been in Mauer's ball gets called a strike instead of a hit.

I don't see why giving the runner(s) each one base on Mauer's ball -- including Mauer -- would not be preferable to giving him a strike.

14. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: October 31, 2009 at 07:52 PM (#3372613)

I came to grips a long time ago with the fact that baseball, like everything else I love, is flawed. Umps blow calls, or have lousy strike zones, and occasionally it affects the outcome of a game. While we shouldn't accept continued incompetence on the part of any particular ump, and we should certainly encourage improvement in the profession, you're never going to get every call right. It's better to accept that bad calls sometimes happen, like bad hops, bad weather, blown hamstrings, and the fake-to-third-throw-to-first pickoff move, and move on with life.

That's pretty much the way I look at it, but if you have to use technology to deal with lousy umpiring, I'd begin with perfecting a ball and strike calling robot. 98% of the blown calls in any given game involve an umpire's misconceived sense of where the strike zone is.

And if they decide to use replay in any other situation than they already do, then it should have to start with the condition that any overruling has to be instant, and with no appeal or arguing allowed. The last thing we need is one more excuse to delay the game; it's bad enough as it is.

15. RayDiPerna Posted: October 31, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3372618)

The Utley DP and the Howard liner were real close, and not something to get worked up about in my book. At this point, it is true that Fox and Friends have latched on to the story and are looking to advance it with any little thing.

Agree about the Howard liner but the Utley DP was inexcusable. We could tell live watching on tv that he blew the call.

Utley didn't just arrive at the same time as the ball; he BEAT the throw. There is no excuse for an umpire to miss that, other than pure incompetency. This is not a call that is "too difficult" to make like the Howard liner.

16. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: October 31, 2009 at 08:11 PM (#3372623)

Ray would be like Bill Klem. He'd never miss one, either.

That Utley call was clearly blown on the replay, but for crissakes, when Utley's foot hit the base the ball was all of about three inches from Teixeira's glove. I also thought he was safe on the live play, but if it turned out I'd been wrong it would scarcely have shocked me. There were a dozen worse calls behind the plate before that one, and of course the Howard call could have been missed by anyone.

17. Gaelan Posted: October 31, 2009 at 08:23 PM (#3372635)

Instant replay doesn't work in football. Why would you emulate a system that regularly makes things worse?

[Edit] Removed rudeness.

18. Rich Rifkin Posted: October 31, 2009 at 08:31 PM (#3372650)

I'm fine with Sheehan's idea of a 5th umpire. However, I prefer that he never have any discretion as to when to look at a call. As in tennis, my preference would be to give managers a limited number of challenges per game (say 2), and they could challenge any call but balls and strikes. The 5th umpire would then determine if the play should be overturned (based on the preponderance of video evidence). If the challenging manager was correct, he keeps that challenge card. If video failed to prove him right, he loses his challenge card and has just one left.

This would add some time to some games. So to try to minimize the net added time, I would add also two things: 1) the 5th umpire should get no more than 90 seconds to make his call; and 2) any player, coach or manager who argues with an umpire (a la Earl Weaver) gets tossed immediately, no questions asked. It takes far more than 90 seconds for a guy like Bobby Cox, who runs or waddles out of his dugout 2-3 times each game to argue a call. The challenge system needs to end that. I would go so far as to have an automatic suspension for someone who argued and got kicked out, but did not leave the field immediately.

19. Lassus Posted: October 31, 2009 at 08:39 PM (#3372658)

Sheehan's solution sounds like one thought up by someone who doesn't like baseball.

This would add some time to some games. So to try to minimize the net added time, I would add also two things: 1) the 5th umpire should get no more than 90 seconds to make his call;

There is a reason why the home run replays never take 90 seconds. What's involved isn't as easy as all that, and the technology isn't instantaneous. And if you're going to use the replay, you need to make EXTRA sure everything is right. I actually was able to witness some of the MLBAM replay work in person, and if you want to add that many challanges on that many number of plays, you can get ready for every single game to go more than four hours, and many going five, easy.

20. Ron Johnson Posted: November 01, 2009 at 03:11 AM (#3373288)

Instant replay doesn't work in football.

Doesn't work is an overbid. I think you could argue, "not worth it", since occasionally they still get it wrong and it's very time consuming.

Works great in tennis though. Of course the problem is much simpler in tennis. In/out in a fairly small, well defined area. Still, it strongly suggests that the fair/foul calls can be done by adapting tennis' technology.

I know cricket has been using it (without any kind of challenge system. The officials decide whether the play needs review.) Well they were the last time I watched (years ago) I'm not aware of any controversy or delay.

Why would you emulate a system that regularly makes things worse?

Because it makes things worse maybe twice a year and makes an important correction around every second game. Is hat worth the petty aggravations it introduces. I think so, but I'd be happier with a system that didn't go to frame by frame analysis.

21. jwb Posted: November 01, 2009 at 08:48 PM (#3373621)

The floggings will continue until performance improves.

22. Howie Menckel Posted: November 01, 2009 at 10:40 PM (#3373941)

"Instant replay doesn't work in football."

Be honest, how many hours per Sunday do you actually watch this sport?

It's a little annoying that they only fix 75-90 pct of errors (depending on your definition re reviewable, etc.), but to say it "doesn't work" is just silly.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, October 31, 2009

S.I.: Sheehan: Blown calls by umps are a problem, but one that can be easily solved

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics