The use of instant replay is under discussion by MLB. Should it be adopted?
| Yes, it's long overdue |  33 (23.24%) |
| No, it'd take away the human element | 50 (35.21%) |
| Only in a limited NFL-style "challenge" format | 55 (38.73%) |
| I *so* don't care! | 4 (2.82%) |
142 votes | 10 featured comments
I think the way it should be put in place is...
1) Add a 5th umpire to each crew
2) The 5th ump goes up to the press box
3) The 5th ump does all error/non-error calls
4) The 5th ump also does all instant replay calls
Thus you keep the umps as a group, knowing that the 5th will only overrule his group if it is clearing wrong. No home town advantage. Plus he'd get rid of the stupid 'not an error for the home town star' crap. The managers and umps on the field could call up to him for decisions with the ump in the booth having the final call. He'd be reviewing each play as soon as it ends just in case, thus speeding things up vs. the NFL/NHL methods. Use it as a method to get an extention of the current ump contract as well since you'd be creating a ton of new ump jobs, thus reducing the odds of an umpire strike in the future.
Wins all around. Plus I think MLB can afford another 15 umps or so per year (net cost probably $2-3 million a year over 30 teams so no more than $100k each) to improve the 'fairness' of the game.
1) Add a 5th umpire to each crew
2) The 5th ump goes up to the press box
3) The 5th ump does all error/non-error calls
4) The 5th ump also does all instant replay calls
Thus you keep the umps as a group, knowing that the 5th will only overrule his group if it is clearing wrong. No home town advantage. Plus he'd get rid of the stupid 'not an error for the home town star' crap. The managers and umps on the field could call up to him for decisions with the ump in the booth having the final call. He'd be reviewing each play as soon as it ends just in case, thus speeding things up vs. the NFL/NHL methods. Use it as a method to get an extention of the current ump contract as well since you'd be creating a ton of new ump jobs, thus reducing the odds of an umpire strike in the future.
Wins all around. Plus I think MLB can afford another 15 umps or so per year (net cost probably $2-3 million a year over 30 teams so no more than $100k each) to improve the 'fairness' of the game.
Not bad, John. Certainly better than many systems: the NFL system is so damn slow.
The cricket system is similar, except that the on-field umps call for the TV ump (with an arm signal), and the response is "out/not out" from two lights. Bog simple, and no one complains anymore. They do, however, have a restricted list of things that can get referred to the TV umpire: 'nicks' of the bat were trialled, and determined to be about as hard on TV as live, so they stopped doing that.
I'd like to see pitch f/x data being used for Ball/Strike calls. I believe that Hawkeye (the cricket system) claims position accuracy of an eighth of an inch, which is better than umpires will ever get. I don't want this on replay: I want it live. The response time should be less than or equal to an umpire.
The cricket system is similar, except that the on-field umps call for the TV ump (with an arm signal), and the response is "out/not out" from two lights. Bog simple, and no one complains anymore. They do, however, have a restricted list of things that can get referred to the TV umpire: 'nicks' of the bat were trialled, and determined to be about as hard on TV as live, so they stopped doing that.
I'd like to see pitch f/x data being used for Ball/Strike calls. I believe that Hawkeye (the cricket system) claims position accuracy of an eighth of an inch, which is better than umpires will ever get. I don't want this on replay: I want it live. The response time should be less than or equal to an umpire.
I don't know for sure where I stand on balls and strikes. Given the opportunity to have them called instantly with mechanical precision, I'm not sure I would take it. Sometimes it's reassuring to be able to complain that your team was getting squeezed all night on balls and strikes, whether or not it was actually true. It's perhaps part of the game to complain about bad calls, regardless of the actual quality of the call. JP commented in an MLB.com article that he'd support replay to determine homerun calls, but he wasn't sure if he wanted it used for anything more; I think I agree with that, though I wouldn't mind seeing it used for fair/foul or caught/dropped (trapped) balls, and perhaps some other situations.
I just hope that however they choose to implement instant replay, they put real emphasis on getting the right call quickly. It would be awful to slow this game down even more.
I voted, 'No, it'd take away the human element,' because that's closest to what I think. I don't care about a 'human element' one way or the other; I just don't want to complicate things. With the current system, every now and then the umpire makes a mistake. Well, so what if he makes a mistake? That's the breaks of the game. He makes a call, you live with it and move on.
I voted "No," I think at least in part because I fear the year-long run of stories that would inevitably fill up ESPN Classic and 417 Web sites all taking the "If we had this technology in XYZ year, the following would be true ..."
There's already such a split in baseball pre- and post-1973 (DH) ... this would be far more significant. Oh, wait, I know! Let's implement instant replay ONLY in the National League (and during the World Series only in NL home parks) ... that'd work great for at least 35 years or so!
