|
The problem with Pete's replay theory is the ball is never dead in baseball, except for a few instances. Technically, you can do it for HR's down the line, because either way, the ball is going to be dead and the replay decision will stand on it's own.
Suppose in Edding's play we have one out, R3 with 1b unoccupied. Strikeout with borderline catch/no catch, sloppy mechanics by PU, defense gives up, offense takes a shot and BR goes to first. Defense wakes up, throws runner out at 1b. Alert R3 takes off and beats return throw home to score winning run.
OMG... this type of play has been deemed reveiwable because the whiners got their way because the camera can see the catch/no catch (sort of). Sooo, PU or replay official looks at catch/no catch for probably upwards of 5 minutes on the Edding's catch/no catch situation. Replay official says Catch-- BR out on Strikeout,...but what do you do with R3. He would not have scored had the PU made the catch call. Does the replay guy put him back on third? How does he know F2 doesn't throw ball to CF trying to return it to F1.
In baseball, the onus is on the players, always, to know what is going on because the ball is always live and there are no do overs. If someone screws up (players, managers, umpires, ballgirls, etc)... too f--n bad, play stands. THAT'S BASEBALL!!! It's why the game itself is so great.
Replay can not work in a sport where the ball is not dead between plays. It would cause the entire rules of the game to have to be rewritten, thereby materially changing the game itself.
|