Until another league demonstrates and ability to review video replays in something close to real time (which doesn't seem like it would be that hard, what with instantaneous replay on TV broadcasts, but we're still cursed with several minutes of referees/umpires/etc staring at a video screen each time there's a review) I don't particularly want to see a significant expansion of replay either. Perhaps the extra time is worth getting it right in a playoffs, but I'd rather accept a few game-altering crappy calls a season than make regular season games another 5-10 minutes longer.

It does seem like they could adopt increased replay for the post-season but not the regular season. They have RF and LF umpires in the post-season but not the regular season, after all, along with 8:40 start times and one-game "series."

That's a false choice, you can have instant replay and shorter games too.

First, some extended arguments and player/manager meltdowns will be avoided with replay. As entertaining as those are, they don't have the natural dramatic tension that builds as we wait for an important ruling to be made.

But more importantly the games can easily be shortened by other means. Would you rather have batters indiscriminately take timeout after timeout to adjust their gloves than instant replay? Or have managers keep their unlimited rights to bring in relief pitchers, each of which has to be given a warmup longer than an instant replay review takes? Or allow players to continues to use thin handled high performance bats that break too easily?

First, some extended arguments and player/manager meltdowns will be avoided with replay. As entertaining as those are, they don't have the natural dramatic tension that builds as we wait for an important ruling to be made.

Call arguing rarely amounts to much time in baseball. Certainly significantly less than is taken up by reviews in a typical NFL game.

But more importantly the games can easily be shortened by other means. Would you rather have batters indiscriminately take timeout after timeout to adjust their gloves than instant replay? Or have managers keep their unlimited rights to bring in relief pitchers, each of which has to be given a warmup longer than an instant replay review takes? Or allow players to continues to use thin handled high performance bats that break too easily?

I'd rather have none of those things.

we're still cursed with several minutes of referees/umpires/etc staring at a video screen

That's a key point to me. Even with review, these are still human judgment calls, and we see them either inconclusive or simply wrong in the NFL often enough to make me wonder what value they add.

I'm just not a big replay fan. I think it makes sense on home run calls but for the most part I prefer the imperfections. Additionally I hate hate HATE the way the NFL version devolves to such a lawyer style level of precision. I don't want to hear about the baseball equivalent of "a football move" or crap like that. I firmly believe tht calls even themselves out and if a call beats you it's because you allow it to.

Terrence Moore is really, fantastically dumb.

Call arguing rarely amounts to much time in baseball. Certainly significantly less than is taken up by reviews in a typical NFL game.

The NFL is the worse way to do a replay system on the planet. People need to stop pointing at a moronic system and saying "this is how baseball would be"... NO this is not how baseball would be. There is no reason for baseball to be that stupid. NFL fans are idiots for accepting that replay system(that isn't the only reason they are idiots, they are idiots for lots of reasons including thinking popularity of a sport is about ratings, and that a salary cap is actually good for the sport and that the owners have the best interest in the sport in mind, and for thinking that football has more action than baseball etc..)

Instead of people opposing out of some silly sense of "I don't want it, if it's going to be like the NFL" people need to support it saying "I'll support it if it's done like this....." Forget the negative viewpoint. MLB instant replay is extremely easy and it's potential for time interference if done right is negligible.

1. 5th umpire in the replay booth(with an assistant who knows how to run the machines)
2. No options for on field requests for a review.
3. Only clear cut plays allowed to overturn a call

The review umpire looks at a play as it happens in real time, if he thinks the umpire made the wrong call, he radios down (within 15 seconds) that a review is happening and has to have a call within 1 minute. If he can't make a determination in that time, call on the field stands.

Reviewable plays would only be force outs, tag plays, fair/foul, etc. Plays that shouldn't be reviewed? trapped catches, balls and strikes,

The NFL is the worse way to do a replay system on the planet. People need to stop pointing at a moronic system and saying "this is how baseball would be"... NO this is not how baseball would be

And you have to stop pretending that replay will be just like you want it to be. History tells us there's a very good chance that any replay baseball adopts will not be as effiicient as you suggest.

