I guess even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

Do you want calls made right or do you want them made fast?

Well, like all Americans, I want them done fast!

Do you want calls made right or do you want them made fast?

Well, like all Americans, I want them done fast!

Bottom of the 9th, no one out, runners on first and second, home team down by one. Batter hits a sinking liner to left which is in peril of being caught so the runner on second holds. The LF makes what looks like a sliding catch, and it is indeed ruled so. Upon review, the umpires rule it a trap. What do you do with the runners? Do you let them advance, even though it would have been fairly routine to get the guy at 3rd? Or do you call him out even though a play was never made? Both options stink, and whatever choice is made will harm one of the teams.

Bottom of the 9th, no one out, runners on first and second, home team down by one. Batter hits a sinking liner to left which is in peril of being caught so the runner on second holds. The LF makes what looks like a sliding catch, and it is indeed ruled so. Upon review, the umpires rule it a trap. What do you do with the runners? Do you let them advance, even though it would have been fairly routine to get the guy at 3rd? Or do you call him out even though a play was never made? Both options stink, and whatever choice is made will harm one of the teams.

If it was ruled a catch on the field, the runners is entitled to try for third if he wants after the catch, at his own peril. A review doesn't change that. I think the only question is whether upon review you grant the runner at second, third base. You could argue he wouldn't have advanced because he thought the LF might catch it, and its such a short throw, he wouldn't have made it. So the umpire will have to use his best judgment, just like in any dead ball situation.

FWIW, I'm not enamored with the idea of replay in all situations, but I do favor them for close safe/out plays on the bases, home run/not home run, and fair/foul balls. Traps/catches, I am a bit more iffy on.

Do you want calls made right or do you want them made fast?

Well, like all Americans, I want them done fast!

It's going to take a lot of fireworks to clean this ballpark up.

Do you want calls made right or do you want them made fast?

Bottom of the 10th, NL playoff between Rockies and Padres. You watch the replay 78 times and still don't know for sure whether Holliday was safe.

When the day comes when replay can get things right, all the time, the get it right argument will carry more weight. As is, replay just gets things a little closer to right, which to me just isn't worth it.

Bottom of the 10th, NL playoff between Rockies and Padres. You watch the replay 78 times and still don't know for sure whether Holliday was safe.

Bottom of the 13th.

You could argue he wouldn't have advanced because he thought the LF might catch it, and its such a short throw, he wouldn't have made it. So the umpire will have to use his best judgment, just like in any dead ball situation.

No, this will be an entirely new approach. Assuming a batter or runner would have been out without a play ever being made on him. There have been times a batter or runner was called out due to an infraction occurring like interference on the part of a batter, runner, coach, or fan, but I can't think of a situation where the umpires assume a clean play would have been made and thus calling a batter or runner out.

No, this will be an entirely new approach. Assuming a batter or runner would have been out without a play ever being made on him. There have been times a batter or runner was called out due to an infraction occurring like interference on the part of a batter, runner, coach, or fan, but I can't think of a situation where the umpires assume a clean play would have been made and thus calling a batter or runner out.

I don't know that its "fairly routine" the LF gets the guy at third, and I don't think you can assume that, so I don't think there's anyway they call the runner out. How often does this kind of play happen anyway? I can't say I've seen it in a long time. Are we really not going to implement a system because of the extreme examples of what might happen?

You watch the replay 78 times and still don't know for sure whether Holliday was safe.

Yea, its not perfect. I think you adopt a similar approach as the NFL - it has to be conclusive to overturn the call on the field.

Bottom of the 13th.

I knew it was extras, but I wasn't motivated enough to check the inning.

Do you want calls made right or do you want them made fast?

Well, like all Americans, I want them done fast!

Reminds me of what Jack Warner supposedly told a writer who was late with a movie script. "I want it to be good," the writer said. Warner replied: "I don't want it good. I want it Tuesday."

