What do you guys think about the idea?

I'm not in favor of it unless the challenges are limited. The games are long enough anyway. But, if they can put a limit of, say, two challenges per team per game, then I would like to see it happen.

This would really level the playing field in crucial calls. Let's face it, when you're watching your favorite team on TV, how many times have instant replays shown the umpire to be wrong? Lots of times is my answer.

Of course, major league umpires don't want it (correct me if I'm wrong Ump25) but I think it would add a great new dimension to the game.

This would work very effectively in the playoff and World Series games, where bad calls can mean big money.

[quote]Originally posted by billsf:

Let's face it, when you're watching your favorite team on TV, how many times have instant replays shown the umpire to be wrong? Lots of times is my answer.

---

Your answer would be completely incorrect. Very, very few times are the calls wrong.
[quote]
Of course, major league umpires don't want it (correct me if I'm wrong Ump25)

---

We don't want it, but it's not because we believe we are perfect gods or immune from erring. First of all, we do not believe it to be necessary. Secondly, well...the damn games are long enough, especially postseason games. None of us enjoy being on the field for these near 4-hour playoff games.
[quote]
This would work very effectively in the playoff and World Series games, where bad calls can mean big money.

---

You'd have to define "very effectively." I highly doubt this would be possible. One day it might, but right now we do not believe it can.

As far as baseball is concerned, I disagree with you bill....while it makes more sense in football and, to a lesser extent, in hockey (RE: disputed goals), I don't think instant replay is necessary or would be nearly as effective with baseball....while a few calls are "obvious" IMHO there are far more judgement calls in baseball that are not as "black and white" as whether or not a receiver got two feet in bounds or whether the puck crossed the goal line, for example --- heck, the play at the plate tonight where Angels pinch runner Figgins was called out after seeing replays from four different angles it still wasn't crystal clear but ultimately it looked like the home plate ump called it correctly (after the last angle showed the back of Figgins' jersey being creased from the catcher's tag).

This isn't meant to "blow smoke" at ump25 or any of the other professional MLB umpires but as a whole I honestly believe that baseball umpires do a much better job and make far fewer mistakes than officals do in any of the other major team sports (especially football) -- and while this can be partially attributable to the fact that NFL officials only do it on a "part-time" basis and have other jobs throughout the course of the week (which has always seemed ridiculous to me considering the huge sum of money that the league is generating) overall when you factor in the extensive training, minor league experience, and full-time employment of baseball umpires (after all, this IS their sole and permanent source of income, at least during the season) they are not only scrutinized more and held accountable for their performance on a daily basis but they seem to take their jobs more seriously and, as a result, the percentage of times when they do make a mistake is FAR less often than what some fans might tend to believe.

I admittedly have always viewed myself as more of a "purist" as far as baseball is concerned (I dislike the DH, artificial turf, and interleague play -- although I am now willing to concede to a few "natural rivalries" as far as the latter topic is concerned) but I personally don't see any need or significant benefit that adding instant replay would bring to the game....nothing against you, bill, but I thought the people at Fox were stupid for even bringing up the topic in tonight's game (coincidentally right after Figgins was accurately called out at the plate -- hmmm)....I know some of these networks are always trying to "stir up" controversy but I thought they were being downright ridiculous....if they wanna suggest ideas on how to improve the game, start by asking the Twins players what they think of Bud Selig (assuming they'd answer that question honestly, which is doubtful) and get that jerk out of office -- he's done enough harm to this great game already but that's another topic altogether.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I'm totally, 1000% opposed.

Take the play at the plate with Chone Figgins in tonights Angels/Twins game. They showed it from a bunch of different angles and I still couldn't conclusively tell whether AJ Pierzynski was able to swipe him with his glove. But the home plate umpire had a great angle.

Or there was the ball that *I* thought his the left field foul line (I thought I saw a kick of dust) but the replays were inconclusive. But the line umpire was right on top of the play; great positioning.

And I have to disagree about how often umps are wrong. I'm constantly amazed at how often they get things right. Where I think there's a little room for debate is ball/strikes. Those overhead shots DO show some pitches that are obviously wide being called strikes.

Frankly, I'm opposed to anything that lengthens games. And even though I think the Angels got jobbed twice tonight, I don't think replays would have shown conclusively either way that the plays would have favored them.

This kind of thing must be in the air. There's a company in Germany who is developing a system for soccer of automating some aspects of officiating. It's basically a series of chips that can be implanted in player's shin guards and the ball; it will allow things like offsides and whether the ball crosses the goal line to be decided by computer. But are they going to implant touch sensitive monitors in AJ Pierzynski's glove or Chonee Figgins jersey?

I don't think there should be instant replay in baseball either. I agree that umpires accuracy (except for balls/strikes), although not 100%, is excellent. I think that in order for instant replay to be useful and effective in a sport, at least one of the following must be happening with respect to officiating: blatant errors (such as football, basketball, and hockey), bias towards star players (such as basketball), inconsistency (basketball and hockey again). Except for balls/strikes, I don't see these as problems in baseball. Yes, there are times when a replay shows that a runner beat the throw by a millisecond but is called out. But I don't think most players, managers, and fans have a problem with that. As for ball and strike calls, some improvement could be made there. There are definitely times that a strike is called when the ball is never within 6 inches of going over the plate. Also, as Ump admitted once, that umpires have to call some strikes balls under certain conditions (correct me if I'm wrong Ump), but at least the umpires are usually very consistent. And yes, baseball games are long enough.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

You also have the issue of games that aren't televised at all, even by the visiting team. The only cameras operating are for the video screens in the stadiums. Are you going to hire cameras and crew just for the in-house review system?

I think this is a bad idea. The ONLY thing I wouldn't mind seeing happen is if the umpires, at THEIR discretion and not at the request of any player or manager, decide to review a replay if they have a genuine disagreement among themselves on a play.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
The ONLY thing I wouldn't mind seeing happen is if the umpires, at THEIR discretion and not at the request of any player or manager, decide to review a replay if they have a genuine disagreement among themselves on a play.

---

We currently do this, though without the aid of instant replay. The most common time this occurs is the challenging long fly ball that hooks around the foul pole. In some stadiums, it is very difficult to judge if the ball was, indeed, foul, or if it was fair and thus a home run.

Personally, I have never been unable to properly judge this; but it happens more frequently than it should. In cases where the first or third base umpire makes such a call and a controversy erupts, MLB encourages us to gather as a crew, where we discuss what we all saw and whom we believe is ultimately correct based on a number of factors, the primary one being angle. (Angle over distance--always!)

When we are finished conversing, either the plate umpire or the crew chief will confirm or reverse the call.

If it's reversed, the shit usually will then hit the fan.