Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
It was my understanding as well that the claim is 20% wrong of the 1.3 "close calls" per game. If we say that's .25 of a blown call per game on average (not just outs, but fair/foul, above the HR line/below the HR line, etc.) that's one blown call for every 4 MLB games.
Apart from the fact that that number is ASTONISHINGLY low just in its own right, the question is whether it warrants more replay. One argument that shouldn't fly any longer is that more replay would slow down the game: if replay were targeted at the 1.3 "close" calls each game, it would have no significant impact on the length of games.
That said, I'd still like to know how many of the "close" calls really affected the outcome. Apparently the downside of adding more replay isn't so bad; but what's the upside, really?
|
Well that is if it only takes a minute to decide. But what if the discussion takes over 5 minutes because of the things we have discussed like not very many good angles? For example if they make the Bob Davidson fair/foul call apart of replay, how long would it take for that call to be made either way? In the NFL and in the NBA, taking more than 5 minutes is not totally out of the question. And if baseball has IR, what is the procedure and how long are they going to debate a call. Remember coaches already delay the game to debate calls they do not like and there is no replay. What is going to happen in a baseball season? Is there going to be a screen near the field? Will a person at each game need to be there to decide what play is to be reviewed? Will there be a limit on the number of IR reviews? And just because ESPN says that only involves 1.3 plays a game, does that mean a team will not think more plays are missed which would further delay the game? I do not have the answer, but I cannot imagine that this would not delay the game more than it is already delayed with the other things that slow the game down.
Peace