The NFL has changed its system many times, but it's generally become less of a burden, not more.

They now replay all scoring plays (though not all non-scoring plays that might be scoring plays, which doesn't seem terribly logical to me). That's an expansion, though whether it's burdensome is a matter of opinion.

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.

Well, I'm not just talking here. But seriously, I don't know how you can miss examples of people whose primary argument for replay is "to get it right." I very rarely hear pro-replay commentators talking about the need to get it a little more accurate than it is now.

Whereas I think that rules that are deliberately not followed are stupid and pointless,

See, I think the neighborhood play at second is a perfectly good example of a rule that is wisely not followed. The umpires allow some leeway to middle infielders around the base, and as a result, we can reduce the number of mangled middle infielders. That to me is a good thing, made possible by umps deliberately ignoring the letter of the law.

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?

That is a fine reason for opposing replays. I don't have a problem with people who are fine with living in the 19th century and enjoying the traditional stylings of the game.

That is a perfectly legit reason to oppose replay.

Arguing that it's going to add time to the game, is not a legitimate argument against replay. It's a legitimate argument against a specific proposal of replay. Assuming it's going to add minutes or hours to the game, is not a fair assessment of replay, it's fear mongering.

Again, if you don't want it, that is fine. If you are willing to accept it only if it has no impact on your viewing experience, that is a completely different argument than outright opposing instant replay.

I am troubled by the degree to which I find myself agreeing with cfb here.

See, I think the neighborhood play at second is a perfectly good example of a rule that is wisely not followed. The umpires allow some leeway to middle infielders around the base, and as a result, we can reduce the number of mangled middle infielders. That to me is a good thing, made possible by umps deliberately ignoring the letter of the law.

Exactly, replay shouldn't involve itself on those type of plays at all. When replay gets implemented more(not saying if, it is inevitable) hopefully the first go round is setting up safe out force outs that end the play. That is where the biggest opportunity is at, and has the best chance of not interferring with the game.

I am not a fan of instant replay for trapped balls, although if there is no runner on base, I can see a reason to include it. Would hate for instant replay to be used to determine if the second baseman/shortstop was on the bag, etc. Basically the hope for instant replay is that it corrects the obvious mistakes or even the bang bang mistakes, while not interfering in the actual game.

I think that the proper implementation of replay would be a clear enhancement to the game. Improper implementation can become a distraction, depending on how poorly that implementation is, it might be better than what we have now, it might not.

Who wants to live "in the 19th century" again? If we're going to get slammed for not being exact with our words, that has to apply to both sides. At most we "the purists" want to keep things the way they are right now, which last I checked is the 21st century. Going back to the 19th century would mean putting only 1 umpire on the field, do little to stop him from being abused (and by abused I mean physically struck) by players and managers and, if he makes an especially anti-home team call, the fans, and make the game hinge on shenanigans the umpire can't catch, such as skipping 2nd base when running from 1st to 3rd on a base hit or tugging on a runner's belt when he's tagging up on a fly ball. I'm pretty sure nobody's for that.

But even above my baseball purism, I'm all for stuff that works. If we can demonstrate it in non-major league games - the low minors, for instance - and show that it doesn't significantly prolong the game and that it doesn't serve to further antagonize fans against the men in blue, sure, I would change my mind about this. Just talking it through, though, I simply don't see where the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, at least not for me. And that has zero to do with "the 19th century".

That is a fine reason for opposing replays. I don't have a problem with people who are fine with living in the 19th century and enjoying the traditional stylings of the game. That is a perfectly legit reason to oppose replay.

PLBlblblblblblbllblblblblblblblbl!

I issue a fart of no confidence on this comment.

Imagine a perfect (baseball) world? How would it look when it comes to plays on the field?

If by "perfect" you mean that every call is decided correctly with a minimum of delay, then the surest way to eliminate 99% of that imperfection is to robotize ball and strike calls, or at the very least, fire umpires with "personalized" strike zones that consistently deviate from the one in the rule book. Compared to the balls and strikes, all other bad calls put together are almost statistically insignificant. And I'm in favor of a roboump for balls and strikes. No "traditionalism" there. Nothing but improved calls with zero delays for arguing or replays.

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.

