Its never easy being a Pirates fan, huh

[elocomotive]

Similar things have happened in the playoffs and to my team (look up Jeffery Maier, yeah its not exactly the same but it was bad).

I HATED that kid. Always will remember that game. I never blamed the umpire there for some reason, just that annoying little kid smiling and knowing he interfered with the game. Blood boiling just thinking about it.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I'm a Buffalo sports fan so sorry, no sympathy here. I have been told "shit happens" and It looks like shit happened again.

 

[elocomotive]

I'm a Buffalo sports fan so sorry, no sympathy here. I have been told "shit happens" and It looks like shit happened again.

We need to get Boss a t-shirt:

"Shit Happens...but not on MY lawn!

 

[BOSSMANPC]

We need to get Boss a t-shirt:

"Shit Happens...but not on MY lawn!

I love to shoot the shit. :smile:

 

[elocomotive]

I love to shoot the shit. :smile:

Or at least the animal making it!

 

[juliansteed]

I think if they want to fix baseball (or MLB specifically) they need to focus more on the off the field stuff than on the field. Like a good start would be some sort of significant salary cap. Its too late for my Expos but there is still time to save the rest of the small market teams, which in the long-run would also be beneficial to the large market teams.

Now having said that, I don't necessarily mind human error staying in the game. As long as every team and player has the same opportunity to benefit or suffer from this human error. Elite veteran players are going to get a bit of "respect" 1 way or another as they do in ever sport. There is no denying that. But I don't think the need to accomodate this should be a factor when trying to establish or tweak certain rules. If you want to keep balls and strikes upto the umps and accept a certain amount of human mistakes that can work either way for your team then that is fine. But I'm having a tough time agreeing with the argument that instant replay shouldn't be used for balls and strikes because of "grey areas" and that we need to preserve the favortism given to elite players. I suppose its a matter of opinion but its one that I have to disagree with.

If you are going to add the computer element to calling balls and strikes would it be for each pitch or upon request with a limited number of challenges? I'd prefer the latter, except maybe instead of a limited number of challenges you'd only be limited to a certain number of unsuccessful challenges. I think you'd need to have a different set of challenges for pitches and any other play. In other words you get X amount of challenges for pitches and Y number for all other plays and can't use a remaining challenge from 1 for the other once they run out. Having machines call every pitch could be intersting but at what level does this start? Obviously you couldn't have this in every Little League game in every park across the world. Players and umps would make it to the big leagues (or perhaps a lower level of pro ball) under 1 set of circumstances and then start playing under a completely different (although more fair) set of circumstances? That doesn't seem right to me. Also where would the camera be located for this? Every angle we see can't be straight on because the pitcher or catcher/ump would be in the way so its always slightly tilted one way. Along with an overhead camera, (which I'm pretty sure are only available in dome stadiums) that should be good enough to review a close play but not sure how that would work if the machine is calling each pitch. Also would the machine be able to automatically re-adjust itself for each batter? If not then it would have to be done by (gasp!) a human and if the human doesn't adjust it perfectly that means that entire at-bat would be fucked! So yeah if you're going to do anything then I like the review idea better and as others have said it might slow the game down a bit but no more than players and managers arguing and getting tossed.

Which brings me to my next point. The thing about baseball and its officiating is the drama factor. Baseball feeds off the drama it builds more than any other sport. It needs to because its slower than most other sports and therefore often considered boring by many people but lots of other people appreciate it because of this element of drama. Contraversial calls make up part of this drama. When is the last time there's been a baseball thread on here that has gone 9 pages? Yes I know its a hockey board. Because of what I mentioned in my 1st paragraph I lost interst in baseball several years ago, but I find this situation interesting. While it might make the game more fair if human error was eliminated, or at the very least minimized, it could make it less entertaining. Contraversial plays are often quite memorable and they get people talking. They don't just get players and managers fired up, but the fans as well. Even if you don't like how it affects the outcome, chances are you are being entertained by it on a subsconscious level as it is generating more emotion.

 

[Comeds]

Good post Julian, I agree about the off the field problems being more important than anything else. Unfortunately the owners nor the players agree.