Reminds me of what Jack Warner supposedly told a writer who was late with a movie script. "I want it to be good," the writer said. Warner replied: "I don't want it good. I want it Tuesday."

Or what Lorne Michaels supposedly told Tina Fey (according to her book). "The show doesn't go on because it's ready. It goes on because it's 11:30."

Bottom of the 9th, no one out, runners on first and second, home team down by one. Batter hits a sinking liner to left which is in peril of being caught so the runner on second holds. The LF makes what looks like a sliding catch, and it is indeed ruled so. Upon review, the umpires rule it a trap. What do you do with the runners? Do you let them advance, even though it would have been fairly routine to get the guy at 3rd? Or do you call him out even though a play was never made? Both options stink, and whatever choice is made will harm one of the teams.

What you'll see is a lot more umpires ruling this a no catch to allow continuous action to happen. Just like with home run replays, you see umpires ruling the ball in play and letting the play happen. If you end up ruling a home run, everybody scores, outs are negated. If you rule it out of play and then see that it was live, you get into the mess of placing runners. The same would happen in a catch/no catch situation. Rule it no catch, and if it was caught, return runners to their base at the TOP.

It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where instant replay would result in a suboptimal outcome. It's also not that hard to come up with 1,000 instances where a blown call resulted in a suboptimal outcome.

12:

Neat.

Bottom of the 10th, NL playoff between Rockies and Padres. You watch the replay 78 times and still don't know for sure whether Holliday was safe.

When the day comes when replay can get things right, all the time, the get it right argument will carry more weight. As is, replay just gets things a little closer to right, which to me just isn't worth it.

It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where instant replay would result in a suboptimal outcome. It's also not that hard to come up with 1,000 instances where a blown call resulted in a suboptimal outcome.

Right. To use an old cliche, do we really want to let the best be the enemy of the better?

It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where instant replay would result in a suboptimal outcome. It's also not that hard to come up with 1,000 instances where a blown call resulted in a suboptimal outcome.

QFT. All of these "what happens if X happens", when X happens maybe once a year, are not good arguments, and they just derail the discussion. It's textbook "perfect is enemy of the good".

Now, I'm not saying that replay will be good, but there are much better arguments against it. I'm in favor of more replay if they do it right, which is a guy in a booth making a call within 30 seconds and radioing it down to the umps on the field. I'm strongly against the umps leaving the field, huddling around a monitor for 4 minutes before making a decision. You know, the NFL "guys on the field must make the call" nonsense.

QFT. All of these "what happens if X happens", when X happens maybe once a year, are not good arguments, and they just derail the discussion. It's textbook "perfect is enemy of the good".

That's quite the overstatement. Some of the most common types of plays that will demand replay usage* - fair/foul and catch/out, hell even safe/out in some circumstances - involve these types of 'alternate reality' scenarios.

Moreover, if the alternate reality scenario was the only argument against replay, that would be one thing. But there are other reasons not to favor it. It will lead to delays in a game that already has too many of them. And, for many of us, the idea of suspending our reaction to what happened until after the play has gotten the thumb's up or down from the replay guy makes sport-watching less enjoyable.

All in an effort to get some calls, not all of them, a little more right than they are now. No thanks.

* Assuming balls/strikes is off the table for now.

I don't really have a problem with occasionally using the replay to adjudicate a few close calls that umpires aren't in the position to see, like the aforementioned possible trap/extra base hit. However, there are other slots where I really, really don't want to see it:

1. Balls and strikes. I know that we basically have the technology right now to have a computer representation of a strike zone and then determine if a ball went through that or not. I don't know if we can crunch the data quickly enough to keep the game moving but I'm sure we will in time. Well, one of the "hidden" parts of the game that I like is the game that pitchers and catchers play with the umpire, where good control guys expand the zone and so on. I know that every now and then you see some egregious misuse of umpire power, like when an ump grossly expands the zone to show a hitter who is in charge or when he calls a ball a foot out of the zone a strike so that he can get home, but I don't believe that the remedy for this kind of thing is to entirely throw out this aspect of the game.

2. Close calls in the infield. Yeah, there was that play with the Dodgers earlier this year and yeah, it would have been nice to have that overruled. Here's the problem I see though: in the NFL, where of course the replay is deeply entrenched, you have stadium A/V guys replaying basically every close call that doesn't go the home team's way but not so much the other way around. In fact, if a play does go into the replay booth, you can bet that if there's not a clear call for the home team, it's not going to show up on the Jumbotron or whatever. Where this applies to baseball is that if an umpire makes a ruling on the field that's bad and it gets replayed, right now the fans just say "OH WHAT A BUM TAKE HIM OUT" and then it's over. If there's a possibility of a replay, you get the above, *plus* the "TAKE IT TO THE BOOTH YOU BUMS! I LIKE TO SAY BUM! BUM BUM BUM". If umpires give into this, even if they do so in anticipation of public outcry, this adds a level of homefield advantage that currently doesn't exist in the game.

So yeah, my objections are pretty purist-ish. Dammit, the game is in good shape now. We don't need large scale tinkering.

Do you want calls made right or do you want them made fast?

I'll gladly accept the occasional blown call in return for not having play interrupted for several minutes several times a game.

OTOH I'd love to see a ball and strike robot and eliminate those ####### "personal strike zones" which account for 99% of the bad calls in the course of any given evening.

If umpires give into this, even if they do so in anticipation of public outcry, this adds a level of homefield advantage that currently doesn't exist in the game.

Bud Selig is secretly in love with that aspect. This time it COUNTS! MOAR!

"OH WHAT A BUM TAKE HIM OUT"

Definitely the best of the umpiring crew from "Bases Loaded"

I'll gladly accept the occasional blown call in return for not having play interrupted for several minutes several times a game.

Its baseball. Play is interrupted for several minutes all the time for stuff less important than this.

It all depends on how its implemented, but I also rather doubt there would be several reviews per game. There are typically maybe 1-2 controversial calls per game, sometimes there are none. Maybe limit each manager to one replay challenge per game, and you've capped the delays to two max per game.

That's quite the overstatement. Some of the most common types of plays that will demand replay usage* - fair/foul and catch/out, hell even safe/out in some circumstances - involve these types of 'alternate reality' scenarios.

Yes but the large majority of those are easy alternate realities to figure out. I can see the argument for not wanting to do that, but it's over the top to pull out the specific scenarios that get trotted out.

Moreover, if the alternate reality scenario was the only argument against replay, that would be one thing. But there are other reasons not to favor it. It will lead to delays in a game that already has too many of them. And, for many of us, the idea of suspending our reaction to what happened until after the play has gotten the thumb's up or down from the replay guy makes sport-watching less enjoyable.

Yes, I said that there are better arguments against. I agree that the delay is a major concern. NFL style delays are excruciating. However, I think that there are a ton more opportunities in the NFL to replay. I think you could go two weeks watching a team and not see a controversial fair/foul or catch/trap play. So the intrusions will not be as common. Even having said that, I will repeat and say that the on-the-field review is a horrible idea. My replays would be required to be booth review in 30 seconds or less. And the booth guy would be instructed to be reviewing as soon as possible so most of the time he would have an answer by the time the umps on the field asked.

OTOH I'd love to see a ball and strike robot and eliminate those ####### "personal strike zones" which account for 99% of the bad calls in the course of any given evening.

Agree. Questec indicators for the ump if you still want him to make the hand motions.

“I’ve had very, very little pressure from people who want to do more,” Selig said.

I'm pretty sure we've had these threads before and Bud's right, I can't remember a single person advocating for replay. Problem solved.

...and you've capped the additional delays to two max per game.

Pre-emptively, I just don't buy the "managers screaming for five minutes anyhow" argument. If a manager is granted the ability for a challenge, they'll take one just in case.

Its also not like the "delays" from replay are completely dead time. Typically, the crowd is also looking at the replay and debating it too. That is entertaining, that is drama. Its the ones that drag on for several minutes that get to be tiresome. So just keep them limited to 30 seconds or a minute like the NFL does.

Also, hopefully this will cause MLB parks to show replays on controversial calls, as most stadiums it seems won't show them for fear of showing up the umpires.

It all depends on how its implemented, but I also rather doubt there would be several reviews per game. There are typically maybe 1-2 controversial calls per game, sometimes there are none. Maybe limit each manager to one replay challenge per game, and you've capped the delays to two max per game.

I've never liked these sorts of rules. They bring unneeded complexity to the whole thing. You get immediate nightly debates on whether the managers used their replay challenges smartly, which is not baseball, and I don't want it in baseball.

Think about the ideal system: we want no delays, we want on controversy or debate about the review feature. We just want egregious calls to be corrected swiftly, as if by the hand of God. What's the closest we can come to that?

Put a 5th umpire (which pleases the union and allows veteran umps to get even fatter) in a room with some televisions, and have him make an immediate decision on whether or not to review the play. Limit the types of plays he can review (eg no balls and strikes, no checked swings). Instruct the 5th umpire to only call for a review if the call immediately looks like it was incorrect (none of this "let's review just to be safe" nonsense that is the scourge of the last 2 minutes of NFL games). And let the 5th umpire make the call, all by himself, and relay the news to the crew chief electronically.

Maybe limit each manager to one replay challenge per game, and you've capped the delays to two max per game.

Well, do you want to get it right or not? What you suggest is the worst of both worlds

Well, the whole point of the review limits is to prevent managers from calling for one on every single close play. I guess requiring the review to come from on high would be its own thing, although at the same time I imagine the 4 guys on the field would begin to look at the guy in the booth the way police officers look at Internal Affairs: he's the guy who only pipes up when he thinks someone on the field might have missed a call.

I think that any replay, for reasons I've already stated and also because umpires have famously fragile egos, really needs to be generated by one of the guys on the field. So you go back to another issue with reviews called by managers, even with limits: what's to stop them from using one on a non-controversial play so as to give a relief pitcher more time to warm up? This throws in another layer of complexity that I for one would just as soon do without.

Well, do you want to get it right or not? What you suggest is the worst of both worlds

That's my feeling. If getting it right is of utmost importance, there can't be a limit on the number of times you review and you can't limit the amount of time spent. But if you want to limit the number of delays, then you have to compromise on accuracy (not that you can get ever reach 100 percent anyway). Which is fine, as long as your honest that it's not about "getting it right."

The 5th umpire solution with a 30-second, or 1-minute time limit is the most palatable, though I doubt that's adopted and I suspect that it will only lead to more use of replay that is less palatable.

The 5th umpire solution with a 30-second, or 1-minute time limit is the most palatable, though I doubt that's adopted and I suspect that it will only lead to more use of replay that is less palatable.

I would put the time limit as however long it takes for the pitcher to throw the next pitch. If by the time play resumes, you can't tell whether or not the call was wrong, it wasn't obviously incorrect enough to warrant correcting.

That's my feeling. If getting it right is of utmost importance, there can't be a limit on the number of times you review and you can't limit the amount of time spent. But if you want to limit the number of delays, then you have to compromise on accuracy (not that you can get ever reach 100 percent anyway). Which is fine, as long as your honest that it's not about "getting it right."

It doesn't have to be a binary choice, does it? There's a lot of middle ground between "let's review every play for 20 minutes just to be sure," and "who gives a #### if we get anything right" styles.

It seems to me that reasonable human beings can agree on "let's try and get everything right but let's not turn into the NFL." Sure we may go back and forth on some minor points, but excluding the nutty "human element" purists, I would think general consensus wouldn't be difficult.

I would put the time limit as however long it takes for the pitcher to throw the next pitch. If by the time play resumes, you can't tell whether or not the call was wrong, it wasn't obviously incorrect enough to warrant correcting.

It sounds good, but it would only work in conjunction with umpires finally telling batters and pitchers alike to get in the damn box/throw the damn ball. Otherwise, you'd get a whole lot of stalling from one side or the other.

But hell, if you meant the latter (getting rid of Traschel-Hargroving), I'd even be open to the former (replay).

It doesn't have to be a binary choice, does it? There's a lot of middle ground between "let's review every play for 20 minutes just to be sure," and "who gives a #### if we get anything right" styles.

But the replay advocates don't sell the idea that we're looking for a middle ground. Replay is sold on the premise of "getting it right."

And, to be honest, I am kind of a nutty human element purist. I like personalized strike zones, for instance.

It doesn't have to be a binary choice, does it? There's a lot of middle ground between "let's review every play for 20 minutes just to be sure," and "who gives a #### if we get anything right" styles.

Right. You guys are saying its the worst of both worlds because you want a reason to reject it outright because you don't like it. Getting more plays right is better than the status quo, and capping the number of delays is better than allowing every play to be challenged. There is no perfect system and there never will be, but we have to judge whether the proposal is better than what we currently have, and I believe it is.

But the replay advocates don't sell the idea that we're looking for a middle ground. Replay is sold on the premise of "getting it right."

I dunno; I have yet to encounter a replay advocate that says we have to get it right ABOVE ALL ELSE NO MATTER WHAT. Most of the ones I meet (and I'm one myself) are more along the lines of, "Jeez, can't we TRY and get SOME of this right?"

Your statement above does seem somewhat strawman-ish.

And, to be honest, I am kind of a nutty human element purist. I like personalized strike zones, for instance.

I can't even wrap my head around that, to be honest, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I dunno; I have yet to encounter a replay advocate that says we have to get it right ABOVE ALL ELSE NO MATTER WHAT. Most of the ones I meet (and I'm one myself) are more along the lines of, "Jeez, can't we TRY and get SOME of this right?"

Your statement above does seem somewhat strawman-ish.

Really? The benefit of replay is routinely sold on the importance of getting it right, with far less attention given to the fact that any limits on its implementation will lower its accuracy rate.

I can't even wrap my head around that, to be honest, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Thanks for your permission. (-:

As long as an umpire is consistent from beginning of the game to the end, and reasonable within the rulebook definition, I think a personalized strike zone is a good thing. I think adapting to the way the game is being called by the home plate ump, which has been going on for as long as there's been a baseball, is a skill for both pitchers and catchers and one I wouldn't want to see removed from the game. I thought it was cool when the leagues were separate and the AL and NL were known for having two different strike zones. And I think homogeneity, in most forms of entertaiment, sucks.

Heck no on instant replay says I.

It doesn't have to be a binary choice, does it? There's a lot of middle ground between "let's review every play for 20 minutes just to be sure," and "who gives a #### if we get anything right" styles.

In principle, sure. For example, the proposal in #29 doesn't sound too bad to me. But I don't think that situation is a stable equilibrium, so to speak. Suppose there's already a guy in the booth, and already a bunch of cameras set up for the task, etc etc. Then, whatever the worst calls are that don't get replayed, people will clamor for them to be replayable too, since the means to do so is already RIGHT THERE.

In practice, I think the stable equilibria are: no replay, or lots of it. And I think the former is vastly superior to the latter.

I don't particularly care for replay, largely for the reasons SoSH lays out.

On a practical level I think it creates more problems than it solves. One of my biggest frustrations with the NFL model is that plays often look different in super slomo than they do in live action. A ball caught cleanly can often appear to be juggled. I also hate the lawyer-like approach to the sport that it creates. Everything has to be so bleeping precise; "he caught the ball and while he had two feet down he did not then make a football move prior to losing control of the ball." I'm all for having rules but the Zapruder film thing that goes on just wears me out.

I think the NHL has a decent model with their goals and clock approach. I think home runs are right and I wouldn't hate seeing plays at the plate reviewable but beyond that, pass. I don't want to see a 6-4-3 DP overturned because a second baseman got the benefit of the neighborhood play.

I also hate the concept of "challenges." If a play deserves a challenge, it should be challenged whether or not it is asked for. The idea that a team could conceivably be on the wrong end of several bad calls and not be able to challenge one because seems silly to me.

In principle, sure. For example, the proposal in #29 doesn't sound too bad to me. But I don't think that situation is a stable equilibrium, so to speak. Suppose there's already a guy in the booth, and already a bunch of cameras set up for the task, etc etc. Then, whatever the worst calls are that don't get replayed, people will clamor for them to be replayable too, since the means to do so is already RIGHT THERE.

Well, yeah, this is a fear. But not all slippery slope possibilities come true.

There would be a bit of gamesmanship involving when to resume play, but I don't think I mind that. They already play those games when a rain delay is imminent, or when a team doesn't have its reliever ready. Those things don't bother me much.

But "challenges" are a ####### disaster. It has to be initiated by the umpires.

Really? The benefit of replay is routinely sold on the importance of getting it right, with far less attention given to the fact that any limits on its implementation will lower its accuracy rate.

I'm going to call "straw man" until you can point out an actual example that says (or even implies) what you're saying. And even if you point one out somehow, I'll still call shenanigans on "routinely."

In fact, pretty much EVERY time it's brought up around here, an immediate discussion ensues wherein the appropriate limits or controls for expediency are discussed.

Thanks for your permission. (-:

What I really meant was, "There's probably not much point in debating this further as we'll never agree. :)

As long as an umpire is consistent from beginning of the game to the end, and reasonable within the rulebook definition, I think a personalized strike zone is a good thing. I think adapting to the way the game is being called by the home plate ump, which has been going on for as long as there's been a baseball, is a skill for both pitchers and catchers and one I wouldn't want to see removed from the game. I thought it was cool when the leagues were separate and the AL and NL were known for having two different strike zones. And I think homogeneity, in most forms of entertaiment, sucks.

Whereas I think that rules that are deliberately not followed are stupid and pointless, and if there's one thing I loathe in baseball, it's the inconsistent strike zone.

Like I said...we'll never convince each other.

The thing about instant replay is that the experiment has been tested in the NFL. We don't have to hypothesize about what would happen when we have the worst case scenario right in front of our faces. Everything about instant replay in the NFL is terrible by any intelligible standard. The problem people who oppose instant replay have to face is that "people" think that instant replay in the NFL works. This kind of irrationality can't be fought because it is immune to reasons. They've even willingly and consciously changed the rules to accommodate instant replay.

This demonstrates that instant replay isn't a tool that enhances the game, rather instant replay has become more important than the game. It isn't a tool, it's a mindset. It can't be implemented intelligently because instant replay becomes the standard by which intelligence is measured.

. Everything about instant replay in the NFL is terrible by any intelligible standard.

Really? I think it works pretty well. The only thing I hate is what Jose refers to above, the ridiculous micro-management legalese of the rulebook applied to plays. That's probably my biggest hesitation with replay in baseball.

Football and baseball are different. And MLB, hopefully, will be able to learn from the errors of the NFL. The worst case scenario is not destiny.

One takeaway from the NFL's system is that it argues against the slippery slope scenario that replay will always become more intrusive and take up more time. The NFL has changed its system many times, but it's generally become less of a burden, not more.

Yeah, I don't think the NFL system works so badly either, but it's a different sport with different guidelines. I mean, the instant replay would be a horrendous idea in soccer, for example. Baseball is a lot more stop-and-start than soccer or basketball (where the IR is only used to determine if a player got a shot off before the final buzzer) but there's still a general flow to the game that's interrupted badly enough when relief pitchers come into the game and which can completely deflate the tension in a game if we stop and start for other reasons, like the replay.