That's pretty harsh, cfb. In many ways I guess I am a "traditionalist" (dark green seats, no music over the loudspeakers except during the 7th inning stretch until the game is over, no rock star renditions of the SSB, etc.), but in this case my concern IS entirely directed at game delays that interrupt the game's rhythm. I have no interest in interrupting the flow of the game just so 99.99% of the calls will be "correctly" decided instead of a mere 99.5% of them.

And as I said, I can live with the occasional Denkinger call. To me that's just part of the game. It simply doesn't bother me that bad luck occasionally takes the form of a bad call, but it does bother me for a pitcher or batter to have to sit there and cool his heels while people sit there and try to perfect a game that by its very nature is often imperfect.

That said, if you have to have replay, I'd be less resistant to Preserved Fish's idea in # 29 than any of the others I've seen. The key points there would be giving 100% of the power of initiation and reversal to that 5th umpire in the booth, and giving him a maximum of 30 seconds to make his final and unappealable decision.

Repeat: 30 seconds from start to finish, period. If it takes any longer than that to decide, the call couldn't have been all that incorrect to begin with.

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.

You're comparing a perfect idea of expanded replay against the real imperfect (expanded-)replay-less game. If this were valid, I could just as well say "If we could hire perfect umpires who never botch calls, would you accept it? If you say yes, then it's all about training perfect umpires." Imperfect non-seamless elements are part of a policy decision, you can't leave them out of the analysis.

I think it's very unlikely that, in practice, expanded replay would expand only into areas that "ha[ve] no impact on your viewing experience" and remain contained there. There is a risk of really detracting from the game, and I don't see the potential benefit as all that great by comparison.

Also, I don't want my basetenders wearing those ridiculous mittens. And overhand bowling? Bah!

That said, if you have to have replay, I'd be less resistant to Preserved Fish's idea in # 29 than any of the others I've seen. The key points there would be giving 100% of the power of initiation and reversal to that 5th umpire in the booth, and giving him a maximum of 30 seconds to make his final and unappealable decision.

I'm a big proponent for instant replay....done right. Any system that puts the reversal capability on the field, is a system not done right. It absolutely would destroy the flow of the game. And I'm sorry NFL apologists, but the NFL is the absolute proof of how not to do replays. It destroys the flow of the game, it's silly and it's inaccurate to the point that the marginal improvement in getting calls right, is completely destroyed by what has happened in the game because of replay.

I would not want a system like the NFL. I will join the rest of you flat earthers in protesting a system that remotely resembles the NFL's. If they continue with what they have going on right now in the MLB, it would be a bad idea. That doesn't mean replay is bad, it means that the stubborness of the people making the decisions to set up a replay is the flaw.

Again in order for a replay system to be "right" it would have to be pretty much what post 29 has. I don't understand people protesting replays, when they will agree that if a good system is implemented they would accept it. Why not accept it and campaign for the good system? I will never understand the thought process that goes into people saying "I oppose replay" when they actually mean "I oppose a replay system that I imagine will be implemented".

Why waste the effort of fighting for and against replay, when it is going to happen no matter what, and instead fight for an effort to have a good replay put in. Not saying our voices are being heard, but if the voices are being heard and it's a bunch of people bickering about whether to have it or not, then when the decision is made, the powers that be will focus on the yes or no aspect, instead of the lesser voices who are arguing for a good system.

You're comparing a perfect idea of expanded replay against the real imperfect (expanded-)replay-less game. If this were valid, I could just as well say "If we could hire perfect umpires who never botch calls, would you accept it? If you say yes, then it's all about training perfect umpires." Imperfect non-seamless elements are part of a policy decision, you can't leave them out of the analysis.

I am all in favor of improving the umpires also. If I was the league I would create proprietary stats for umpires that are published to the fans on the umpires qualities. I would pay out bonus's for umpires who score well on the ability to call the strike zone, average dead space(measurement of the number of seconds where there is no actual game play going on) confrontations, etc.

MLB does a horrible job of policing their umpires and really should improve them. But it would be a lot easier to put in a instant replay system, that improves the umpires performance than to worry about getting a perfect umpire.

I will never understand the thought process that goes into people saying "I oppose replay" when they actually mean "I oppose a replay system that I imagine will be implemented".