I stated I would rather see balls and strikes called by a computer before anything else gets replay. I am still on the fence about whether I really want that or not. In my mind if it went to that I would do away with the umpire and have a computer call all the balls and strikes, not a replay system.

By the way, per the rule book - I wonder how many players at second called out on a double play were really safe. Often the second baseman or shortstop are not even close to touching second base when they throw to first.

 

[juliansteed]

Good post Julian, I agree about the off the field problems being more important than anything else. Unfortunately the owners nor the players agree.

I stated I would rather see balls and strikes called by a computer before anything else gets replay. I am still on the fence about whether I really want that or not. In my mind if it went to that I would do away with the umpire and have a computer call all the balls and strikes, not a replay system.

By the way, per the rule book - I wonder how many players at second called out on a double play were really safe. Often the second baseman or shortstop are not even close to touching second base when they throw to first.

Yeah I'm undecided on a few things too. I'm not sure it matters to me all that much 1 way or the other. It's just certain reasoning to either impliment or not impliment changes that I disagree with.

 

[evolver115]

Not that we didn't already know Lugo was out, but here is the MLB front office response:

Major League Baseball's chief of on-field operations, former big-league manager Joe Torre, said Wednesday afternoon that it appears Meals missed the call.

"Many swipe tags are not applied to the runner with solid contact, but the tag was applied and the game should have remained tied," Torre said in an e-mailed statement. "I have spoken with Jerry, who is a hard-working, respected umpire, and no one feels worse than him."

Torre's statement anticipated people calling for MLB to expand video replay reviews. MLB currently allows replay only for home run calls.

"I have heard many discussions on umpiring and technology over the past two years, including both the pros and the cons of expanding replay. However, most in the game recognize that the human element always will be part of baseball and instant replay can never replace all judgment calls by umpires," Torre said. "Obviously, a play like this is going to spark a lot of conversation, and we will continue to consider all viewpoints in our ongoing discussions regarding officiating in baseball."

And for the discussion above with Julian and Comeds... the only part of instant replay that I want to see expanded in baseball are plays at the plate.

If runs are going to be scored, and a team is going to take a lead over another, I think it is well within the rights of gamesmanship in baseball for those runs to be verified as legitimate.

I don't care for the idea of balls and strikes being called by a computer, and I highly doubt that will happen within say the next 25 or so years, anyway. However, I could see the expansion of plays at the plate being considered sometime soon because they are already reviewing home runs, as it is... runs are being scored and I think it's fine if they verify the legitimacy of them.

 

[juliansteed]

Not that we didn't already know Lugo was out, but here is the MLB front office response:



And for the discussion above with Julian and Comeds... the only part of instant replay that I want to see expanded in baseball are plays at the plate.

If runs are going to be scored, and a team is going to take a lead over another, I think it is well within the rights of gamesmanship in baseball for those runs to be verified as legitimate.

I don't care for the idea of balls and strikes being called by a computer, and I highly doubt that will happen within say the next 25 or so years, anyway. However, I could see the expansion of plays at the plate being considered sometime soon because they are already reviewing home runs, as it is... runs are being scored and I think it's fine if they verify the legitimacy of them.

I think if you're going to expand it to plays at the plate (which I don't really have a preference 1 way or the other), then you'd have to expand it to all bases, especially based on that logic. What if there is a runner on 3rd wtih 2 out and the ball is hit to the infield but the play goes to 1st instead of home? As far as how it would impact the game that would be no different than a play at home plate. Would MLB allow plays on the bases to be reviewed only if it makes a difference as to whether or not a run is scored on that same play but not other times? They could but not sure if I could see that happening.

 

[evolver115]

I think if you're going to expand it to plays at the plate (which I don't really have a preference 1 way or the other), then you'd have to expand it to all bases, especially based on that logic. What if there is a runner on 3rd wtih 2 out and the ball is hit to the infield but the play goes to 1st instead of home? As far as how it would impact the game that would be no different than a play at home plate. Would MLB allow plays on the bases to be reviewed only if it makes a difference as to whether or not a run is scored on that same play but not other times? They could but not sure if I could see that happening.