It's fascinating that there have been 44 votes and no one does not care. Everyone cares about this issue; it's clearly a central issue in baseball right now.
If you favour an NFL style challenge format, where a timeout is lost if you wrongly challenge, you need to figure out a similar penalty for a baseball team. Nothing comes to mind off the top of my head that a baseball team could lose if they incorrectly challenge a call. Keep in mind, most plays in the NFL could be challenged (the spot of the ball is reviewable, and considered successful if the spot moves only a few inches in your favour), so the penalty of losing a timeout does keep the replays in check. Setting aside the strike zone, baseball would have a lot fewer plays that a challenge could change, but the possibility for abuse exists. One thing that comes to mind is calling for a replay to buy a reliever time to warm up. This specific instance could be dealt with by not allowing a pitching change after an unsuccessful challenge, but a more general penalty eludes me.
I would favour replays for homerun calls, although every team would be forced to have cameras straight down the lines and covering the tops of fences where possible confusion can occur. And a few parks (Fenway in Right field springs to mind) would need to extend the foul poul to make the calls easier to determine. But those changes should be done anyway, replay or no replay. Close force plays depend on a proper camera angle to see the ball hit (not just disappear past the webbing) of the glove, and tag plays would be almost impossible without good camerawork. Look at Holliday scoring the winning run for the Rockies this year. Almost every angle made it pretty clear it was unlikely he touched the plate, but I never saw one that actually showed his hand not touching home.
I don't think removing the home plate umpires would be nearly as much fun, and since only professional teams in MLB and Japan could afford to purchase and maintain such a system (maybe a few US colleges or Korean teams too?), umps would still be needed throughout college, high school, little league, etc. That would be a huge adjustment for players when reaching the majors. One of the ironies of making the umpires call the strikezone properly (although it's still called wider and shorter than it really is) is that it may make the adjustments a lot smaller and disruptive, thus making the umps more disposable in the end.
I would favour replays for homerun calls, although every team would be forced to have cameras straight down the lines and covering the tops of fences where possible confusion can occur. And a few parks (Fenway in Right field springs to mind) would need to extend the foul poul to make the calls easier to determine. But those changes should be done anyway, replay or no replay. Close force plays depend on a proper camera angle to see the ball hit (not just disappear past the webbing) of the glove, and tag plays would be almost impossible without good camerawork. Look at Holliday scoring the winning run for the Rockies this year. Almost every angle made it pretty clear it was unlikely he touched the plate, but I never saw one that actually showed his hand not touching home.
I don't think removing the home plate umpires would be nearly as much fun, and since only professional teams in MLB and Japan could afford to purchase and maintain such a system (maybe a few US colleges or Korean teams too?), umps would still be needed throughout college, high school, little league, etc. That would be a huge adjustment for players when reaching the majors. One of the ironies of making the umpires call the strikezone properly (although it's still called wider and shorter than it really is) is that it may make the adjustments a lot smaller and disruptive, thus making the umps more disposable in the end.
Re: AWeb. How about teams get one (re-usable) challenge per game, and if they're wrong they lose their challenge.
I like a limit on the number of challenges based on getting them wrong,
athough I might go for two of them instead, or maybe one for every
three innings with no carryover, sort of like timeouts in other sports.
The most important part of any system is making sure proper camera angles are set up and available to the replay umpire. I remember both initial replay systems in the NFL and NHL totally screwing that part up, and failing to provide all the angles the actual tv broadcasts had. This lead NFL coaches especially (where coaches get the call from the upstairs coaches watching on tv) to challenge based on a clear replay, and then the call being made based on a less clear one.
I do like the NHL system now, where it goes to "replay central" in one location, and the same people make the decision for every game. Baseball could afford this easily, although they'd have to figure out a way to get through the regional blackout rules.
The most important part of any system is making sure proper camera angles are set up and available to the replay umpire. I remember both initial replay systems in the NFL and NHL totally screwing that part up, and failing to provide all the angles the actual tv broadcasts had. This lead NFL coaches especially (where coaches get the call from the upstairs coaches watching on tv) to challenge based on a clear replay, and then the call being made based on a less clear one.
I do like the NHL system now, where it goes to "replay central" in one location, and the same people make the decision for every game. Baseball could afford this easily, although they'd have to figure out a way to get through the regional blackout rules.
A penalty that comes to mind for a team that requests a challenge and loses is that it counts as a visit to the mound, and if they are at bat it counts the next inning against them. Teams would feel safe early in a game but it could become an issue later plus it could help speed things up as the manager would have to pull his pitcher right away if he went out.