When I say I oppose replay, it's because I oppose replay. If a system must be implemented, which I'm not sure it must be anytime soon, then 29 is the way to go. But I'm not going to campaign for something that's not an improvement on what we have now, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't really have the energy to debate, so I'm just going to say if they impose a replay system for safe/out calls at the bases or called third strikes I will hunt down and murder all the pro replay folks in this thread.

Thank you, and god bless america.

Again in order for a replay system to be "right" it would have to be pretty much what post 29 has. I don't understand people protesting replays, when they will agree that if a good system is implemented they would accept it. Why not accept it and campaign for the good system? I will never understand the thought process that goes into people saying "I oppose replay" when they actually mean "I oppose a replay system that I imagine will be implemented".

I guess it's a case of choosing your poison, but I simply don't trust MLB to implement a system like Preserved Fish's. Any organization that can come up with an absolutely insane idea like a shootout wild card playoff is not an organization to be trusted with getting replay right. Better what we have now than what they're likely to come up with to replace it, which is likely to be some godawful combination of technology and bureaucracy that would have about as much of a chance of lasting thirty seconds or less as a filibustering U. S. Senator.

Again, if they want to eliminate 99% of bad calls without delaying the game, get rid of personalized strike zones and put in roboumps for balls and strikes. First do that, and then I'll think they're serious about the rest of it.

Seriously, you are losing your logic circuits Andy. Gymnastics and tennis are two sports where replay seems to be working fairly well. And god knows the politics behind olympic gymnastics are slimy and petty.

THere's no logical reason to suggest any connection between a gawd awful one game wild card playoff and a replay system. There isnt.

I dont even see what is so wrong with a one game WC playoff. You are already at the taxing the limits of pitching staffs with three weeks of playoffs; shoving another 3 game series in there would be an almost insurmountable barrier to a WC team, I mean they are supposed to have a chance after all...


If you actually watched NFL football in the 1970s it is hard believe anyone could be against it, but I guess someone will always be. Do you still anything like the Ben Drief call? or the ridiculous homer calls? or the fumble rooskie play? or any of a whole lot of messed up turnover calls. You dont see anything like that kind of sh!t anymore.

And why? Probably because the refs know their calls are going to be reviewed in frame by frame for the whole world to see. I mean you just dont see idiotic calls like we did 40 years ago. You dont see it on replays because the refs arent that bad anymore.

I have no idea what's going on baseball, but the stuff of the last few years is troubling. The Joe Mauer foul ball/double. That Bucknor guy missing guys out by two steps; or that two base runners on third base. I would think that kind of nonsensical stuff would stop right away with a decent replay system. Or that Jeffrey Maier game. Gettting rid of idiotic stuff like that seems quite do able.

(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)

Not really. If the replay system ##### up, we end up with a few bad calls or delays. Not great. But if the death penalty system ##### up, we end up with dead innocent people.

Well, I'm not just talking here. But seriously, I don't know how you can miss examples of people whose primary argument for replay is "to get it right." I very rarely hear pro-replay commentators talking about the need to get it a little more accurate than it is now.

This is hair-splitting of the highest order. Yes, the main idea is to get it right. But -- and I want you to pay close attention, here -- "trying to get it right" != "absolutely must do everything to get all calls right regardless of the consequences."

i do think that if they truly standardized the strike zone that offense would increase since part of the hitters disadvantage is doubt. if the definition of ball/strike became more clearly defined hitters would adjust accordingly. just as loading the bases with less than 2 outs causes the next batters potential obp to increase having a very defined strike zone provides a hitter with a clarity that currently does not exist.

i am very certain this would be an outcome. i see no reason why it would not be an outcome.

Well, I'm not just talking here. But seriously, I don't know how you can miss examples of people whose primary argument for replay is "to get it right." I very rarely hear pro-replay commentators talking about the need to get it a little more accurate than it is now.

Well your primary argument against it is "to avoid delays" so you must want to get rid of all delays in baseball, including forcing hitters to stay in the box, putting a clock on pitchers, and eliminating all mid-inning pitching changes.

Oh wait, you mean to "reduce" the amounts of delays in the game, and that there is a rational limit to how far you are willing to go! What a perfectly reasonable stance. And its a similar stance to what we're taking pro-replay!

Seriously, you are losing your logic circuits Andy. Gymnastics and tennis are two sports where replay seems to be working fairly well. And god knows the politics behind olympic gymnastics are slimy and petty.

