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.
2:34 is probably shorter than a lot of on-field arguments, but probably longer than some too
Blue Jays manager John Gibbons challenged the on-field call that the runner was safe due to the first baseman’s foot being off the bag. The review took around two minutes—per a Twins beat writer—and upheld the on-field ruling of the runner being safe.
I am dismayed that two minutes counts as "quick."
Two minutes is NOT quick. Anything more than 30 seconds is too long. (and with today's technology, even 30 seconds is an absurdly long time, realistically speaking it can and should be done inside of ten seconds before even the manager gets time to decide to argue the call)
The only silver lining for me will be if Joe West's umpire reviews end up taking the longest.
This is simply unrealistic.
In the last 20 years of watching baseball, I have never seen the TV broadcast take more than 20 seconds to come up with a decent enough replay that you can honestly say whether the call is right or wrong. And realistically that is the standard they should be going for. Not to make sure the calls are perfect 100% of the time, but that the quickly obvious calls should be overturned as fast as possible
Yes. I say so only because there are so many folks involved, it would be too easy to catch someone dogging the process.
But, familiarity breeds ease and forgiveness. That's the major trouble, time-wise.
In the last 20 years of watching baseball, I have never seen the TV broadcast take more than 20 seconds to come up with a decent enough replay that you can honestly say whether the call is right or wrong.
You could keep showing the replay for another 20 years, and there's no way you could conclusively say whether Matt Holliday was safe at home in the 2007 one-game playoff with the Padres.
It's utterly ridiculous for the referee to go to the sidelines and stick his head under a hood to watch the replay.
You could keep showing the replay for another 20 years, and there's no way you could conclusively say whether Matt Holliday was safe at home in the 2007 one-game playoff with the Padres.****
Exactly, and in that case, the call on the field stays
I think you're missing a point here. We all understand, today, that the call was too close. But at what point DURING THE REPLAY do you say that? Do you wait 20 seconds and say it's too close to call? Just because we all understand today that the play was too close is no proof at all, that that play couldnt have stood a few more seconds of analysis.
WHat about that infield fly rule that dogged the Braves a few years back? Some of us are still arguing it. If the play is that divisive and constrovesial, I think we'd rather spend 90 sec. or so to try to get it right, or at least make sure we it's too close to call.
Also another thing, how many replays do we expect? I am unclear on the rule, if the manager gets the first challenge correct he gets another challenge? But only if it's the sixth inn. or prior? How does that 6th inn. thing work anyhow?
You get one challenge per game. If you challenge and are correct in the challenge, you retain the right for another challenge, no more than two challenges per game. After the 6th inning, the crew chief has the discretion to challenge a call at will. If a manager has used his challenge and after the sixth inning he can request a review but the crew chief isn't required to do it.
As far as homerun calls are concerned, they are not subject to challenges, but a manager can request a review, but the umpire isn't required to do a review. For homerun calls same rules in place as previous seasons.
God this system is so stupid.
That is pretty funny, they explicitly rule the area play is not subject to review.
No monitors or additional electronic equipment will be permitted in the dugout.
This part I don't agree with, it seems quite archaic to stick to the rules of the past.
Force play (except the fielder's touching of second base on a double play)
So if the batter beats out the relay the play at second becomes reviewable? Seems a bit odd.
Take a look at the thread about bunt doubles; look how much time we spent on analyzing Cano's double and whether he stepped out of the box. You really think calls like that should take less than 1 min?
What about a double-vs-home run call in the same situation?
Also, football has much more complicated decisions to make on replays than baseball does. Think about the challenge of trying to figure out if a player had "made a football move" in order to determine possession. Or whether or not a receiver had control of a ball while getting the second foot in bounds. There are multiple variables occurring on that call.
In baseball, there are very few multi-variable situations. A force play is almost never a question of whether or not the runner and fielder had their foot on the bag. Rather, it is about answering one question: What got there first, the ball or the runner? We've had a rule for over a century that says if it is a tie, then the runner gets the call. A trap vs a catch - one variable: Did the ball hit the ground?
I think this is going to actually go very quickly, once the system is in use for a short amount of time...it's the easiest sport in which to review a call...
A chunk of the time that elapses during replays in the NFL is used to determine where the ball should be placed, the down markers, correct time on the clock, ensuring no other rules come into play, etc. There is more to a replay than just overturn or uphold.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.6247 seconds, 56 querie(s) executed