|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 02:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
There has been a good discussion on changing of calls and IMO the BIG reason for the change in attitude of ML umpires over the past 10 years is TV.
Fox now has the K Zone and when a pitch is close and either F1 or B1 complains they show the pitch over and over again. For those who watched the Twins / Yanks game the other night, remember the close play at second involving AROD where AROD thought he was safe. Fox showed that play "10 ways to Sunday" Therefore, in Summary I think the change in attitude is not as Peter suggested "the fall of the Umpires Union" but the increased TV exposure on Every play. Also for those traditionalists out there, Get Ready because it's just a matter of time before baseball adopts some form of instant Replay. You might think this is ludicrous but I thought the same about the DH rule in the American League. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth |
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 02:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree. With Big Brother looking over your shoulder it puts a lot of pressure on the Umpires. There indeed have been more discussions among the men in blue than ever before over fair foul etc. I would hate it if instant replay ever came to baseball. The human element is part of the game and I hope it always remains this way
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 06:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree that the major reason umpires now get together is because of tv and the increased coverage of sports highlights. It simply doesn't make sense to die with a call that can be changed when, if wrong, the call is going to be shown on sportscenter and the like for the next 24 hours. In addition, the mlb umpires have been under tighter control from the commissioner's office since 1999 when the american and national league control of umpires ended. One of the major concerns has been to "get the call right."
However, I disagree that instant replay will come to baseball anytime soon. The only way I could see that happening would be for the limited use of possibly a fair/foul homerun decision or spectator interference. And I think it would take a major foul up in a playoff or world series game for there ever to be enough support for instant replay. |
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 08:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that replay *will* come to baseball, but not in the short run. The most obvious application, as has been pointed out, will be for fair/foul, HR/GRD, and fan interference. These calls often have an immediate impact on the score.
I think that at some point replay will be introduced for safe/out. Traditionalists will insist that umpiring is "part of the game," but that didn't stop replay from getting into the NFL, where refereeing is "part of the game." Safe/out is will be a reviewable call at some point, probably with each coach having a limited number of "challenges" per 9 innings. I doubt that ball/strike will ever be a reviewable call. This would slow down the game too much and occur in too many instances (passed ball, dropped third strike, steal attempt) where it would disrupt the flow of the game. The main reason I believe that replay is inevitable is that the same logic applies as applied in football: the replay is already there, why not use it to get the call right? If the disruption can be minimized by judicious use and careful rule-writing, why not? The best counter-argument is: the pro umps are so damn good, they almost always get it right already, even when you thought they booted it when you watched it live. Pro umps are much better (have a much lower "error percentage") than pro referees in football. So even a small disruption is not worth it, since there's just not that much to correct. I hope the counter-argument wins, but I fear it won't. We love technology too much in our culture.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 10:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sat Oct 09, 2004, 07:49am
|
|||
|
|||
"After further review..." ... the game is already TOO dang slow.
Also, would that mean that the slap on the wrist given a MLB umpire a couple of years ago for looking at a TV monitor to rule on a HR will be changed?  U7 |
|
Sat Oct 09, 2004, 08:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But look: we see a lot of close plays on slow motion replay in both sports. If you compare just those plays, it seems to me that baseball umps get the call right more often than football officials. Is your perception different?
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 06:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The thing that people forget is that they see the play 3 or 4 times from different angles and in slow-motion. We get to see the play from 1 angle, in real time and only once! We make the decision in a fraction of a second, run it over in our heads for another fraction of a second and then make the call. The game was designed for us to make the call as we saw the play. It was never designed for "getting together" to make a decision. There are only a handful of things that we are supposed to "get together" for and very few of those things are for rendering calls. The game was never designed for instant replay either. And on the subject of instant replay, where will it end? Home runs, interference calls, obstruction, pitches, tags, catches? They all warrant "instant replay". Very simply put, if "instant replay" has to come to baseball, let them put everything under the camera's watchful eye. The game will take hours to complete and the fans will stop going to the parks because of the duration of the game. Oh I know, let's also set time limits just like other sports! Then we can all put on striped uniforms and white knickers and huddle after every call. Also, let's use whistles! That will help the TV cameramen and wake up the fans. Let's get realistic here, people. There is entirely too much "huddling" to get a call "right" and too much pissing and moaning. None of these ideas will help the game. Oh in the short term, everyone will think that it is good because we finally get the call "right". But in the long run, we will be taking away from the game the most important element - "the decision of the umpire is final!" [Edited by ozzy6900 on Oct 12th, 2004 at 07:32 AM]
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 09:55am
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The game was designed for us to make the call as we saw the play. It was never designed for "getting together" to make a decision. There are only a handful of things that we are supposed to "get together" for and very few of those things are for rendering calls. The game was never designed for instant replay either. And on the subject of instant replay, where will it end? Home runs, interference calls, obstruction, pitches, tags, catches? They all warrant "instant replay". Let's get realistic here, people. There is entirely too much "huddling" to get a call "right" and too much pissing and moaning. None of these ideas will help the game. Oh in the short term, everyone will think that it is good because we finally get the call "right". But in the long run, we will be taking away from the game the most important element - "the decision of the umpire is final!" [Edited by ozzy6900 on Oct 12th, 2004 at 07:32 AM] [/B][/QUOTE] I will adress them point for point. 1) Who exactly respected our decision to stick with the call made. The player or coach that got robbed? ...or was it other umpires? This argument is simply not true. Being hard headed when you are wrong is a character flaw, not an ideal to which we aspire. 2) Which sport was designed for instant replay? Since most participatory games evolved a century ago or more, instant replay or television coverage was as far fetched a dream as could be imagined. Again, a weak point of contention, since all games evolve. This evolution involves mega stadiums (not envisioned when the games were created earlier), public gambling on everything from the coin flip to the final score, millionaire contestants that never learned the rules and television coverage. The scrutiny is there because so much is at risk. 3) Your rallying cry for abandoning the call "to get it right" is misguided, at best. Because so much import is given to the outcome of an at-bat, let alone the score, umpires are in the firing line on every call. Yes, multiple camera angles show the fan what happened. We don't have that luxury to stop and evaluate tape prior to making the call. But, we are better trained than the average fan and know the rules far better than the average player. We can and do see the nuances that help sell a call. We can rely on our partners for assisting us on calls already (swipe tag, pulled foot, check swing, foul ball in the box, contacting the ball out of the box, etc.) This has turned into a contest of tradition/ego and natural evolution. The professional team owners hold players accountable for their mistakes. The league expects the same from the officials. The bottom line in all of this is to get the call right, at almost any cost. Are we ever going to see the banger at first over-ruled? I don't think so. But, we will be expected to seek help on the calls we've discussed, ad nauseum. We can do something about those kicked calls and should. Why do you umpire? I can't believe that you do it for the power trip alluded to earlier. I don't do this for the respect or admiration of the fans. I get a deep satisfaction in ensuring that the game is played correctly. I live for seeing the no-hitter, triple play or cycle. I can't recall walking off the field and having a fan come up to me and ask where I was working next. (Well, maybe they asked in hopes that it wouldn't be at their park again!) Recognizing that we enable the game and aren't the focus is a tremendous step in the evolutionary process. Umpires used to wear suits and ties on the field, but were pummeled for making the wrong call. Now, we've got professional umpires making $300,000 a year, flying first class and working at camps and clinics. They've become more visible and because of the remuneration they receive, others are standing in line for the job. We love to knock the guy who is working the big game. We point out their errors and criticize the mechanics. It's become part of our nature. I've alwasy believed taht if you want teh glory, you need to accept the misery. In other words, if you take the check, earn the money! Looking bad, but getting the call right is part of the modern job description. |
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 11:12am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1) Who exactly respected our decision to stick with the call made. The player or coach that got robbed? ...or was it other umpires? This argument is simply not true. Being hard headed when you are wrong is a character flaw, not an ideal to which we aspire. 