Gymnastics is subjective by definition, and replays in tennis are closer to the roboump model, which I favor.

THere's no logical reason to suggest any connection between a gawd awful one game wild card playoff and a replay system. There isnt.

I dont even see what is so wrong with a one game WC playoff. You are already at the taxing the limits of pitching staffs with three weeks of playoffs; shoving another 3 game series in there would be an almost insurmountable barrier to a WC team, I mean they are supposed to have a chance after all...

A one game shootout tilts against two types of teams unfairly:

A team in a strong division fighting for a division title that needs to use its entire staff right up to the final day(s), competing against a team from a weak division that's clinched its own WC berth and can rest its ace for the shootout.

A team with a strong and balanced rotation competing with a team whose pitching value is narrowly focused in one superstar pitcher.

With best-of-five, these factors can balance out. Not in a shootout, which is why it's insane from any legitimate competitive POV. It's strictly a ratings gimmick.

If you actually watched NFL football in the 1970s it is hard believe anyone could be against it, but I guess someone will always be. Do you still anything like the Ben Drief call? or the ridiculous homer calls? or the fumble rooskie play? or any of a whole lot of messed up turnover calls. You dont see anything like that kind of sh!t anymore.

And why? Probably because the refs know their calls are going to be reviewed in frame by frame for the whole world to see. I mean you just dont see idiotic calls like we did 40 years ago. You dont see it on replays because the refs arent that bad anymore.

I've been following the NFL since the early 50's, and IMO replays have diminished the overall attractiveness of the game, with their endless delays that often require a commercial break to complete. Bottom line is that I simply don't care about getting every last call "correct", not when it means less action on the field and more action in some booth above it. If there were a way to reduce replay time to 30 seconds or less, I might change my mind.

I have no idea what's going on baseball, but the stuff of the last few years is troubling. The Joe Mauer foul ball/double. That Bucknor guy missing guys out by two steps; or that two base runners on third base. I would think that kind of nonsensical stuff would stop right away with a decent replay system. Or that Jeffrey Maier game. Gettting rid of idiotic stuff like that seems quite do able.

Again, figure out a system that can override bad calls like that in 30 seconds or less, with no commercial breaks, and I'll consider it. More than that, forget it. The infinitely greater number of missed ball and strike calls can affect a game's outcome every bit as much as a showcase blown call on the basepaths or the foul line, and yet I've seen few if any replay lovers sign on for the roboump solution.**

**There are exceptions, but not nearly as many as one would logically think, given the lopsided percentage distribution of bad calls between balls and strikes and everything else.

If you actually watched NFL football in the 1970s it is hard believe anyone could be against it, but I guess someone will always be. Do you still anything like the Ben Drief call? or the ridiculous homer calls? or the fumble rooskie play? or any of a whole lot of messed up turnover calls. You dont see anything like that kind of sh!t anymore.

You see them all the time. They get cloaked in hypertechnicalities (tuck rule, Calvin Johnson) that make them the "right" call but except for partisans I don't think anyone comes away satisfied. The Ben Dreith call wouldn't be reviewable today anymore than it was then and those sorts of bad calls are terribly common. Not to mention that the NFL has made just about any contact with a quarterback this side of a Wet Willie a 15 yard penalty.

Actually, a Wet Willie would probably count as a "blow to the head." Maybe the purple nurple would work.

They get cloaked in hypertechnicalities (tuck rule, Calvin Johnson) that make them the "right" call but except for partisans I don't think anyone comes away satisfied

And that rule got fixed. Again, no system is perfect, but you can some of the nitpicking things that are wrong with replay and fix them. We can learn from the NFL's errors. I don't see what is inherently wrong with replay as an idea.

folks talk about qb contact being way down but bob mcginn, well respected nfl writer, compared video from 2010 to 1985 and while there was a difference in what was penalized it was very selective

you bump a brady you get a flag

jay cutler got killed like it was 1975

aaron rodgers lurched from getting some flags to gettIng clobbered

it was an interesting read. the game has changed and qbs are protected. but it's how receivers are protected that is the huge difference

The tuck rule sure didn't get fixed.