It is a good example, Julian.

I just look at it from the standpoint that if there is going to be a run counted, it had better be legitimate. As I pointed out before, they review goals in hockey and they review touchdowns in football, the same should hold true for baseball.

If points, runs or goals are going up on the scoreboard, I don't want any doubt as to whether they are legit, or not.

 

[juliansteed]

It is a good example, Julian.

I just look at it from the standpoint that if there is going to be a run counted, it had better be legitimate. As I pointed out before, they review goals in hockey and they review touchdowns in football, the same should hold true for baseball.

If points, runs or goals are going up on the scoreboard, I don't want any doubt as to whether they are legit, or not.

Makes sense. But what happens if the leadoff batter reaches base on an illegitimate play then goes onto score eventually on plays that are all otherwise legit? Is that still considered a legit run? I don't think there is any perfect analogy between the 3 sports but that could be compared to a missed offside call in hockey or even a bad penalty call. In football it could be compared to a bad call on the previous play that sets up 1st and goal. In hockey there is no replay for those situations but in football it is available if the coach still has a challenge remaining. So if you're going to use those other sports for comparisons you could make cases either way on stuff like this.

 

[evolver115]

Makes sense. But what happens if the leadoff batter reaches base on an illegitimate play then goes onto score eventually on plays that are all otherwise legit? Is that still considered a legit run? I don't think there is any perfect analogy between the 3 sports but that could be compared to a missed offside call in hockey or even a bad penalty call. In football it could be compared to a bad call on the previous play that sets up 1st and goal. In hockey there is no replay for those situations but in football it is available if the coach still has a challenge remaining. So if you're going to use those other sports for comparisons you could make cases either way on stuff like this.

There is no perfect way to compare the three sports. I like what you pointed out about hockey and a obvious call that could be missed which could lead to a goal, or say, a false start by the offense in football that could be missed, and it led to a score.

It opens up a much larger debate when it's broken down to that level. However, I like what hockey has done about reviewing goals scored and their legitimacy. Goals are so hard to come by in hockey, so it's great that a review system is now in place to verify that they are either legit, or they're not. I think the review system in the NHL could be implemented in much the same way for the MLB for runs scored.

It would obviously have to be fine-tuned with the debate about plays at all bases... but I think a review system could be implemented, and still protect the 'human element' in the game.

 

[TOX1]

This really has turned into one excellent thread.

 

[SLY]

The "human element" debate is fucking retarded. The players are the "human element", umpires are fucking retarded. Adding technology to the game to make sure the right call is made is not taking away the "human element" unless you put robots out on the playing field. Has to be the dumbest argument I have ever heard in sports.

 

[evolver115]

This really has turned into one excellent thread.

Yes, I agree. It doesn't surprise me, though. This board has become a fantastic place to discuss not only hockey, but all sports. I'm glad that we have so many real fans, here.

 

[SLY]

Jeff shows up and everyone runs. Pussies.

 

[evolver115]

The "human element" debate is fucking retarded. The players are the "human element", umpires are fucking retarded. Adding technology to the game to make sure the right call is made is not taking away the "human element" unless you put robots out on the playing field. Has to be the dumbest argument I have ever heard in sports.

It is the same debate in all the major sports, though. They have all worked through this, or are in the process of working through it.

The older generations have/had a hard time buying into allowing technology to dictate their game. When you consider how the majority of people today enjoy their sports, though... watching it on 50" flat-screens in high definition with surround sound... it only makes sense that the technology would be embraced within the game, as well.

Baseball has the most time-honored traditions. It doesn't surprise me that it took this long for them to start reviewing plays. The important thing to me is that they finally have started to review stuff, and I think that will eventually lead to them reviewing more situational plays, beyond just home runs.

 

[SLY]

When a person can blatantly make a correct call from their living room... The umpire is no longer needed. But to stay true to the sport he should be out there to make the calls and obviosuly keep peace on the field, but technology should be dictating the game result.

 

[dare2be]

This really has turned into one excellent thread.

The "human element" debate is fucking retarded.

There goes the neighborhood...