I don't want it anyway. I don't think it adds anything to the game (I like a little imperfection in my game). And I like knowing that what I saw happen on the field is what happened, and my reaction to that event is not subject to further review.

1. 5th umpire in the replay booth(with an assistant who knows how to run the machines)
2. No options for on field requests for a review.
3. Only clear cut plays allowed to overturn a call

It's been a while since I paid any attention to the NHL, but isn't this roughly their system? With the official watching the game on video who notifies the officials on the ice any time he's reviewing a goal. I don't recall any massive delays with that procedure.

EDIT: Apologies if this has come up repeatedly in replay threads. I usually don't peek in on them as I'm not too bothered one way or the other...guess I'm bored today.

The NFL is the worse way to do a replay system on the planet. People need to stop pointing at a moronic system and saying "this is how baseball would be"... NO this is not how baseball would be. There is no reason for baseball to be that stupid

I'd be stunned if this wasn't almost exactly what baseball would do. MLB suffers from some NFL envy and I think would view a challenge system as the way to go.

How does baseball do it now for home run calls? Don't the umps on the field leave and review the video?

MLB suffers from some NFL envy and I think would view a challenge system as the way to go

And then if the manager throws his flag on an automatic review of an opponent's HR, the HR call stands without review and the manager gets ejected :)

The NFL is the worse way to do a replay system on the planet

No surprise. The officiating is not much better. The ref's spotting of the ball can bear little resemblance to where forward progress on the previous play ended. That is kind of big deal when you need to go 10 yards in four downs to get a first down.

The ref's spotting of the ball can bear little resemblance to where forward progress on the previous play ended. That is kind of big deal when you need to go 10 yards in four downs to get a first down.

Fortunately for the NFL, no one seems to pay attention to this peculiarity until fourth down.

you need to go 10 yards in four downs to get a first down

Speaking of which, why does the NFL still use those chains to measure for first down? The chains are actually still visually useful if you're at the game, but if the TV networks can display an electronic image of the scrimmage and first-down lines, why can't a similar system simply measure instantaneously for the first down? The amount of inertia in these systems as they get revised piecemeal is peculiar. I guess it's the analogy to asking why the ball has to be produced and handled in a very precise fashion in order to execute an appeal play, but those are quite a bit rarer than measuring for first down.

Fortunately for the NFL, no one seems to pay attention to this peculiarity until fourth down.

The difference between 2nd and 6 and 2nd and 5 is virtually meaningless in the modern NFL. The spot is only notable on 4th down where it's close.

11. That and you know MLB will use replay as a marketing ploy. "No more bad calls", "fair rulings", "using technology to our advantage", etc. Any expanded use of replay will be the kind that is highly visible and highly distracting.

But more importantly the games can easily be shortened by other means.

We can use those methods to shorten the game, and then not give the time back for use on replay calls.

And you have to stop pretending that replay will be just like you want it to be. History tells us there's a very good chance that any replay baseball adopts will not be as effiicient as you suggest.

I don't see why it has to be that way. If people are vocal on how it should be done, instead of polarizing on whether to do it or not, then the message to the MLB will get lost. Replay is inevitable, those that don't realize that, are deluding themselves(They probably still rail about the DH..get over it, the battle was lost). So forget the opposing and supporting arguments and focus on the eventual reality of it happening in the future and how best it should be done.

My replay solution has been to hire four additional umpires and form one more crew. Give all the crews a regular rotation at the MLB Network studios in Secaucus. Build a dedicated room with feeds from every game. Each of the umpires is assigned to work video review for one-fourth of the games going on at any moment. Get at least one intern to watch each individual game. When there's a controversial play, either the crew chief of the game in question or the intern will call the video review umpire to look at the play. The issue can be resolved in five minutes. If the video review umpire has been watching the game closely anyway, the delay could be less than a minute.

