of course with last night's (10/20) Yankee/Angels playoff game where not 1, not 2, but at least 4 clearly blown umpire calls were evident has put this back into the spotlight.
Jason Starke on Sportscenter tonight made a good point by saying they should have one ump upstairs in a booth and the crew chief with an earpiece so calls could be almost instant and not have games go to the 5 hours that could come with this new item.
me- i think, like last night's game it goes both ways. calls seems to even out which is an overall detriment to get one call wrong and then another against the other team. then, do you bring it into balls and strikes? have a certain amount of challenges like in the NFL?
it is such a tricky thing to have it in there and kinda makes the drama less dramatic. but overall, can't they experiment for one year, one half of a year even to see what the true outcomes are and if games are severly lengthened.
make your case for why it should or shouldn't be added.
Red Dog
10-21-09, 06:57 PM
I assume Yankee fans vote no (particularly for games at Yankee Stadium). ;)
scott1598
10-21-09, 07:05 PM
I assume Yankee fans vote no (particularly for games at Yankee Stadium). ;)
no way. even though we got most of the calls last night. it goes both ways and i want to see fair officiating no matter what. i get pissed when a strike called for the bad team is really a ball.
wm lopez
10-21-09, 07:13 PM
Calls go both ways because the ump wants to even things out.
I don't MLB to turn like the NBA with makeup calls.
All instant replay does is tell the truth and in this country we have a problem with that.
dx23
10-21-09, 07:15 PM
Yes, but that doesn't excuse the umpire crew that was working the Angles/Yankees game last night. The third base umpire should be at least suspended for the crass error he committed in all the plays he fumbled last night. That guy was completely out of it.
wm lopez
10-21-09, 07:18 PM
I was watching t.v. SPORTS CHICAGO and the hosts hinted that maybe the fix is in to get the Yankees to the World Series.
tofferman
10-21-09, 07:26 PM
Colin Cowherd made a rational argument this morning that one of MLB's excuses for not instituting instant replay is that it would slow things down and make the game even longer...and baseball is the only game without a game clock.
This debate is one of several reasons hypothesized as to why baseball interest has been waning (especially among the 18-35 demographic), versus the NFL, the NBA, and Nascar. Too rigid and not open to change...I voted yes.
Me007gold
10-21-09, 07:29 PM
Sure why not, put an ump in the booth somewhere, make him watch the game on the tv, if he has a problem with what is called, he calls the head ump(two way radio) on the field and tells them what he saw.
Drexl
10-21-09, 07:30 PM
I would try it. No balls or strikes, but give the manager up to 3 challenges. And, he doesn't leave the dugout to challenge; he just makes a hand signal or picks up a phone. It's not like it would take that much longer, when you consider he won't be trotting out there to bitch about the call now (at least until his challenges are used up). These challenges might include the home run calls they currently replay; I'm not sure about that part.
Then again, fewer manager-umpire arguments would mean fewer ejections. Bobby Cox's record would be safe.
wm lopez
10-21-09, 07:43 PM
Why not balls & strikes?
Afraid it may not give a pitcher a no-hitter?
coli
10-21-09, 07:49 PM
Colin Cowherd made a rational argument this morning that one of MLB's excuses for not instituting instant replay is that it would slow things down and make the game even longer...and baseball is the only game without a game clock.
.
I agree and that is why Selig has to change the game to quicken it up. This whole stepping out after every pitch has to stop, this whole catcher visiting the pitcher every 5 minutes has to stop, and pitching changes need to be quickened up too, as I say bring the reliever in in a golf cart.
Then you could institute Replay for 2-3 calls a game. Give each manager 2 challenges, and 1 for extra innings. No balls and strikes, just calls on the bases, foul lines, and HR's.
Baseball is too long to begin with, so they should quicken it up regardless of instant replay!
Dave7393
10-21-09, 08:02 PM
For years I would've said, "no way," but now, I'm thinking it should be allowed at least in the post-season (on a trial basis).
Obviously in a short series, every game is pivotal, and a blown call could mean the game-- and every game in a five-game series is paramount. Should we all wait for that to happen, and then add replay, "so this doesn't happen again?" Sooner or later, that bad call, the blown game, and the tainted series win will happen.
