i just read this article http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/featu...=ESPNHeadlines and figured i would pass it on and see what you guys think about it.

i have posted the baseball references in this thread for those who just want the quick access. if anyone thinks it is too long for this post, let me know and i'll take them out and you can just check out the article directly.

------

The Jeffrey Maier rule
Florida 6, Arizona State 3 (College World Series semifinals), June 23, 2005

Florida was up one game to none in the best-of-three series, but trailed 3-0 in the fourth inning of Game 2. After the Gators' Brian Jeroloman reached first on a walk, Brandon McArthur hit a foul ball off first base. ASU catcher Tuffy Gosewisch dove into the stands but missed making the catch. Home plate umpire Bill Davis ruled fan interference and called McArthur out. The play didn't stop Florida's rally, though, and the Gators advanced to the championship series.

AND . . .

Nationals 6, Phillies 3, Aug. 15, 2005

A huge crowd showed up at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia to watch the battle between the NL East rivals and wild-card contenders. The Nats were up 3-2 in the top of the third and had a man on base when Preston Wilson apparently sent a Brett Myers pitch over the center-field wall. A fan (wearing a Yankees cap) leaned over to try to grab the $4 souvenir, but missed. The ball careened back onto the field. First-base umpire Alfonso Marquez ruled it a home run.

But Phillies right fielder Bobby Abreu contended the ball hit the fan below the top of the wall, and should have been a ground-rule double. After Phillies manager Charlie Manuel also protested, the umpires huddled and ruled that Marquez had made the correct call. Home run.

<font color="red">The 2015 scenario:</font> The solution to baseball's fan-interference problems will be ancient history, as every major league ballpark will be required to push seats back from all walls and provide at least a 3-foot separation between fans and any ball that could possibly be in play. No longer will fans be able to lean over onto the field, and players will no longer be within diving reach of the stands.

Referee magazine publisher Barry Mano looks forward to a day when ground rules will be more heavily scrutinized and fans who interfere with the action will be dealt with more harshly. In addition, outfield walls will more clearly delineate home runs. Painted lines (did the ball hit over it or under it?) and fences atop walls won't be allowed, except in a few historical parks such as Fenway. And even there, sensors on the wall will indicate the precise point of impact. As a backup, a multitude of digital cameras will be available; and the stodgy baseball traditionalists who've resisted instant replay will finally have been pushed aside. A limited replay system, much like the one in place in the NFL, will be in use.

------

'Trap' door
White Sox 2, Angels 1 (Game 2, ALCS), Oct. 12, 2005

A.J. Pierzynski was at bat with two outs in the bottom of the ninth and the score tied at 1-1. Angels reliever Kelvim Escobar induced Pierzynski to swing for strike three, and Angels catcher Josh Paul rolled the ball back to the mound, ready for extra innings. But Pierzynski, believing the catcher had trapped the ball, took off for first when Paul didn't try to tag him to ensure the third out. He made it easily, since the Angels were already on their way to their dugout. The Angels protested, arguing that home plate umpire Doug Eddings had clearly signaled strike three.

Eddings conferred with the other umps, and the play stood. Then Joe Crede drove Pierzynski home with the winning run. After the game, Paul said he would have tagged Pierzynski or thrown to first if he had heard Eddings call the customary "No catch, no catch" when a third strike is trapped. Eddings admitted he hadn't said "No catch," but added that after reviewing the play from multiple angles, "I had questions. I didn't have him catching the ball."

<font color ="red">The 2015 scenario:</font> MLB will embrace instant replay, using it most frequently in playoff and World Series games. In addition, sensors implanted in every game ball will register every point of contact with a time-stamp, accurate to the thousandth-of-a-second. The sensor will be able to differentiate between types of impact, as well -- whether the ball hit the plate, a base, the dirt, the grass, a glove, a uniform, skin, a helmet, and so on. This data will be matched up precisely and quickly, with high definition digital video cameras that tightly focus on key areas of play -- especially home plate. Within 60 seconds, the sequence of events -- from the ball's point of view -- will be precisely determined. It will be clear whether the ball hit the dirt before it was squeezed in the glove.