This is getting off-topic, but the NFL's approach to concussions is just not even in the same plane of existence as the MLB's potential approach to the instant replay. Baseball is occasionally annoying in the way a call will be missed that could change the outcome of the game. Football OTOH has experienced a spate of players with repetetive concussion syndrome experiencing lower quality of life once they've retired and, in some cases, those quality of life issues leading them to commit suicide. It's a really huge problem, and on top of that a group of around 1500 players is suing the NFL for not being forthright enough about head injuries. People may scoff but this is literally the kind of thing that could destroy the NFL.

So yeah, you can moan and complain about how you just don't get to see Wes Welker get clocked the way Raymond Berry did back in the day but there are good and tangible reasons why the league is doing this (and if you ask me they aren't going nearly far enough but that's another matter) while you're sitting on your couch sipping your beer and strenuously reaching into your bag of Cheetos. The fact is, the NFL needs to make changes to the game if they want the game to survive. MLB is not at that dire situation at this point. Maybe there will be a quality of game improvement if they go to robo-umps (which, no thanks) or even booth-based instant replays, but there is simply not an imperative to act at this point.

Johnny, the point you raise about injuries and the need to change the NFL game is valid, but it doesn't have much to do with replays on the field. If a player makes a flagrant hit that doesn't result in getting ejected from the game, there's nothing to stop the NFL from reviewing the game video on Monday morning and handing down a suspension. The only way to change the NFL culture is from the top down, and by the top I mean Goodell & the rules committee, not some referee in a replay booth.

I agree that it has little to do with replays on the field; that was my point. I think the NFL instant replay was introduced as a parallel at first and then people started to talk about all the rule changes that have been introduced recently to try and cut down on the worst of the RCS cases, and I wanted to point out that *that* set of rule changes isn't analagous at all.

I do think that WRT football, my earlier point about it already being much more closely geared towards television consumption than baseball is my #1 reason why I think it works better there than it would in the MLB. I actually used to run the board for the Seahawks' radio broadcast for a couple of years and through that I can tell you that all the replay rule does is shift commercial breaks around a little bit; it literally does not materially slow down the game any more than it's already slowed down by television time-outs.

I do think that WRT football, my earlier point about it already being much more closely geared towards television consumption than baseball is my #1 reason why I think it works better there than it would in the MLB. I actually used to run the board for the Seahawks' radio broadcast for a couple of years and through that I can tell you that all the replay rule does is shift commercial breaks around a little bit; it literally does not materially slow down the game any more than it's already slowed down by television time-outs.

That's interesting what you say about the commercial breaks merely being shifted around rather than added to. That's not always the case in baseball, which is one big reason I don't like replays. And of course in football we've already been conditioned to accept further stalling in the form of those little Orwellian euphemisms like "television time-outs", which (thank God) don't (yet) exist in baseball.

That's interesting what you say about the commercial breaks merely being shifted around rather than added to. That's not always the case in baseball, which is one big reason I don't like replays. And of course in football we've already been conditioned to accept further stalling in the form of those little Orwellian euphemisms like "television time-outs", which (thank God) don't (yet) exist in baseball.

Sure they do. Don't nationally televised games have longer between-inning breaks? What do you think those are?

This is hair-splitting of the highest order. Yes, the main idea is to get it right. But -- and I want you to pay close attention, here -- "trying to get it right" != "absolutely must do everything to get all calls right regardless of the consequences."

Chris, would it help you if I specifically said I've never heard you say it. Would that stop the nonsense? I hear clowns such as Mike and Mike and those like them (who have far larger audiences than us) argue for replay beating on the idea of "getting it right," without any acknowledgement of the nuance that folks here deal in.

If I implied that all replay advocates were unable to recognize replay's limitations, I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

Well your primary argument against it is "to avoid delays" so you must want to get rid of all delays in baseball, including forcing hitters to stay in the box, putting a clock on pitchers, and eliminating all mid-inning pitching changes.

Oh wait, you mean to "reduce" the amounts of delays in the game, and that there is a rational limit to how far you are willing to go! What a perfectly reasonable stance. And its a similar stance to what we're taking pro-replay!

AG, don't state what my primary argument is and then argue against it, please.I have listed a number of reasons why I don't want replay - delay is just one of them.

The point is, even pro-replay advocates such as yourself acknowledge there is some limit how far you'll go to improve accuracy (either in terms of time or other costs). And to me, my preferred option is no further. The gains aren't worth the cost.