2) Which sport was designed for instant replay? Since most participatory games evolved a century ago or more, instant replay or television coverage was as far fetched a dream as could be imagined. Again, a weak point of contention, since all games evolve. This evolution involves mega stadiums (not envisioned when the games were created earlier), public gambling on everything from the coin flip to the final score, millionaire contestants that never learned the rules and television coverage. The scrutiny is there because so much is at risk. 3) Your rallying cry for abandoning the call "to get it right" is misguided, at best. Because so much import is given to the outcome of an at-bat, let alone the score, umpires are in the firing line on every call. Yes, multiple camera angles show the fan what happened. We don't have that luxury to stop and evaluate tape prior to making the call. But, we are better trained than the average fan and know the rules far better than the average player. We can and do see the nuances that help sell a call. We can rely on our partners for assisting us on calls already (swipe tag, pulled foot, check swing, foul ball in the box, contacting the ball out of the box, etc.) This has turned into a contest of tradition/ego and natural evolution. The professional team owners hold players accountable for their mistakes. The league expects the same from the officials. The bottom line in all of this is to get the call right, at almost any cost. Are we ever going to see the banger at first over-ruled? I don't think so. But, we will be expected to seek help on the calls we've discussed, ad nauseum. We can do something about those kicked calls and should. Why do you umpire? I can't believe that you do it for the power trip alluded to earlier. I don't do this for the respect or admiration of the fans. I get a deep satisfaction in ensuring that the game is played correctly. I live for seeing the no-hitter, triple play or cycle. I can't recall walking off the field and having a fan come up to me and ask where I was working next. (Well, maybe they asked in hopes that it wouldn't be at their park again!) Recognizing that we enable the game and aren't the focus is a tremendous step in the evolutionary process. Umpires used to wear suits and ties on the field, but were pummeled for making the wrong call. Now, we've got professional umpires making $300,000 a year, flying first class and working at camps and clinics. They've become more visible and because of the remuneration they receive, others are standing in line for the job. We love to knock the guy who is working the big game. We point out their errors and criticize the mechanics. It's become part of our nature. I've alwasy believed that if you want teh glory, you need to accept the misery. In other words, if you take the check, earn the money! Looking bad, but getting the call right is part of the modern job description. [/B][/QUOTE] The game has been played for decades without the aid of huddling and instant replay. But I see that I am being "old fashioned" and hard headed. Yes, I am hard headed about umpiring. The players do their jobs and I have to do mine. I expect the best out of them and they expect the best out of me. Of course, I cannot please both sides - 50% of the people will disagree with me everytime! That's part of the game. I do not agree with or will condone huddling for ecvery damn call like many of you do. That's just not what the game is all about. You have to work at the game to get things right. Just like it has been done for decades! If the rest of you want to "huddle up" that's fine. I won't! I will not support instant replays unless there is a time limit put on games - and when you do that, I'm done with the sport.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 11:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are certain plays that warrant help, checked swing, swipe tag or pulled foot at first, fair foul down the line. I even agree with checking with your partner to confirm you applied the correct rule. However, I've never have seen or heard of a "bad call" that effected the outcome of a game. I agree that bad calls (I'm assuming that the umpires are competent) seem to have cost one team or another a game. However there are plays that occur throughout the game that if made render the "bad call moot". To often bad calls are used as an excuse to rationalize a teams shortcomings. (If you are a Cub fan the Cubs were guilty of this and are a good example) This is just my opinion, but bad calls and good calls are part of the charm of the game. The vast majority of the time the "right team" wins the game. When that doesn't happen "that's just baseball". Call me old fashioned but, instant replay would ruin the game, at least for me.
|
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 12:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I smile when discussions of instant replays in baseball are brought up. Ten years ago I umpired a TV game, Purdue vs. Indiana, and had first base. Shortstop fields one up the middle, wheels and throws to the right field side of first base. I banged the runner and the IU coach came out to discuss the call. The discussion was uneventful, but since the game was televised regionally by Fox Sports, I got a copy of the tape. Upon review, angle #1 had me dead wrong. Angle #2 was unclear, and angle #3 showed I was right without a doubt. How many camera angles will a reviewer have to look at and still be proven wrong from a different angle? Perhaps a home run fair/foul, but beyond that, whew! Face it - umpires are right an unbelievable amount of the time (in my case, anyway
 ). Replays would really slow down a game that pundits say is already too slow to be consistently entertaining (what do THEY know!).
|
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 01:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hope that this adds to the discussion and clarifies my thoughts. We are not talking about changing the way we umpire. We are talking about making the same calls as before. However, it is now understood that we have the freedom and responsibility to give or receive an assist.
I am on the fence about instant replay at the professional level. I like the way that the Big Ten is handling it in Football this season. They have limited the replay option to a very distinct list of plays. They have set a time limit and are governed by the thought that in order to over rule it, "If 100 people saw the replay, all 100 of them would say that it should be changed." Unless you have ONE OF THOSE GAMES, 1 or two challenged calls could be handled very quickly. I despise fans who say the game is too long, but think nothing of watching a two and a half hour Adam Sandler movie. (Talk about a real waste of time!) Finally, don't play the tradition card unless your last name is Doubleday. A great many things have changed in the game. I suggest you read a history of baseball to see how some of the most basic tenets have evolved. Arguing that we shouldn't change because it wrecks tradition is pitiful. Should we still be wearing outside protectors and black suits? Change is inevitable and you are right to be concerned. People that stand in the way of it usually get run over. Remember, there was a time that women couldn't vote, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus and computers took up whole rooms at NASA. I just can't understand what is so difficult with conferring with your partner about one of the few calls we've discussed. You made a bad call, the stadium is hooting and your partner is walking towards you to help you out. If pride is the only reason you won't allow him to assist you, then maybe that time to step aside is already here. |
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 01:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Peter |
|
Tue Oct 12, 2004, 02:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
