|
I can only speculate on what I think is occurring in MLB.
Prior to the failed strike of a few years back, the MLB umpires seemed to have stronger tenure guidelines established than did the teaching profession. I think that MLB---spearheaded by Sandy Alderson---has been trying to prove that MLB will be in charge of the standards of officiating in the MLB---and not the umpires. They certainly proved their point in dealing with the striking umpires, and they gathered the attention of all professional umpires in doing so.
It appears MLB desires include having the entire game called more "by the book" versus sitting back and accepting the custom and practice dictated by the officials elevated to that level. In support of those desires they are likely monitoring and reviewing play for adherence to their desires. I think I've seen far more infractions of rules such as interference and obstruction called over the past several years than I did prior. Certainly we've seen less tolerance in the judgment applications of reacting to balls that may be purposely thrown at batters. I think all is a result of the officials reacting to MLB desires to adhere more to the rulebook.
The strikezone is likely the most subjective issue yet the most difficult to monitor from an objective standpoint. Although MLB's use of Questec is not perfect, it is not only attempt to monitor that facet of the game, but it's also a message to umpires telling them MLB will continue to attempt to do so. It's part of MLB's message to umpires that the league will set the policies, not the officials.
While I doubt if anyone on these boards has the background to verify the accuracy of Questec, I think we'd all agree that what it is trying to accomplish is a significant change from the "custom and practice" of what has been the strikezone used in MLB over the past decades. If successful in forcing umpires to call the zone by the book, it would represent a major change to the game. For that reason alone, I believe their is opposition to it from all levels. Afterall, those that have achieved that level did so based on their proven success of playing the game under current standards of custom and practice versus some unknown and untested standards---even if those untested standards are defined within the rulebook. In attempting to implement those untested standards, it puts the status of both groups of participants already at the top---players and officials---at risk of being less successful under the new standards.
Evaluation is criticism, and nobody likes negative criticism---especially when the criticism is used to evaluate one's overall performance. Negative criticism can be accepted, however, if it is easy to adjust to the desired performance level. It's not easy to make changes to something that has been established for decades. It's even more difficult when those changes are obvious to millions of regular viewers who are accustomed to the established standards of custom and practice.
While the current implementation of Questec has its flaws and may not be the perfect the answer, I doubt if eliminating Questec will eliminate MLB's goal of getting the umpires to adhere moreso to the book definition of the strikezone. Whatever method MLB looks to use, I'd expect to see opposition from players, officials, and fans to MLB's desire for change within the game.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|