Sure they do. Don't nationally televised games have longer between-inning breaks? What do you think those are?

It's not the same thing at all. A friend (actually the guy I was doing the Seahawks games with) worked on the Mariners broadcast for a while as well, and the breaks are set up completely different. In baseball you've got automatic breaks after every inning and also in between innings, so 17 total, plus a few extra floating spot breaks - IIRC you had 3 of those but I could be misremembering. The point is, there aren't that many. Basically, anything you do in the middle of an inning is going to disrupt the flow of the game because the game isn't played like that. So you get pitching changes and... that's about it, really.

In football, you have those same end-of-quarter breaks (and of course all of halftime) but also 5 TV timeouts per quarter, each of them a minute and a half long. It's a little amazing to watch at first, but very, very rarely do you get to even a couple minutes left in a quarter without the opportunity to have played all 5 of those breaks. Every change of possession generally results in a TV time-out. Every time-out too, of course (although you've probably seen a game where a team takes one late in the 4th and the feed either stays on the game or only exits for a single 30-second spot - if you count the number of commercial breaks that quarter I can all but guarantee they've already gone through their 5). If you get a replay challenge or two in a game, and that takes you to 5 spot breaks for a quarter, all you have to do is make teams run on and off the field without the TV timeout later. If anything, that ends up being a net positive, as the fact that the media stop breaking away from the game in the late stages counteracts the natural slow-down that occurs when coaches begin to burn all their timeouts and the clock begins to stop on its own.

There's no analogous point in baseball where you have allocated time that you can take away later to add in right now. At the end of the inning you're still going to need to give both sides 1:40 to get on and off the field (longer for playoffs, of course) and during pitching changes everything has to stop while the new pitcher takes his 8 warmup throws. If there's a break in the action, you can either run some spots or let the broadcast crew try and fill time for a few minutes while nothing happens on the field.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that football is much more geared towards television than baseball is. That's not a knock on baseball - I for one find attending football games in person to be fun but for entirely different reasons than I think the NFL intends for it to be fun (it's a great opportunity to watch line play, for instance). Games have this weird, stilted quality to them, sort of like attending a TV talk show or sitcom live. As we move into the future and the classic methods in which sports programming is produced become ever more a relic, this is something I believe will hurt football but will have less of an effect on baseball. That being said, the instant replay is totally a televised-sports thing, and that's why I'd need to see some good evidence that it would actually work without slowing the game down before I'd want to see it implemented.

Pre-emptive coke to Johnny in # 79. He said it better than I could have.

There are two questions here, as cfb pointed out. One can oppose replay for fear of NFL-style implementation (I can agree), or one can oppose replay philisophically (i.e., the argument about 'dehumanizing' the game or a desire to keep the Molina framing skill element; I don't agree).

So I'm basically on board with #20. I would be in favor of automation of umpiring -- for example, on home runs, fair-foul, and balls and strikes, once the technology is fully ready and tested. The umpiring decision would be as close to instantaneous as the processing speed allows, with a maximum of accuracy and consistency, and wouldn't interfere with the game flow. Voila, an increase in "getting it right" without the soul-crushing delays.

"television time-outs", which (thank God) don't (yet) exist in baseball.

It's not the same thing at all.

All I am saying is that TV does affect the pace at which a nationally broadcasted game is played. The between innings length of time is longer specifically because of TV - that fits into my perception of a TV timeout. I agree with you that NFL replays can fit into the TV timeouts and, unless there was a pitching change, would not fit into a baseball game if it had to go to commercial.

The between innings length of time is longer specifically because of TV

Inning breaks increase in length from regular season to playoffs to WS specifically for the television ad revenue.

Terrible umpire Scott Barry just blew a call in the Rockies-Reds game, calling Carlos Gonzalez out at first when he clearly beat the second baseman's throw. It was obvious from the first replay that the call was wrong. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to notify the crew chief that the call was wrong, and that Gonzalez should be awarded first base. Plus, it might help drive terrible umpire Scott Barry out of the game.

that was a terrible call

i did not recognize barry's name. he keeps making calls like that and i won't hear his name in the future

Terrible umpire Scott Barry just blew a call in the Rockies-Reds game, calling Carlos Gonzalez out at first when he clearly beat the second baseman's throw. It was obvious from the first replay that the call was wrong. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to notify the crew chief that the call was wrong, and that Gonzalez should be awarded first base. Plus, it might help drive terrible umpire Scott Barry out of the game.

