I'm curious as to how this will work. On fair or foul calls, you could advise umps to rule every close play as fair, because you can always just negate everything if the replay shows the ball was foul. But how do you do that on trap plays? That messes with tag ups, the number of outs, etc. I guess you could say "only use replay on trap balls when there's nobody on base", and give a directive to call every close play a trap, subject to review. I'm not an anti-replay zealot, but I don't like this.

But how do you do that on trap plays? That messes with tag ups, the number of outs, etc.

They already reverse these plays occasionally. Umps use their judgment to place runners.

Of course this is the type of #### a clown like Yellon is most concerned with in the CBA.

If the next revelation in the new CBA is that any time a balding, overweight man in his 40s enters the ballpark, he's going to get kicked in the nuts, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I haven't liked anything these guys have agreed to.

I'm curious as to how this will work.

I consider myself one of the least negative people here, but my first thought is: badly.

I haven't liked anything these guys have agreed to.

I'm strongly inclined to agree with this statement - more interleague, more replays, more invasive testing, screwing around with draft picks, screwing around with compensation, and so on. This really isn't filling me with basebally joy.

If the next revelation in the new CBA is that any time a balding, overweight man in his 40s enters the ballpark, he's going to get kicked in the nuts, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I'd love to see what company would sponsor that promotion.

I don't watch a lot of football but i'm always amazed at how often I see a replay decision that I disagree with. This idea that replay is infallible doesn't jibe with my experience.

At last, MLB is going to get most of the calls right; let’s hope this is a step toward eventually getting all the calls right.

Definitely sounds like a step in the right direction, depending on how they implement it. Sadly, sounds like they forgot to include robot umpires, this time around.

Is there a pdf of the agreement anywhere?

@4 Just the motivation I need to keep my weight under control.

more interleague, more replays, more invasive testing, screwing around with draft picks, screwing around with compensation, and so on. This really isn't filling me with basebally joy.

Yeah, these are all questionable decisions, but I think things like this always seem worse in the offseason. Once April rolls around we'll just be so ecstatic that they're playing baseball that it wouldn't matter if they turned the All Star Game into a best of 7 with 200 man rosters which was used to decide annual realignment somehow.

Wadding up all the changes into one big ball of bad seems odd to me. Shouldn't the people who dislike the randomness of the postseason format be inclined towards replay, since it's intended to make outcomes less random?

this will not end well...

I wonder how difficult it would be to have some of these calls done by machine rather than man. Fair-foul is an entirely objective question, and you'd think we'd already be able to have these calls made by computer.

Similarly, how difficult or expensive would it be to have sensors in the bases to detect when the runner touches them? The blown calls in those video clips are pretty outrageous.

reviewing all important plays that could affect the outcome of a game

Why stop there? I demand that every play be reviewed, because sometimes humans don't notice when a play should be reviewed, being human and all. It just isn't FAIR!

I don't care how long it takes, we are going to get the calls RIGHT. This isn't a game people. It's serious business.

With respect to the new CBA: I think the changes on draft pick and international signing bonus pools will provide an advantage to teams that figure out how to game the system. The ability to trade cap space could be a rule provision that can be maximized by teams with the best strategy experts. It reminds somewhat of the comparative advantages that arose for NFL and NBA teams that hired or developed the best capologists during the early days of their salary caps.

But how do you do that on trap plays? That messes with tag ups, the number of outs, etc. I guess you could say "only use replay on trap balls when there's nobody on base", and give a directive to call every close play a trap, subject to review.

This is the problem. When the NFL started replays, there were so many examples of players clearly being down before a fumble, but the referees allowed the play to go on because it was reviewable. Replay led to far more bad calls that were made.

And sorry, but this doesn't even remotely reduce human error. It just shifts responsibility from the umpires to cameramen and directors.

Finally more of what baseball needs most: Stoppages in play and standing around.

I don't really care about this. I mean, literally, I don't care about it much at all.

I'd like replay a lot better if it was limited, like in the NFL. The manager could have 3 challenges for the entire game and there would be a replay official upstairs to judge the play. Maybe you get one more challenge if the game goes extra innings. Since It's usually easy to review plays in the dugout before the next pitch is thrown, most challenges would probably be successful. I think this is the best way to maximize the value of the challenge and minimize the effect it will have on pace and game times.

Sadly, sounds like they forgot to include robot umpires, this time around.

Make it robot fans and you've got a deal!

I'd like replay a lot better if it was limited, like in the NFL. The manager could have 3 challenges for the entire game and there would be a replay official upstairs to judge the play. Maybe you get one more challenge if the game goes extra innings.

God, please no. If it's about getting calls right, why on earth should it hinge on a coach's decision?

Of course, anybody who thinks that replay is about getting the calls right has never actually watched an NFL game.

I'd like replay a lot better if it was limited, like in the NFL. The manager could have 3 challenges for the entire game and there would be a replay official upstairs to judge the play.

If you did implement this system - they've recently started using something similar in cricket - I don't understand why you'd have more than 1 challenge per team, that was only used up if you challenge incorrectly. You don't want managers burning challenges 'just in case' something turns out different on replay; you want replay to prove where there's been an important, flagrant mistake.

Reducing the number of available challenges to 1 basically should ensure that they're only used a) in a desperate case, such as the last inning of a close game, or b) where there's been an obvious miscarriage of justice. Both of which are times where you'll live with the delay, rather than resent having a team burn their second challenge in the 6th inning of a 9-2 game because, hey, it's a free asset, and you might as well.

If the next revelation in the new CBA is that any time a balding, overweight man in his 40s enters the ballpark, he's going to get kicked in the nuts, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I'd love to see what company would sponsor that promotion.

RB in Boston, not a company, a union. The National Urologists Union.

Finally more of what baseball needs most: Stoppages in play and standing around.

This is a structural problem. The easiest solution to keep play moving is to put an umpire in a replay booth in radio contact with the on-field crew. That umpire can call in decisions or otherwise let the appropriate crew members know what he sees... it would add another umpire to the crew, which their union should like...