Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, November 14, 2013

MLB approves expanded replay for 2014

Ron Washington just got a new way to mess up games.

The biggest change from the expanded replay system that was originally unveiled at the last owners’ meetings in August at Cooperstown, N.Y., is that managers will get a maximum of two challenges that can be used at any point in the game. The original plans was to allow managers one challenge in the first six innings and two more from the seventh through the end of the game.

MLB chief operating officer Rob Manfred said a final decisions of whether managers get one or two challenges has not been made and will be part of the negotiations with the players and umpires.

The rest of the plan remains basically unchanged, including a manager retaining the challenge if he wins his appeal.

That will likely end most manager/umpire arguments because if a manager disagrees with a reviewable call, his only recourse would be to use a challenge. Managers would not be able to argue a reviewable call in a bid to get it overturned without the use of replay.

About the only situation where a manager could still argue would in situations not open to review, such as defending a player or questioning an improper substitution.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 14, 2013 at 02:36 PM | 65 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bud selig, instant replay, umpires

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4600325)
On May 15, 1912, a baseball fan by the name of Claude Leuker was heckling Hall of Fame outfielder Ty Cobb. During the 6th inning of the game, the fan called Cobb a "half-######\" and said that his mother had slept with a black man. Ty Cobb promptly ran into the stands and started beating the fan.

Now, as it turns out, the fan had recently lost his hands in an industrial accident, and the fans were shocked--how could he beat a man with no hands? Cobb replied that he didn't care if the man had no feet.

Cobb got suspended. His teammates threatened to strike unless the suspension was overturned.

............I would prefer a return to the days when racist star players were beating cripples in the stands to a future with instant replay.
   2. Steve Treder Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4600326)
If it reduces the idiocy of on-field manager arguing, that's good, but a challenge system remains the stupidest way to implement replay.
   3. Lassus Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4600328)
sigh

I prefer human error to this crap, even against the Mets.

Just the thought of this makes my brain sad.
   4. JJ1986 Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4600329)
This seems like the most important paragraph buried at the end of the piece:

All replays will be reviewed by former umpires at MLB Advanced Media's facilities in New York with technicians available to provide the necessary video
   5. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4600331)
I've supported instant replay from the get go.... I have to pull my support now.
   6. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4600333)
Well why do they need a challenge then?

I guess I could live with a challenge system if the result of the challenge is relayed to the on-field umps within a few seconds of the challenge being issued. That would require plays to be reviewed immediately. Basically, close plays should be reviewed immediately, then if a challenge is issued, give the ruling.

Which is only possible if the reviews are done like stated in #4.
   7. Lassus Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4600336)
former umpires

When replay started in 2008, the umpires were only present to advise the techs, and one of these former umpires was Bruce Froemming and another who is also now dead. They are not always particularly spry, and they weren't involved in the decision-making on the actual calls. They weren't even speaking to the umpires at the stadium, only the techs were.

I'm curious why they would entrust this to non-working umpires. Seems odd. I wonder if USA Today got that wrong? Although if Steve Palermo is involved, I'll feel somewhat better.


I've supported instant replay from the get go.... I have to pull my support now.

Cardsfanboy meets slippery slope. ;-)
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4600337)
I like it and I think you're all nuts. NUTS!
   9. Ron J2 Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4600338)
#1 Quibble about the promptly. Cobb really did try to get somebody else to get Lueker removed (before the 3rd inning he went to the New York dugout to try and get somebody from management to deal with the situation). When that didn't work out though ...
   10. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4600340)
well sh8t, let's go Charlie finley and put little boxes with 'yes'/'no' punchkeys at each seat and put it to a vote on key plays. put the results on the big screen

and if the fans vote 'yes' and the manager's appeal wins they shoot off fireworks and the mascot does the electric slide along one of the baselines.

   11. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4600342)
There is a right way and the wrong way to do replay. And then there is an utter cluster uck way to do it. As always if your system resembles the NFL in any way, you have done it wrong.

Challenges should not ever be an option for a replay system.
   12. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4600343)
Thank god we are doing it just like the nfl! Now everything is perfect.

God I ####### hate this.
   13. salvomania Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4600344)
This is really going to drastically reduce any kind of on-field arguing of a close call.

If you REALLY feel you wuz robbed, then you challenge it. Otherwise, carry on. No gray area.
   14. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4600345)
Can a manager still ask an umpire to get help from his colleagues rather than immediately asking for replay review? Seems like you'd want to try to get the on-field call in your favor in case the replay was inconclusive.
   15. Steve Treder Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:09 PM (#4600349)
Challenges should not ever be an option for a replay system.

Absolutely, because the responsibility for getting the calls right belongs with the league and its officials, not with the teams and their managers.
   16. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4600353)
Post 14...that is one of the problems with this system, it probably prevents the umps from overturning the call (I.E. like in the world series with the Kozma dropped ball)

There is nothing good about a challenge system, it turns what should have been a replay system to get calls right, into a management tactics system. If they are trying to get calls right, there should be no limit, and it should be instigated by a third party(not umps on the field or the team)
   17. BDC Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4600356)
About the only situation where a manager could still argue would in situations not open to review

Or if he's already used his challenge, right?

To me, the very worst aspect of a challenge system, among many, is that you have a limited number of them. So you use (and lose, however that's determined) your challenge(s) by the sixth inning, and then in the ninth there's an even worse call, a real Denkinger, and it sails through without recourse.

(Of course, an unlimited number of challenges would be unbearable, but that's why, as Steve and others say, the officials should get the call right themselves, not after a prompt.)

EDIT: and a frosty soda to the fanboy.
   18. salvomania Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4600359)
I guess the alternative would be for all calls to be constantly monitored, with close calls reviewed automatically by the tech team, and for umps to be alerted when there should be a reversal of a clearly wrong call.

That seems like a more fair system, one that's about getting the calls right more than protecting anyone's feelings.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4600360)
I guess the alternative would be for all calls to be constantly monitored, with close calls reviewed automatically by the tech team, and for umps to be alerted when there should be a reversal of a clearly wrong call.


That is absolutely the way all replay should be done in every major sport. Heck I'm pretty sure that is what is happening in Hockey, a sport with no where near the resources of the NFL or MLB(Of course they pretty much just review goals and time..but here is a summary of the video goal judge's setup)

38.5 Logistics and Equipment - The Video Goal Judge must be located in a secluded area in the upper level of the building with an unobstructed view of both goals. The location must be large enough to seat three people (Video Goal Judge, Video Technician and Supervisor of Officials) and have space for necessary monitors, replay and recording equipment.
The Video Goal Judge shall have access to all replays that may be available by reason of any telecasts of the game and if there is no scheduled telecast the Club’s internal telecast of the game will be used.


It's not that hard. If the NHL could afford it, then there is no reason that others shouldn't incorporate a similar system.
   20. Steve Treder Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4600362)
That is absolutely the way all replay should be done in every major sport.

Why there is, or has ever been, a fraction of doubt about the obviousness of this continues to vex me.
   21. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4600366)
i believe what is described in post 19 is what happens in college football. at least it does in the big ten. i think that replay system works pretty well.
   22. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4600367)
Why there is, or has ever been, a fraction of doubt about the obviousness of this continues to vex me.


The funny part is that they like to say "concession to the umps unions." Yet the obvious set up adds an extra ump per game, gives them a cushy sitting job (rotate it out if they want.) I cannot imagine that there is one ump union which would oppose this type of setup. Heck the people overriding the umps would be other umps, so it's not like they are surrendering power to a third party. It's like they are intentionally trying to create an over complicated system that is destined to create issues.

   23. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4600369)
the nfl system is ridiculously poor. it's the classic output of a committee and a dumb committee at that

the officials in question routinely see things that are not in evidence. it's bizarre and clearly undermines the credibility of the league

of course, the only reason replay exists in football is because of gambling.

in baseball it's merely because people want to see the correct outcome.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:44 PM (#4600373)
the nfl system is ridiculously poor.


I still cannot fathom how any system that allows them to review on the field could ever make it past the first logical question.... "what about the umps ability for his eyesight to adjust to the video review?" I'm willing to be a major portion of the time spent on the review is just getting the eyes to adjust.