There would be no need to hire 15 more umpires to cover each game, just four.

No need to build a video booth in every stadium.

Umpires less likely to resent being over-ruled by a fellow umpire.

Agreed about making the umpire the person doing the replay. As to the logistics of how it should be done, I'm not that concerned with that, whatever is best I'll support. Disagree about the five minute rule. If it's over 2 minutes it should be "play called on field stands" heck if it's over one minute "it should be play on field stands"..

The goal should not be 100% accuracy, it should be to eliminate obvious mistakes and move on.

The difference between 2nd and 6 and 2nd and 5 is virtually meaningless in the modern NFL. The spot is only notable on 4th down where it's close.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/07/first-down-probability.html

FTA:

We can see that the break even point for 2nd down is 5.5 yards. In other words, a team (whose purpose is to get a 1st town) should prefer a 2nd down and 5 to a 1st and 10, but it should prefer a 1st and 10 to 2nd and 6.

Maybe stick to baseball, dog

Until another league demonstrates and ability to review video replays in something close to real time (which doesn't seem like it would be that hard, what with instantaneous replay on TV broadcasts, but we're still cursed with several minutes of referees/umpires/etc staring at a video screen each time there's a review) I don't particularly want to see a significant expansion of replay either.

Doesn't tennis kind of do this? I don't watch much tennis but from what I've seen, the review of in/out calls doesn't seem to take any longer than showing a video replay does.

Additionally I hate hate HATE the way the NFL version devolves to such a lawyer style level of precision.

are you saying that lawyers are precise? Are you saying the NFL's calls are very precise? Or are you saying that you dont like complex, wordy rules?

If the latter, it is open question whether baseball is any better. While the football rulebook is far lengthier, to my knowledge, the CONCEPTS used to define the rules in baseball are some of the most obscure, and highly concpetual I have encountered. The concept of the "fourth out" and the recent infield fly rule kerfuffle are good examples.

It makes the concept of a "football move" seem downright pedestrian. I mean, I grant you it is sometimes hard to figure what is a football move, or it being used unfairly but the concept seems easy enuf: some guy is moving something that football players do. As opposed to scratching his nose, I guess.

But again, it is hard to comprehend the quote. "Lawyer style level of precision." Obviously you want precision and/or accuracy if you are going to take the trouble to review something. Jesus Christ!

ANd what does the phrase "lawyer style" add to it anyhow?

And you have to stop pretending that replay will be just like you want it to be. History tells us there's a very good chance that any replay baseball adopts will not be as effiicient as you suggest.

this hardly a powerful argument. There are some sports such as tennis and gymnastics and maybe swimming where the replay system seems to be working fine.

Obviously it is an open question as to how far baseball can succeed with it. Perhaps it depends on how many people are moving at one time in the sport in question. Baseball is perhaps in between the two extremes of organized territorial warfare and individual one man exhibitions.

I tend to think baseball will be much better than football's but you are not even questioning that are you? All you are saying is it wont be perfect or something...

Whatever. The pt. is the football system is probably unique to football because it has it's own unique problems of officiating.

I just dont want to see two men up on 3rd base and no one is out. Or a ball that lands 4 feet fair is foul. The Kozma fly, I can see is a judgement call and highly dependent on the exact wording of the rule so obviously replay would probably still lead to gnashing of teeth for many, although I understand that call just fine.

The ref's spotting of the ball can bear little resemblance to where forward progress on the previous play ended. That is kind of big deal when you need to go 10 yards in four downs to get a first down.

the spotting of the ball is your big issue with NFL officiating? It comes up most often with plays at the goal line. E.g. the Rothlisberger TD vs Seattle in the Superbowl. But by and large it does not seem to be a huge issue for me. it comes often enuf with first downs but that doesnt seem all that huge, on goal line situations yes but how often?

Things that irritate me about NFL officiating:

1) you're not allowed to help advance the runner. THis happens quite often near the goal line and I cannot recall it once being called. I would bet in nearly every Nfl and college this happens at least once per game. it is absurd.

2) Certain flagrant hits, both called and uncalled. THere are still plenty of obvious head shots not called and barely mentioned by the announcers and certain calls that were clearly not head shots.

3) system of fines instead of ejections for flagrant hits. Fining people 50k for a head shot is hardly putting an end to it; you're simply putting a price on injuries. Some people are willing to pay 50k to remove a player. The whole New Orleans bounty gate is almost a natural outgrowth of this attitude.

I tend to think baseball will be much better than football's but you are not even questioning that are you? All you are saying is it wont be perfect or something...

No, I'm saying the opposite. CFB thinks we shouldn't bring up the flaws with football's, since baseball will be nothing like that. I think it's foolish to think that whatever replay baseball adopts will be the one he prefers (the perfect one). There's no reason not to bring up our objections to football's replay system, since it's quite possible that baseball will employ some of the same idiotic rules governing replay that America's Sport does (rather than the generally more well-regarded one used by Canada's Sport). And I guess he thinks that if we all just get behind his system, then Bud will surely listen, which is cute.

But as to your larger point, it can't be perfect. It can get us closer to perfect, but it can't get us all the way there. You can make the reviews longer (and thus enter that time-zapping area that many complain about) and be more accurate, or limit the time which will allow some real mistakes to fall through the cracks (which fails the "get it right" objective).

Beyond that, I think it will create the issue of alternate realities (particularly if used on fair/foul balls, trap/catch), which I'm not in favor of. It will also create that sitaution where what I saw isn't what I saw until some guy a few minutes later affirms or rejects what I saw, which I find to be terribly undesirable.

I prefer to just leave it as it is, recognize that some mistakes will be made (as they have for as long as the game has been played) and move on.

I just dont want to see two men up on 3rd base and no one is out.

You didn't see that.

Or a ball that lands 4 feet fair is foul.

You didn't see that either.

The Kozma fly, I can see is a judgement call and highly dependent on the exact wording of the rule so obviously replay would probably still lead to gnashing of teeth for many, although I understand that call just fine.

That's good, because not only did he get it right, he got it just about perfect.

I firmly believe tht calls even themselves out and if a call beats you it's because you allow it to.

this attitude seems like something you totally copped an attitude about.

I mean, think about real life. Is this really how you feel about:

getting shafted on a grade by a teacher who didnt grade your paper correctly?

getting screwed on a performance based job promotion but some superior who was wrong?

some doctor not getting the right call on your child?

some judge locking you up for something you didnt do?

Can you honestly say you do not understand how someone competing in a sport in front of millions of people and getting paid millions of dollars does not deserve to get the best quality of calls?

Or do you live in some third world country where trains do not run on time, your mail is opened and people just routinely disappear? I mean those are like the only people left in this world who actually accept bullsheet like that. Seriously dude, its like your life is so messed up you actually get some schadenfreude out of totally eff'd up calls.

You didn't see that.

Did I say that?

No, I'm saying the opposite. CFB thinks we shouldn't bring up the flaws with football's, since baseball will be nothing like that. I think it's foolish to think that whatever replay baseball adopts will be the one he prefers (the perfect one)

you seem to be making any number of foolish assumptions without going to the source.

I dont recall him saying that he feels perfection is attainable. or that he wants a perfect system. I dont even understand what you are charging him with there:

"CFB prefers a perfect system"

Is that the charge? WHere does he say that? This is classic straw man stuff, obviously a perfect system IS UNATTAINABLE. Hello? WHo doesnt get that? Is that the depth of your argument?

2) Where is he denying anyone the right to bring up any sort of objection? His response to the NFL replay argument is that baseball is quite different and probably the replay system will be quite different.