This is something that I think would be a nice personal experiment. Watch as many games for a week as you can, but pay attention to 1. close plays/mistakes and 2. how quickly a definitive camera angle takes to be broadcasted. Pay attention to when that replay happen, and see what you think of the actual possibility that MLB could make a replay system that wouldn't interfere with the flow of the game. I'm just talking about the egregious mistakes.

I can't imagine anyone will find this too satisfying, but the tennis solution in the position analogous to the trap-catch (ball called out, replay shows actually in) is to replay the point. Replaying the at-bat would be pretty funny although obviously it's the slowest possible solution and does kind of hose someone or other.

I'm just talking about the egregious mistakes.

Not going to work. Plenty of people here, in the smartest baseball community on the planet, honestly find the Matt Holliday call egregious.

or the fumble rooskie play?

What does the fumble-rooskie have to do with replay? It was a legal play at the time. The rule was subsequently changed.

What does the fumble-rooskie have to do with replay? It was a legal play at the time. The rule was subsequently changed.

For the record, though both are now outlawed, Fumblerooski is actually the name used to describe a specific play, most notably run by Nebraska ran in the 1984 Orange Bowl, where the ball was placed on the ground for the guard to pick up and run with. That play was awesome.

The play that I think Sunday Silence is referring to is the Kenny Stabler fumble, which didn't really have a name other than that \"######## play where Stabler throws the ball forward rather than take a fourth-down sack and Casper stumbles over it before recovering it for a touchdown, shouldn't that just be an incomplete pass or something? How the hell can that be legal?"

But, as cerco notes, replay doesn't really have anything to do with either one.

The play that I think Sunday Silence is referring to is the Kenny Stabler fumble, which didn't really have a name other than that \"######## play where Stabler throws the ball forward rather than take a fourth-down sack and Casper stumbles over it before recovering it for a touchdown, shouldn't that just be an incomplete pass or something? How the hell can that be legal?"

I've always heard that called "The Holy Roller."

I've always heard that called "The Holy Roller."

On second thought, I believe you are correct, though mine is probably more accurate than a name that hints at any kind of spiritual foundation.

the Kenny Stabler fumble, which didn't really have a name other than that \"######## play where Stabler throws the ball forward rather than take a fourth-down sack and Casper stumbles over it before recovering it for a touchdown, shouldn't that just be an incomplete pass or something? How the hell can that be legal?"

I heartily approve of this description of the play, although I've never been a Raider-hater and actually kinda liked Stabler and Casper. But, yeah, my point was that there was no specific rule against a forward fumble at the time. The controversy was mostly about whether Banaszak and Casper deliberately pushed the ball further forward (as both later admitted), rather than trying to recover it and inadvertently moving it closer to (and eventually across) the goal line. I doubt that the officials would have been any more comfortable inferring intent from a replay than they were trying to do so live.

I've always heard that called "The Holy Roller."

That's what wiki says. Do Chargers fans really call it the "Immaculate Deception"?

#70 Rugby has come up with a completely different model of review from the NFL -- and it seems to be working pretty well to my eye. They use booth review at the request of the referee.

What makes it extra interesting to me is that the ref is miked.

Cricket's also gone to the request by the on-field officials model. Again, seems to work pretty well and cricket has a pace that isn't too different from baseball. However, here is about as big a mistake as is possible.

Summary for non cricket followers: One of the game's biggest stars made an out. The umpire requested a review to determine if it was a legal delivery. Ruled a no ball (no real baseball equivalent. Kind of like a balk but the penalties are much more severe. The issue was whether the bowler had crossed the line before releasing the ball) and a free hit (an extra ball has to be bowled and the batman can't be put out. As you can imagine these tend to be costly and in this case Tendulkar got 4 runs off of it.) Conceptually the impact is about the same as the difference between a grand slam and an inning ending flyout.

But here's the problem. The booth umpire was given the wrong delivery to review! I watched the game live (what can I say, not much on at that time of day) and I didn't notice. Neither did the commentators.