|
Replay proponents have some merit to the arguments. There are some situations that could always be reviewed without disturbing the action of the game (the "flow" or "pace" of the game is another story).
-When a safe or no-catch is ruled which, corrected, would result in a third out.
-Safe or out call with ball in fielder possession near the relevant base and only one runner on base. (Including stolen base attempts.)
-Fair/foul/foul-tip/catch/no-catch with no runners on. (Assuming players proceed as if it is fair and no catch is made.)
-Game winning run safe or out with ball in fielder possession at the plate.
If these are implemented as reviewable plays, the evolution that is similar to that in football is likely. That is, players and officials both "automatically select" the option that allows action to continue, knowing that it can be corrected with the official review. It would eventually be up to the whole community how much they are willing to endure before some amount of regression occurs.
Umpires should not default to "safe" on close third outs or other correctable situations just because they know they can correct it later. It opens the door to horrendous blunders if anyone involved is mistaken about the game situation. It would also result in two vastly different forms of game play, depending on whether the level has replay or not. A huge shift in playing style between the minor leagues and major leagues would create an intangible transition cost between the levels and hurt both of them. Between the measurable monetary outlay, and the immeasurable impact on the quality of the game, the cost to implement replay is simply too high.
|