By 2015, umpiring also will be much more standardized. Home plate umpires no longer will be allowed to have idiosyncratic styles for calling balls and strikes. They will be judged for game management skills, and signature styles will be no more than a distant memory.

In addition, officials in all sports will become more skilled at dealing with the media in explaining their calls. They will receive more training in this area, and the best at these skills will be called upon more frequently to be official spokesmen.

[Edited by briancurtin on Dec 31st, 2005 at 12:41 AM]

The Future and beyond....
 

This will all be acceptable because players will slowly evolve into machines themselves. In the early 2010s human players will be repaired with bionics then completely replaced with cyborgs. Managers will be use remote controls to lead their team until independent logic controllers can be installed. Fans will be replaced all together with individual cameras mounted on each seat to give an unique perspective on their HDTVs that they will have to purchace for 3.5 times today's "traditional" ticket prices.

By 2020 the robots will go on strike and all MLB games will be simulated on computer. Of course, George Steinbrener will own all of this technology and the Yankees will win twelve more World Champinships.

D

Actually, I heard Georgey Porgy was going to buy the company that makes the World Series trophy and buy one for his stash every year, no matter how much his team chokes.

Back to the post though, I once again disagree with ESPN. The more they speak about sports the more I need to find somewhere else to go, as once again, with officiating, they venture into an area they have no knowledge of.

"Brandon McArthur hit a foul ball off first base."

How is this possible?

Also, if you think for one minute that owners are going to agree to have buffer zones, where seats can be placed then, that is some good stuff your smoking.

NEWS ALERT, NEWS ALERT!

ESPN has announced that by the year 2015 they will finally have found a reporter/announcer, that actually knows something about sports. Details about whether or not they will also know the rules of the sport have not yet been determined.

I think by "off" they mean off to the side....proving that their mastery of English is just like that of sports: non-existent.

Re: The Future and beyond....
 

As our friend Rod has taught us, the teams must avoid giving their robot players hearts. For if they do, the robots will become ineffective players.

Here's the problem with all that stuff. Games are going to take years to finish.

They used to say that about replay in the NFL.

Then they said it about replay in college football.

Did you watch the Orange Bowl? The replay usage was quick, correct and delayed the game by about three minutes for all of the calls. That was a terrific use of replay technology.

We get second guessed all of the time. If you are a parent or umpire you should be used to people trying to prove that you don't know a thing.

Replay will make it to the big leagues before this decade is out. It is entertainment - but very expensive entertainers are demanding pefection and all that money talks. Yes, the game will take a few minutes longer, but maybe we can put some veteran umpires in the booth to review certain plays like they do in college. If you value the correct call, this should not be a concern.

I am of the opinion that replay is a stain on the game. It doesn't necessarily ruin it but the sport is soiled.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of poor officiating, I just think that if you are going to play the game with humans, officiate it with humans. Modern technology could have made Bill Buckner's knees bend. The same performance enhancers that gave Jose Canseco a second career will all but guarantee Bonds will break Hank Aaron's record.

It's a human game. Humans make mistakes. Trained and prepared humans make them the least.

D

I don't like being second guessed any more than you, but the other sports are refining the technology and it is only time before replay will assit us in some capacity. MLB has a few calls that would greatly benefit from replay. We all know that some calls cannot be assisted. As in football, only certain calls would be reviewable and those would have to meet absoulte criteria. It is inevitable...too many strides towards getting the call right are in play and the money involved is too great.

using baseball as an example, It's funny how a batter can go 3 for 5 during a game (60%) and its said he had a great game. And a pitcher having a great game faces 33 batters allows 4 hits and 2 walks (82%). When an umpire has 250 pitches, 75 plays in the field and misses 5 pitches and 2 tags/obstruction (98%) calls and he had a horrible game and he should be fired. People need to worry about their own selves; and we don't need "better training", more gadgets to change 1 call every 3 games, we need to hurry up and find that sports reporter that knows what he is talking about before 2015 so we can hurry up and make 100 clones of him :D

[Edited by biggref on Jan 6th, 2006 at 03:32 PM]

It’s funny how the conversation has gone from ESPN crap. to BSC instant replay, so I would like to add my 2 cents about the replay.