Do you disagree with the above statement?

I wont parse through the rest. Just getting a cogent response on the first two pts. will be a challenge.

Beyond that, I think it will create the issue of alternate realities (particularly if used on fair/foul balls, trap/catch), which I'm not in favor of. It will also create that sitaution where what I saw isn't what I saw until some guy a few minutes later affirms or rejects what I saw, which I find to be terribly undesirable.

On fair/foul: tennis seems to be doing a good job with this; and I dont see why they cant do the same thing in baseball.

On trap/catch. Obviously this is going to be a real challenge particularly if they have to reset runners or whatever. Some balls it's hard to tell if it was a catch, but I think many times perhaps 75% of the time, a well watched replay is quite definitive on the matter.

Do you agree or disagree on that? Dont you think most of the time, the angle is good and you can actually tell if it was caught? In the NFL many times you still cant tell if the ball hit the dirt or was still juggling.

On alternate realities... Can you please give a concrete example here? I am at a total loss trying to see what you're saying. The only recent alternate realities that I recall are like those penn state fans on the message boards. Other than that, not sure what.

I prefer to just leave it as it is, recognize that some mistakes will be made (as they have for as long as the game has been played) and move on.

NObody here is against that. This argument is all of your own making.

We can see that the break even point for 2nd down is 5.5 yards. In other words, a team (whose purpose is to get a 1st town) should prefer a 2nd down and 5 to a 1st and 10, but it should prefer a 1st and 10 to 2nd and 6.

Put down the pocket protector, Dexter.

On trap/catch. Obviously this is going to be a real challenge particularly if they have to reset runners or whatever. Some balls it's hard to tell if it was a catch, but I think many times perhaps 75% of the time, a well watched replay is quite definitive on the matter.

The "alternative reality" complaint is entirely about what to do with baserunners. Determining whether or not to reverse a trap/catch call is the easy part. Deciding what would have happened if the call had been made correctly on the field is the hard part. If a catch call gets reversed, you will necessarily award base(s) to runner(s) and deny the defense the opportunity to make play(s).

On fair/foul: tennis seems to be doing a good job with this; and I dont see why they cant do the same thing in baseball.

Play a let? Really?

you seem to be making any number of foolish assumptions without going to the source.

I dont recall him saying that he feels perfection is attainable. or that he wants a perfect system. I dont even understand what you are charging him with there:

"CFB prefers a perfect system"

Is that the charge? WHere does he say that? This is classic straw man stuff, obviously a perfect system IS UNATTAINABLE. Hello? WHo doesnt get that? Is that the depth of your argument?

2) Where is he denying anyone the right to bring up any sort of objection? His response to the NFL replay argument is that baseball is quite different and probably the replay system will be quite different.

Do you disagree with the above statement?

I wont parse through the rest. Just getting a cogent response on the first two pts. will be a challenge.

You are allowed to read the entire thread before entering.

CFB said this (I've bolded for easier reading):

People need to stop pointing at a moronic system and saying "this is how baseball would be"... NO this is not how baseball would be.

Not a lot of gray area there. Not room for probably. He's determined that baseball's system won't be like football's, based entirely on wishful thinking.

I'd respond to your other points, but cerco covered one and the others don't make sense.

The "alternative reality" complaint is entirely about what to do with baserunners.

BUt I dont think we've really had disputes about these sorts of decisions in the past have we? I cant recall any but..?

CFB thinks we shouldn't bring up the flaws with football's, since baseball will be nothing like that. I think it's foolish to think that whatever replay baseball adopts will be the one he prefers (the perfect one). There's no reason not to bring up our objections to football's replay system, since it's quite possible that baseball will employ some of the same idiotic rules governing replay that America's Sport does (rather than the generally more well-regarded one used by Canada's Sport). And I guess he thinks that if we all just get behind his system, then Bud will surely listen, which is cute.