And yeah, bad calls happen, but in an ideal world, I'd like to see umpires who had on-field calls overturned repeatedly via replay get penalized in some way. Getting the right call is their full-time job. If you fuck up at your full time job, what's supposed to happen? For them, right now... not much.
Dave7393
10-21-09, 08:14 PM
I agree and that is why Selig has to change the game to quicken it up. This whole stepping out after every pitch has to stop, this whole catcher visiting the pitcher every 5 minutes has to stop, and pitching changes need to be quickened up too, as I say bring the reliever in in a golf cart.
Stepping out of the box after every pitch is the big time waster. Addressing this is at least a rational way to confront the length of the games, as opposed to some other things I've heard, i.e. people arguing for automatic intentional walks, which is just stupid (I've seen balks, wild pitches, hits, and fly outs on intentional walk pitches. A walk is a walk. You need four pitches out of the strike zone).
As for the golf cart idea, instead, all relievers should be required to match John Rocker's bullpen-to-pitcher's mound sprint time, and you'd easily chop a few minutes off of every game. :)
starman9000
10-22-09, 08:12 AM
Colin Cowherd made a rational argument this morning that one of MLB's excuses for not instituting instant replay is that it would slow things down and make the game even longer...and baseball is the only game without a game clock.
It's especially stupid when arguing the "flow of the game" because bad/close calls right now often lead to old men in uniforms throwing temper tantrums for 5 minutes, halting the game anyway.
Red Dog
10-22-09, 08:30 AM
As for flow of the game, I'd like to see a comparison of # pitch changes per game in 1985 vs. today, particularly for the A.L.
Managers seriously overmanage games now since they all have computer-generated breakdowns of every pitcher-hitter combination and situation. It's one of the reasons I've been turned off of baseball the last decade.
Goat3001
10-22-09, 08:41 AM
Sure why not, put an ump in the booth somewhere, make him watch the game on the tv, if he has a problem with what is called, he calls the head ump(two way radio) on the field and tells them what he saw.
:up: I heard this one mentioned before it's by far the easiest to set up and the least time consuming.
Make it for any call that isn't balls and strikes. If there's a close play anywhere on the field, let the booth ump look at a quick replay and relay the message to the head umpire. Make it quick though, let the umpire look at one slo mo replay. If the play is so close that it needs 5 replays to kind of have an idea then let the umpires call stand. If the play is so off that one replay fixes it then change the call.
rexinnih
10-22-09, 11:35 AM
Put instant replay in. Too many obvious mistakes that could be game changers. Technology is here so use it. Not very convincing against the purist argument but it's going to happen eventually.
dvd-4-life
10-22-09, 12:17 PM
Colin Cowherd made a rational argument this morning that one of MLB's excuses for not instituting instant replay is that it would slow things down and make the game even longer...and baseball is the only game without a game clock.
This debate is one of several reasons hypothesized as to why baseball interest has been waning (especially among the 18-35 demographic), versus the NFL, the NBA, and Nascar. Too rigid and not open to change...I voted yes.
They aren't interested in speeding up the games so why should there be a concern that it would slow down the game. Managers over-managing and making pitching changes for the sake of pitching changes and batters stepping out of the box after every pitch and pitchers and catchers having 5 conferences per inning is what is slowing down baseball games not umpires looking at video for a disputed call.
dvd-4-life
10-22-09, 12:21 PM
As for flow of the game, I'd like to see a comparison of # pitch changes per game in 1985 vs. today, particularly for the A.L.
Managers seriously overmanage games now since they all have computer-generated breakdowns of every pitcher-hitter combination and situation. It's one of the reasons I've been turned off of baseball the last decade.
100 percent agree. The biggest change was when AL managers adopted the NL style of managing. Back in 1973 when the DH first began-starting pitchers were left in the game no matter how many runs they had given up as long as there team was winning. Today-Girardi makes 5 pitching changes in the 5th inning and he hopes the game doesn't go extra innings because of his over-managing.
Red Dog
10-22-09, 12:26 PM
I don't think they adopted the N.L. style of managing - just the opposite. A.L. managers are more likely to make pitching changes when they are in the field. In the N.L., pitching changes frequently occur after pinch-hitting and thus during the subsequent inning-change. In that scenario, the warm-up for the new pitcher takes place during inning-break, so there is no extra time needed.
Buy: