I don't see anyone really addressing the problem in #69 (or similar issues.) Whatever you think of the NFL replay system, there is one thing it doesn't do, it doesn't change anything after a whistle has been blown. Even if replay clearly shows a runner wasn't down- if the whistle blew, the play is/was dead.

Effectively all "foul" calls are just like whistles (assuming no catch is made of course.) I don't see any practical way to work around that without having umpires trying to re-construct what would have happened had they not blown a call. I'd prefer not to deal with that.

I don't see the problem with assuming the ball is fair and playing it out, then resetting if the ball is determined to be foul on replay. Foul calls are like whistles in football, and like whistles, if replay is in place, they shouldn't be used unless the judgment is certain.

Foul calls are like whistles in football, and like whistles, if replay is in place, they shouldn't be used unless the judgment is certain.

I'm sure that Phil Cuzzi was "certain" that Mauer's ball was foul when he made the call. You're asking MLB umpires to completely change the standard they've used throughout their careers.

I can't imagine why anyone would support expanding replay without first making a concerted effort to clean up the quality of the umpiring. It's like saying you should always wear gloves when you use the toaster because a broken one might electrocute you. (The bad umpires are the deadly toasters. It's a simile.)

I see your point of view, but surely you can understand how replay has been beneficial from the NFL's perspective.

Sure. It stops the gamblers from whining about how this or that call ruined the point spread. The NFL knows where their bread is buttered.

I can't imagine why anyone would support expanding replay without first making a concerted effort to clean up the quality of the umpiring. It's like saying you should always wear gloves when you use the toaster because a broken one might electrocute you. (The bad umpires are the deadly toasters. It's a simile.)

If baseball really cared about that, they'd raise the salaries of minor league umpires by about 200%, so that it wouldn't be such a complete hit-or-miss proposition for someone who thought about making it into a career.

Hey I all ways wear gloves when I use the Toaster Mrs Keefe did not raise no dumbies. Toasters today are dangerus Al they operate at a amped-up voltage why we very narroely avoided Tradgey this summer when A.J. Pierogi tried to grab a Frosted Brown Sugar Synonym Poptart out of the clubouse toaster and sustained 2nd degree burns when he dropt it down his Sliding Shorts. But German Die said his Mom all ways put butter on a burn so we spread A.J. with some Lurpak Danish Butter and he was OK only he squished a little every time he squated behind the plate that night so no more Poptarts for me.

Wrong thread. Move along.

By the way, there, Andy, what you said at the beginning of the thread with regard to umpires and their "own personal" strike zones is right on. An ump being allowed to have his idosyncratic strike zone is like a cop having his own rules as to what constitutes running a Stop Sign. Umps should have to review in film their calling of strikes with the idea of correcting and improving their performance, and someone with the commissoner's office or the league office should regularly monitor that they do that, especially instilling in them that there is no such thing as a personal strike zone. Umpiring is not artistic expression. You call it as it is defined in the rules. And if you don't, you should be reprimanded and, if necessary, punished, even fined, supended, or expelled. Some things are that simple.

I don't even know if the challenge system has done all that much to make game-calling "better". Things are moving so quickly that half the time replay is totally unclear as to what the "correct" call should have been, and it's a coin-toss as to whether the call on the field will be overturned or not.

And, from an aesthetic standpoint, it sucks most of the excitement out of the moment. Rather than being excited (or pissed off) about a fumble, everyone's waiting around while the referee tries to determine whether his knee was down before he dropped the ball or not.


The only, and I mean only, problem with the NFL's replay system is the moronic requirement that the ref on the field review the call. By the time the coach on the field has thrown the challenge flag, the TV audience has seen the replay from each angle multiple times. It's plenty of time for a ref in the booth to have made a decision. The coach throws the challenge flag, the booth ref can radio down to the ref on the field within 5 seconds what the decision is, the game goes on.

It's idiotic to slow down the whole game so that the ref on the field can make the final call.

Hockey might be the only team sport that is better to watch in person than on TV.

This is an absolute truth. Hockey is incredible live.


Anyway I'm not sure what the problem would be with having a booth ump of sorts. If a replay comes up with as egregious a call as the Mauer one, he signals down so they can correct the call. You could even stipulate the situations in which he could signal, to cut out the fluff - after the 7th, game within 3 runs, whatever.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone suggested this.

I don't see what's wrong with replay on plays where the umps don't need to make judgement on where the runner(s) would end up. Like the Mauer ball, he's on second if it's a fair ball. Or safe/out calls with no one base.

There can be someone in the booth looking at all the plays, then if the umps decide they need a replay they ask him and he has an answer in 2 seconds.

I don't see what's wrong with replay on plays where the umps don't need to make judgement on where the runner(s) would end up. Like the Mauer ball, he's on second if it's a fair ball. Or safe/out calls with no one base.

In essence, I agree, but my problem with t his and other suggestions is that people would complain no matter what. If they awarded Mauer second because the ball went over the wall and then the next inning a Yankee hit a similar ball which was initially ruled foul and didn't bounce over the wall, and subsequently that Yankee was only awarded first after the replay, you don't think every Yankee fan would feel punished because the hit didn't happen to go over the wall?

Why it is important how fans feel? They're not part of the game.

the next inning a Yankee hit a similar ball which was initially ruled foul and didn't bounce over the wall, and subsequently that Yankee was only awarded first after the replay, you don't think every Yankee fan would feel punished because the hit didn't happen to go over the wall?

There wouldn't be a replay in that situation.

There wouldn't be a replay in that situation.

And Yankee fans wouldn't feel cheated by that?

And Yankee fans wouldn't feel cheated by that?

Sucks for them.

Which is even worse.

edit: comment was in response to #114.

Sucks for them.

It currently sucks for Twins fans. How is your scenario any better?

Which is even worse.

edit: comment was in response to #114.

Huh? There's no replay for that play now, how could continuing to have no replay be worse?

It currently sucks for Twins fans. How is your scenario any better?

The Mauer play is easily fixable. Ball bounced over wall, replay says fair, guy on second. No questions about what would've happened on the bases.

Huh? There's no replay for that play now, how could continuing to have no replay be worse?

Because what you suggest is replay for some plays but not others, which hardly seems fair. Again, the Yankees would be punished because the Twins were lucky enough to have a ball go over a wall. As it stands, a blown call is a blown call and them's the breaks. It would seem harder, to me at least, to accept not getting a replay whereas your opponent did for a dumb reason like that.

I guess I see your point in that at least some plays would be fixed, but replays for some and not for others? I can't really get behind that.

Edit: Your proposition seems just as reliant on luck as the current one. I don't see how that fixes it.

But there already is replay for some plays and not others.

Any replay system is going to have replay for some plays and not others.

No matter what, someone is going to be unhappy. Your suggestion seems tailor made to only the situation which occurred the other night rather than a solution which works to improve the game in all situations.

If baseball really cared about that, they'd raise the salaries of minor league umpires by about 200%, so that it wouldn't be such a complete hit-or-miss proposition for someone who thought about making it into a career.

No, if baseball really cared about that (a) they wouldn't leave the care and feeding of minor league umpires to the National Association until they reach AAA, and (b) they would have a defined promotion path for minor league umpires, just like they do for players. They would also have a mandatory retirement age for major league umpires.

But MLB really doesn't care about the umpiring.

-- MWE

They would also have a mandatory retirement age for major league umpires.

But MLB really doesn't care about the umpiring.

They might, however, care about not being sued; mandatory retirement ages are illegal.

They might, however, care about not being sued; mandatory retirement ages are illegal.

Except for Part 121 pilots.

Except for Part 121 pilots.

Yes, and police and firefighters, too. Didn't really think any of these exceptions were worth noting in this context.

I like the shock system suggested in post #76. Didn't they try this with Cliff Clavin once in Cheers ("Dance, mailman, dance!")? Don Denkinger would have looked like a burnt piece of toast after about 3 games.