Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
Last night's play is a BIG reason why IR is needed. IR will actually speed up the game not take away from it.
You had John Farrell the Red Sox skipper come out and argue the call. Then the umpires huddled, call reversed and out comes Matheney and the umpires have to explain why they reversed the call. This took at least 10-15 minutes (maybe longer I didn't have a stop watch). If IR was used - 2 minutes tops as this was a no brainer of a call reversal.
Also, IMO if the game were played in St. Louis perhaps the call would not have been reversed. I doubt the Cardinal contingent would have replayed the play on the BIG screen like they did in Boston.
IMO, one of the umpires looked at or least glanced at the replay and saw that the call was blown BIG time.
IR is needed.
Pete Booth
|
But will that play be subject to review? I don't think it should be. Replay should be used for points of fact - fair/foul, out/safe, catch/no catch. Yes, there is judgment in an out/safe, but at its heart it's still a point of fact. Release or not is pure judgement, like obstruction/interference, etc. The football equiv is using replay for catch/no catch but for pass interference.
I don't think it's the end of the world if this is open for review, but I don't think it's as clear cut a candidate as other calls. Still, if they must review it, I do agree that it could actually take less time than the argue/counterargue cycle.