Actually CFB thinks that it is fine to bring up the flaws with the NFL system in an argument to improve whatever baseball will implement. CFB doesn't think you should bring up the NFL system as an argument against pursuing replay. There is a difference. I'm fine with bringing up the flaws in an argument to improve how baseball should do it.

But as to your larger point, it can't be perfect. It can get us closer to perfect, but it can't get us all the way there. You can make the reviews longer (and thus enter that time-zapping area that many complain about) and be more accurate, or limit the time which will allow some real mistakes to fall through the cracks (which fails the "get it right" objective).

No system is going to be perfect, and the pursuit of perfection is a foolish endeavor. Improvement is the goal. I don't agree with everyone's elses version of how it should be done or for what (I have no clue why people want to do it for trapped ball calls and thought it was silly that the first thing they did was for homerun calls, a play that was called wrong maybe three times a year) but at the same time, I know it's going to happen no matter how vocal people oppose it, and I'm optimistic that they come up with the best way to do it.

Beyond that, I think it will create the issue of alternate realities (particularly if used on fair/foul balls, trap/catch), which I'm not in favor of. It will also create that sitaution where what I saw isn't what I saw until some guy a few minutes later affirms or rejects what I saw, which I find to be terribly undesirable.

I prefer to just leave it as it is, recognize that some mistakes will be made (as they have for as long as the game has been played) and move on.

I prefer to fix the blatant miscalls, and have a system in place to do that. I agree, that I don't want to screw around with judgement calls or go to NFL extremes of "lawyer defining every type of play", but yes I do want Denkinger, Joyce etc type of plays to get a second chance at improvement. Replay is coming no matter how much people gnash their teeth against it, let's just be vocal of the type of replay that we want to see.

Actually CFB thinks that it is fine to bring up the flaws with the NFL system in an argument to improve whatever baseball will implement. CFB doesn't think you should bring up the NFL system as an argument against pursuing replay. There is a difference.

And if CFB's opinion on the matter carried any weight with MLB, this might be an important distinction. It doesn't, so it isn't.

Replay is coming no matter how much people gnash their teeth against it, let's just be vocal of the type of replay that we want to see.

I'd rather gnash my teeth than support something I don't want in any form.

I'd rather gnash my teeth than support something I don't want in any form.

Do you really don't want it in any form? I find that to be as silly as people who don't want to use a computer because their typewriter was just fine.

And if CFB's opinion on the matter carried any weight with MLB, this might be an important distinction. It doesn't, so it isn't.

True, just like any of these discussions on here have no weight. But when it happens I still want to see it happen properly. I just do not get the attitude of "It's going to be done wrong" while not giving out an opinion on how it should be done. I do not want an NFL style replay system and if that happens, I'll be as vocal as anyone in opposing it and complaining about it.

Do you really don't want it in any form? I find that to be as silly as people who don't want to use a computer because their typewriter was just fine.

No sillier than writing worse when you mean worst. Sorry, but that particular writing tic of yours has grated on me forever.

I've laid out the reasons why I don't like replay, in this very thread. I've seen replay used, in various forms in various sports*, and I've come to the conclusion that it detracts from the viewing experience. Therefore, I sure as hell don't want it implemented in the one sport I truly care about.

* I guess the drone version used tennis is OK, though I don't give a rat's ass about tennis and it's a very different sport from these team competitions (hell, at virtually all levels of tennis, they don't have umpires at all and all calls are made by the participants).

let's just be vocal of the type of replay that we want to see.

That's a fair point though I come closer to SoSH in terms of what I would want to see. Personally I'm ok with the Joyce/Denkinger type calls. I think the home run calls are reasonable to review since I think they are virtually impossible for an umpire to see. Given the importance of run scoring plays I wouldn't entirely hate plays at the plate though I'd prefer not. Along those lines I could probably learn to not hate an expanded replay for the post-season but generally I prefer less is more on replay.

And absolutely positively no on robot ball/strike umps.