I'm glad they're looking at "advanced" systems for line calls. Although it's more complicated since you're dealing with irregular boundaries, they should look at the same systems for home runs. Someday, people will think of the concept of making calls by staring at a television monitor as laughably primitive. And I suppose there will also be people bemoaning the loss of the "human element" inherent in using replay. And other people using the "human element" as a strawman. So IOW, the more things change...

Yes! Finally a way to sort out controversial fair/foul down the line calls that never happen. Next up, tiny sensors implanted in every major league catcher's glove to check for catcher's interference calls. No price is too large to pay to stamp out these missed calls that might happen five times a year.

The onus now is on the systems to perform well enough they track within a fraction of an inch balls traveling more than 100 mph.

Considering they can track serves in tennis (which are in excess of 120mph), I think they'll have no problem.

No price is too large to pay to stamp out these missed calls that might happen five times a year.

What's the price on this?

As #3 already mentioned they've been doing this in tennis for years and the games move along without interruption.

They had a bad system in tennis for a few years (Cyclops, I think), but they have a good one now (Hawkeye). An appeal of a line call generally takes about five to ten seconds.

What's the price on this?

Buying the technology, installing the technology, testing the technology, staffing the technology during games. This all makes sense in tennis of course, they use it on every point. Here it sounds like someone in the MLB front office had a weak day with a good sales rep.

they use it on every point

No they don't. Players are allowed three unsuccessful challenges per set, and one additional challenge if the set reaches a tiebreak. Even if challenges were unlimited, it would still only comes into play on balls close to the line. You could just as easily say that baseball would use it on every ball that lands in play, since they all have to be judged as fair or foul.

They had a bad system in tennis for a few years (Cyclops, I think), but they have a good one now (Hawkeye).

Of course, an Avenger is much better than an X-man.

Best part about this is that MLB at least appears to be weighing all options and trying to implement the best possible system, instead of declaring "replay is happening...we'll sort it out in spring training how to do it." Regardless of which side of the fence you lean, you have to like MLB's approach.

No they don't. Players are allowed three unsuccessful challenges per set, yada, yada, yada

Oh please, you know what I'm getting at. Players are bombing the service line with 100 mph serves nearly every point. A system like this could have a lot of application in tennis. In baseball you could watch your team for a month and not see a ball down the line that is even that questionable.

Buying the technology, installing the technology, testing the technology, staffing the technology during games. This all makes sense in tennis of course, they use it on every point. Here it sounds like someone in the MLB front office had a weak day with a good sales rep.

Are you an owner of a baseball team? Otherwise why do you care how they spend their money?

Oh please, you know what I'm getting at. Players are bombing the service line with 100 mph serves nearly every point. A system like this could have a lot of application in tennis. In baseball you could watch your team for a month and not see a ball down the line that is even that questionable.

And I think this is by design. MLB has already instituted instant replay on homerun and foul calls, both are plays that might have need for replay once every other month. Now they are looking at trapped fly balls and fair/foul line calls, again plays that most teams will go a month or more before ever needing a replay. They are slowly creeping instant replay into the game without making it obnoxiously obvious.

I'm an advocate for replay, yet I only really want to see it on the most obvious calls to overturn, the safe/out call. This is something that is nearly missed on at least a weekly basis for most teams, leads to probably the second most objections/arguments (strike/ball calls obviously exceed that, but I'm not an advocate for computerized plate ump...yet)

I'm an advocate for replay, yet I only really want to see it on the most obvious calls to overturn, the safe/out call. This is something that is nearly missed on at least a weekly basis for most teams, leads to probably the second most objections/arguments (strike/ball calls obviously exceed that, but I'm not an advocate for computerized plate ump...yet)

They seem to be sticking to on-field incidents that involve at most one player (the fielder) and can't possibly lead to players changing their behavior in any way once they realize a replay is a possibility. In situations with multiple moving parts (safe/out), you could imagine players choosing a different strategy of what to do when they are aware that the umpire's initial play might be overturned. It's a little less predictable.

They seem to be sticking to on-field incidents that involve at most one player (the fielder) and can't possibly lead to players changing their behavior in any way once they realize a replay is a possibility. In situations with multiple moving parts (safe/out), you could imagine players choosing a different strategy of what to do when they are aware that the umpire's initial play might be overturned. It's a little less predictable.

Except the next step is to do replays on trapped balls, that is what the league has said was their next goal. The single most possible play for interpretation, and that is the great white they are going after.

I keep hoping the next step would be replay on force plays at first(and for the system to NOT be used to judge the phantom force at second)