The NFL OTOH is not just built around stopping and starting but also around quick and easy to run TV spots. Most baseball games aren't transmitted nationally and there is a much larger percentage of baseball fans who enjoy their team at the game than football (nothing against the NFL but they have a larger fanbase than baseball and 10% the number of regular season games... you do the math). Not to mention the fact that television is a medium of the previous century which is beginning to be eclipsed by Web-based viewing and other ways of hooking into your team and so modifying the game in ways that make it more TV compatible but perhaps not as other-media compatible is moving backwards, not forwards.

I'll gladly accept the occasional blown call in return for not having play interrupted for several minutes several times a game.

This is one of the reasons people give for opposing replay, and with all due respect to Andy, it's a ####### stupid reason to oppose replay.

In reality you are saying I oppose replay the way I think it's going to be. (it's like people who oppose the death penalty because some innocent people get executed---in that case you don't oppose the death penalty, you oppose the implementation of the death penalty) There is plenty of ways to do replay without it delaying the game noticeably.

Imagine a perfect (baseball) world? How would it look when it comes to plays on the field? In this perfect world does Joyce make the correct call? Does Denkinger make the correct call? If you are fine with those mistakes, then argue that you are a traditionalist, and don't want instant replay. Period. Don't give us some bs reason about the delay of game, because that is just a cop out. If replay was enacted perfectly and seamlessly, would you accept it? If you say yes, then it's all about making it perfect and seamless and quit lying to yourself about why you oppose it.


I support instant replay, provided it is done right. I do not want the f-up that is the NFL. I don't want coaches having the chance to argue the play. I want a system that only triggers in clear cases, and I want a system that limits judgement calls on where the bases that the runners advanced. As a general rule, if the tv booth can make the decision on whether it was a mistake by the ump or not, before the next pitch, then those are the plays I want overturned.

It all depends on how its implemented, but I also rather doubt there would be several reviews per game. There are typically maybe 1-2 controversial calls per game, sometimes there are none. Maybe limit each manager to one replay challenge per game, and you've capped the delays to two max per game.

God, please no. Any system that allows there to be challenges is destined to be exploited and a complete cluster up. NFL is the exact definition of how not to do the replay. If the NFL does it, then you know it's wrong.

1. Nobody on the field should have a say on whether it's going to be reviewed.
2. The on field umps should not review the play. Period. Your eyes are adjusted to daylight time, and you are going to ask someone to adjust their vision for a tv screen? That is so idiotic, only the NFL could have thought that was a viable method for reviewing the plays.
3. The replay team(in a studio back in new york for all that it matters) reviews the play, radios the ump their findings, and their recommendations, the crew chief makes the final call.
4. all of this happens before the next pitch is thrown or 1 minute, whichever is less. You cannot extend the time to make a change just because a manager is delaying the game arguing.
4a. The time can only be extended by the review studio, if they radio inside of a minute saying they want to check other angles.

Nice and simple. It gets rid of the horrendous calls, keep the pace the same, and doesn't allow for gaming of the system.

And MLB, hopefully, will be able to learn from the errors of the NFL. The worst case scenario is not destiny.

No, but one has to be realistic about likely outcomes.

There's a big difference between a lazy slippery slope argument ("There's a vaguely imaginable pathway between this choice and a bad outcome!") and realistic assessment of likely outcomes ("Doing X has led to Y in other cases, here's the mechanism for going from X to Y, etc"). In a number of the replay proposals that people are tossing out, there's really no practical barrier between reviewing the plays they want to review and reviewing other plays, or from taking the limited amount of time they want to take and taking longer.

This is one of the reasons people give for opposing replay, and with all due respect to Andy, it's a ####### stupid reason to oppose replay.

Why? I watch baseball because I find it fun to watch; if I think replay will make baseball less fun to watch, isn't that a good reason to oppose replay?