   25. Ron J2 Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:49 PM (#4600376)
#19 I agree that the NHL has a good system, but there is a huge advantage in the narrow focus of "Goal/no goal".

The CFL has a pretty decent system. Challenge based, but the officials don't spend hours on the hood watching things using stop frame. They aim to get huge mistakes dealt with in a timely fashion and mostly succeed.
   26. cardsfanboy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4600377)
#19 I agree that the NHL has a good system, but there is a huge advantage in the narrow focus of "Goal/no goal".

The CFL has a pretty decent system. Challenge based, but the officials don't spend hours on the hood watching things using stop frame. They aim to get huge mistakes dealt with in a timely fashion and mostly succeed.


Baseball is probably easier than football, the relevant information is more "planted" than the moving nature of football, and it's more definitive than the NFL "catch" rule. Add in that there are probably very few plays a game that really needs to be reviewed and I just don't see a purpose for a challenge system in the slightest. Fans watching the game can pretty much predict which plays need to be reviewed and for the most part a conclusive or at least acceptable review is on the TV replay before the next play takes place. No reason that a review system couldn't be as efficient.
   27. Steve Treder Posted: November 14, 2013 at 06:58 PM (#4600378)
#19 I agree that the NHL has a good system, but there is a huge advantage in the narrow focus of "Goal/no goal".

There is, but that doesn't mean that MLB wouldn't be orders of magnitude better off using the NHL system as its basic model than involving any sort of challenge-based approach.
   28. zack Posted: November 14, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4600381)
The NHL is also talking about adding a coach's challenge system, the worst of all possible replay systems. Just because the NFL does it does not make it right, jesus. I guess the owners think money = right, and NFL = more money, or something.
   29. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 14, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4600382)
The thing I look forward to is what happens when a player thinks he's been wronged and the manager knows the call was right. Does the manager throw the flag to get his guy's back or does he come argue but not throw the flag?
   30. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 14, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4600390)
OK, browsed through most of the posts and sanity is prevailing here. A challenge system is about as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Over here, most of the winter sports, rugby, league, soccer and AFL(yeah, they play lots of different "football" in Aus) have instant replay. You've got your refs on the ground and a guy in the booth. Anything deemed questionable by the refs on the ground is referred to the booth guy who spends between 10 and 30 seconds looking at it. Only needs that time because he's already seen it once or twice before the referral is even made because he knows it's close and has looked at it on his own. Also at this point of the play the ground ref has already made a call on his own, but hasn't made it public. One of two things happens. The video guy makes the call as it's clear what happened or the video guy refers it back to "refs call" and whatever the ref was going to call stands.
Done, simple and if you don't like too effing bad as the ref crew looked at it and did their best. I cannot think of the last time their was a real serious dispute over a final call.
   31. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 14, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4600400)
Put in a ball and strike roboump and you've eliminated 90% of the bad calls right there, and without breaking up the rhythm of the game. And if you really have to review anything beyond that, just have ONE umpire in the booth with access to replay cameras and dictatorial authority to override, and 90% of the remaining bad calls could be corrected in less than 30 seconds, with no need for any time consuming appeals.

Of course what might prove baseball's sincerity in this stupid plan would be if they forbade any commercial breaks while the play is being reviewed. Fat chance of that.
   32. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4600418)
Still not as bad as tennis's challenge system.
   33. bobm Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4600432)
Still not as bad as tennis's challenge system

Can they replace the home plate ump with Hawk-eye to call balls and strikes?
   34. Pirate Joe Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4600439)
i believe what is described in post 19 is what happens in college football. at least it does in the big ten. i think that replay system works pretty well.



The college football system works just fine. A guy in the booth watches replays after every play. If he sees something that looks wrong or merits a longer look he buzzes one of the refs to stop the game. The guy in the booth reviews the replay, not the ref on the field. It sometimes takes longer for the review than I think is necessary (if they can't tell of it's wrong or not after a few looks, let the call stand and move on). But it generally works pretty well.

Coaches are allowed to challenge calls, but it's pretty rare because they know that the guy upstairs is already looking at it. Most of the time a coach challenges all it does is cost his team a timeout, so they don't do it often.

   35. BDC Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:45 PM (#4600440)
Aside from the naysaying, I can't wait to buy my first Ron Washington Game Used Challenge Hanky for $399.95 at the Texas Rangers Pro Shop.
   36. Steve Treder Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4600442)
A guy in the booth watches replays after every play. If he sees something that looks wrong or merits a longer look he buzzes one of the refs to stop the game. The guy in the booth reviews the replay, not the ref on the field. It sometimes takes longer for the review than I think is necessary (if they can't tell of it's wrong or not after a few looks, let the call stand and move on).

This is precisely how it should work in MLB. The notion that there is any better process than this is daft, and the inferiority of the challenge system they're implementing in comparison to this is blindingly obvious.
   37. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4600455)
As I mentioned (post #26) in a previous thread, I love challenge-based systems, but, as in that thread, it seems I'm in the minority :p
   38. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 14, 2013 at 11:10 PM (#4600509)
Doesn't the NFL automatically review any scoring play now? And yet they retain the challenge system. So every scoring play is automatically reviewed and the coaches still have challenges to use on non-scoring plays.
   39. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: November 14, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4600516)
I like the challenge based system. If the call is wrong and nobody cares let it stand. The key will be reviewing the plays quickly -- like 30 seconds -- rather than spending 5 minutes like they do now. If it's not obviously wrong in 30 seconds it stands.
   40. PreservedFish Posted: November 14, 2013 at 11:27 PM (#4600517)
I absolutely hate the challenge based system.
   41. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 14, 2013 at 11:37 PM (#4600519)
I like the challenge based system. If the call is wrong and nobody cares let it stand. The key will be reviewing the plays quickly -- like 30 seconds -- rather than spending 5 minutes like they do now.

That's kind of like saying you'd love JoeyB if you didn't have to change his diapers every ten minutes. It ain't gonna happen.
   42. SteveM. Posted: November 14, 2013 at 11:41 PM (#4600521)
Why not the NHL goal system where the central office reviews all goals scored? Every game is televised after all.
   43. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 14, 2013 at 11:50 PM (#4600526)
Doesn't the NFL automatically review any scoring play now? And yet they retain the challenge system. So every scoring play is automatically reviewed and the coaches still have challenges to use on non-scoring plays.


That's such a weird rule (which is consistent with many other NFL rules). Scoring plays are automatically reviewed, but non-scoring plays that might have been scoring plays are not.

I'm pretty sure expanded replay will make baseball less enjoyable for me.

Oh, and CFB you owe a bunch of people an apology. Or, at the very least, a heartfelt "My bad."

   44. ptodd Posted: November 15, 2013 at 12:14 AM (#4600532)
Who controls the video that actually gets sent?. For example, for any given play, there are several camera angles that cover the play, and perhaps only 1 angle that allows for a conclusive judgement that a call be overturned. The home teams network probably controls the cameras, or maybe the away teams have their own cameras too. In any event, if a given play has an angle that would lead to an unfavorable call for the home team, how do we ensure MLB in NY sees that play from all cameras?
   45. cardsfanboy Posted: November 15, 2013 at 01:59 AM (#4600549)
Oh, and CFB you owe a bunch of people an apology. Or, at the very least, a heartfelt "My bad."


My bad. I keep hoping that sanity would prevail. There is nothing inherently wrong with instant replay, I'll say that forever, it doesn't mean it can't be implemented wrong. Apparently MLB is doing it's damndest to make me wrong(I think that is their entire intention with this challenge concept---to make me look bad) on their ability to not f-ck up instant replay.

I will still argue for instant replay. I'm sorry but there is nothing wrong with the concept, it's all about execution, only 3 things that an organization could do to make it a bad idea. 1.have a challenge system 2. have the umps/refs on the field look at a shaded replay booth. 3. limit the video selection to "league official" instead of "all possible.".... I'm sure there are possible other flaws, but if you create a system that avoids these three pitfalls you should be ok.

I like the challenge based system. If the call is wrong and nobody cares let it stand. The key will be reviewing the plays quickly -- like 30 seconds -- rather than spending 5 minutes like they do now.


The point of avoiding a challenge system is that for the most part all reviewable plays with todays technology could come up with a pretty conclusive answer before the team even decides to make a challenge. Even in the NFL, I've seen multiple times that the tv replay has already proven the case even before the beanie comes out. Then the beanie comes out, and they spend 2+ minutes reviewing a play that the tv has already conclusively proven was a bad call. Forget a challenge system.
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:02 AM (#4600550)
Why not the NHL goal system where the central office reviews all goals scored? Every game is televised after all.


I posted the NHL rules on how they set up their replay system, I've always heard it was a central system, but the rule for the league says it's located at the stadium.
   47. haggard Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:48 AM (#4600563)
What happens if there is a bad call in the middle of a play?
   48. cardsfanboy Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:55 AM (#4600567)
What happens if there is a bad call in the middle of a play?


They'll work it out....?

I've always supported the obvious situations. I don't know how important it is to make "every" call right as long as we eliminate the obvious mistakes. There are people who fret about the trap fly ball with a man on base (a play that probably happens 2 times a season in the entire major leagues, and they want to stop instant replay because of this particular possibility) and my argument is.... "make it not reviewable and move on."....
   49. The Pequod Posted: November 15, 2013 at 10:17 AM (#4600624)
Scoring plays are automatically reviewed, but non-scoring plays that might have been scoring plays are not.


And as a result, everything that's close is ruled a touchdown so that they can review it. Pretty shtty side effect.
   50. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: November 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4600646)
Kind of related to 47: if there's a disputed call with runners on base -- say a fair/foul call with a man on first -- is it going to be left to the umpire's discretion which base the lead runner gets? That sort of discretion has disaster written all over it, but I might not be thinking it through.
   51. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: November 15, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4600677)
The challenge system might be flawed, but the dry runs MLB did during the AFL last week were pretty cool. Decisions were made quickly and the calls that needed to get fixed were fixed rather quickly.
   52. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: November 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4600720)
is it going to be left to the umpire's discretion which base the lead runner gets? That sort of discretion has disaster written all over it, but I might not be thinking it through.

No different than the call on a ground rule double. The umpire is supposed to use his discretion as to whether the guy on first would have scored.

Of course, it has devolved into just an automatic 2 bases. I don't recall ever seeing a guy on first being given home on a ground rule double. Less controversy that way.
   53. OsunaSakata Posted: November 15, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4600753)
Can a manager say,"I don't want to use one of my challenges yet, but could you ask one of the other umpires for help on that call?"

I'm opposed to challenges. I'd rather there be a room of televisions adjacent to MLB Network. Hire four new umpires and let the replay room be a regular assignment for a crew. I realize this would require training, but that would only be a week, if even that.
   54. cardsfanboy Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4600773)
Of course, it has devolved into just an automatic 2 bases. I don't recall ever seeing a guy on first being given home on a ground rule double. Less controversy that way


I thought the automatic double was written in the rules that you can only advance two bases?

Rule 6.09 e/h
(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;


Umpires have no discretion on that particular play.
   55. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4600775)
I may have missed this, but did they centralize the home run replay calls? I know the original plan was to have the field umps leave the field and view the replays in the tunnel or something.
   56. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4600778)
Umpires have no discretion on that particular play.

Ah, I appear to have been mis-informed about the rule.
   57. cardsfanboy Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4600779)
Hire four new umpires and let the replay room be a regular assignment for a crew. I realize this would require training, but that would only be a week, if even tha


I've heard that mentioned before, and I don't get it. Roughly speaking 3 nights a week (Tues/Wed/Fri) there are 15 games going on at the exact same time(yes there might be a few games later on the west coast, but for the most part there will be 15 games going on at the same time.) I just don't see how you can reasonably expect 4 guys to handle that and make it efficient. Again baseball has money, it will cost them peanuts to hire another ump to each crew, and of course it prevents the umpires from objecting to replay.
   58. ursus arctos Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4600794)
On the NHL rule, the Video Goal Judge may (but is not required to) consult with the League officials (in Toronto):

During the review he may consult with a member of the League’s Hockey Operations or Officiating department staff if latter is in attendance at the game (or via telephone).


The "Situation Room" in Toronto has a blog on NHL.com, where they post their rulings.

And here's a video on how they work (which demonstrates that on occasion they initiate the consultation with the Video Goal Judge in the arena).

   59. Srul Itza Posted: November 15, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4600816)
Then the beanie comes out, and they spend 2+ minutes reviewing a play that the tv has already conclusively proven was a bad call.


And then the refs rule the other way, showing that ain't nuthin' conclusive about it.
   60. OsunaSakata Posted: November 15, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4600913)
I've heard that mentioned before, and I don't get it. Roughly speaking 3 nights a week (Tues/Wed/Fri) there are 15 games going on at the exact same time(yes there might be a few games later on the west coast, but for the most part there will be 15 games going on at the same time.) I just don't see how you can reasonably expect 4 guys to handle that and make it efficient. Again baseball has money, it will cost them peanuts to hire another ump to each crew, and of course it prevents the umpires from objecting to replay.


I actually envision two interns watching each game, each of them listening to the audio feed from the two opposing teams. Assuming a worst case scenario of 15 simultaneous games, an umpire is watching four games at a time. When a controversial call comes up, the interns call the umpire over. This would probably be a few seconds before the crew chief at the site of the game calls in. Even if the replay umpire hasn't been paying attention live, the interns and the crew chief can fill them in quickly. He'll look at the replays and explain the ruling to the crew chief. It would probably take the same amount of time as a manager arguing now. In addition to the expense of 15, as opposed to 4 additional umpires, an onsite replay umpire would require 30 replay booths in every stadium, space the owners would rather have generating revenue. Standardization would also be difficult in 30 stadiums. Do it al from one place and the replay calls are consistent.
   61. cardsfanboy Posted: November 15, 2013 at 07:22 PM (#4601008)
I just don't see any reason to skimp like that. Baseball can afford an extra ump. Why cheapen the process? The NHL provides replay booth at every stadium I do not see any reason why baseball can't. I would rather have one guy dedicated to one game, that way he takes breaks when everyone else does.
   62. spike Posted: November 15, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4601012)
SO, what happens when managers start challenging "neighborhood" calls at second?
   63. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: November 15, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4601021)
Are they going to allow the manager to consult with someone who has access to a replay? Whether this was the original intention or not, the NFL coaches are pretty dependent on the "guys upstairs" to tell them whether there is proof or not.
   64. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: November 15, 2013 at 08:31 PM (#4601028)
If it reduces the idiocy of on-field manager arguing, that's good, but a challenge system remains the stupidest way to implement replay.


Depends on your perspective. If your goal is maximizing TV ad revenue then it's a very smart implementation. Ad time during challenges is among the most lucrative ad time for the NFL, because many viewers won't change the channel while they're awaiting the result of a challenge.

I personally think it's harmfully shortsighted to pursue that strategy to the detriment of the product; baseball already has a problem with too many unnecessary and lengthy interruptions in the action.
   65. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: November 15, 2013 at 08:57 PM (#4601035)
Umpires have no discretion on that particular play.

Ah, I appear to have been mis-informed about the rule.


You may be thinking of fan interference, where umpires do have the authority to determine the expected outcome of the play:

When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

I assume the rule will be similar for any ball wrongly called dead.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
rr
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8705 - 5:44pm, Nov 26)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4963 - 5:44pm, Nov 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(537 - 5:44pm, Nov 26)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(4 - 5:43pm, Nov 26)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(15 - 5:40pm, Nov 26)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-26-2014
(9 - 5:39pm, Nov 26)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(17 - 5:38pm, Nov 26)
Last: Guapo

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1137 - 5:12pm, Nov 26)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(54 - 5:02pm, Nov 26)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

NewsblogAdam Rubin: My Hall of Fame ballot
(64 - 4:59pm, Nov 26)
Last: TJ

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(22 - 4:31pm, Nov 26)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(169 - 4:21pm, Nov 26)
Last: rlc

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(2 - 4:18pm, Nov 26)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(18 - 4:07pm, Nov 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYankees won't get into bidding war for Chase Headley: source - NY Daily News
(12 - 4:02pm, Nov 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Page rendered in 0.3840 seconds
52 querie(s) executed