In general it seems to me it undermines the authority of the officials on the field, which then takes away the need for players and coaches to give 100% respect to the officals. I was taught as a player that life is not perfect, umpires are not perfect, and players are not perfect, but you must deal with it and move on. $hit happens - that’s life. If the instant replay becomes more relevant in the bigger games, then it will slowly trickle down into the daily games as technologies becomes less expensive.

More specific to the future of baseball (2015) I’m sure we can image many situations, however, I think that should be different thread.

I can't wait for instant replay to get here! i will no longer need to be good at umpiring, and i'll get paid better because i will learn the technology early! yeah!!!!! (that was a joke)

That would imply that you are good now.

How can instant replay make you a weaker umpire?
Knowing that your call will be scrutinized will make most umpires try to get the original call right, not the other way around. The NFL, NCAA, NHL and NBA officials that use instant replay have become markedly better. The don't use it as a crutch, they rely on it for affirmation.

Those who fear instant replay are probably the umpires that need it the most. The technology is getting close to being useful. We use videotape to enhance our mechanics already. It is a shame that too many officials think that instant replay will kill their careers. Limited use of replay is akin to adding umpires to the field. More sets of eyes assists in better coverage and getting the correct call made.

I certainly don't fear replay but, especially in baseball, instant replay can make human umpires obsolete. If the technology exists to evaluate a strike zone, how far away are we from getting humans out of harm's way and calling pitches from the booth. Just about every catch/no catch, timing play, throw out (force or not), fair/foul, ball leving the park call, etc., can be more accurately be made with multiple cameras, split screens, zoom lenses, etc. Everything that makes umpiring so difficult (see Rosa Parks threads, et.al.) is exactly what can make it passe for the human umpire, on the field, at least. No more heart attacks on the field. No more broken wrists. No more contract negotiations.

Big Brother says it's a better way.

D

Can anyone have an opinion contrary to yours without being insulted, Windy?


Tim.

I'll never understand how you can confuse sarcasm for being an insult.

I have used plenty of self-effacing commentary in the past. Even when you erroneously accused me of saying I was the best umpire on the internet, I politely declined the praise. I've even gone as far as saying that I've never called a perfect game and that's why I keep going back. Me arrogance is Kevlar and an impetus for betterment all in one. When you understand these things, we can have an adult discussion. Putting words in my mouth is never a good thing.

Sarcasm by definition is the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. No confusion there.

Perhaps you meant to be facetious rather than sarcastic. Perhaps someday you will understand that the intent behind irony is difficult to discern over the internet.

et tu brute?

Since you opened pandora's box:

Sarcasm, as utilized by moi earlier, is a literary tool used in a humorous or rhetorical manner. Plenty of authors use sarcasm in written media; if you venture beyond the occassional comic book you might learn that. (Was that sarcastic?)

Sarcasm: (n) - A form of wit that is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

That would have been in used for the earlier post and in reply to yours. I'm not certain what purpose you had in exposing that weakness, but it made for some more fun reading. (Yes, that was more sarcasm!) Isn't that ironic?


If you would like to discusss baseball or umpiring I would be happy to read and possibly comment. This was fun but silly.



[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Jan 11th, 2006 at 05:05 PM]

As usual, you missed the point. Pandora's box indeed.

1. Regarding your earliear post, you can't admit the sarcasm and deny the insult.
2. Your sarcasm toward me is absurd, irrelevant, ill-informed, and a diversionary tactic away from your being mistaken.
3. I decline your invitation to discuss baseball or umpiring, as you've demonstrated an inability to distinguish good from bad advice (and good from bad physics).

Just how will a call of "foul" ever be reversed by replay? How about catch/no catch? If the call is "catch," how in the world are you going to go back, and then reverse the call. There are so many situations in baseball that call for continuation of a play for this to be implemented. Perhaps on a fair/foul over the fence call, when the ball is dead either way. Not too many other plays can really be subject to review in baseball.

talk into the little microphone and say "after further review, the hit was ruled incomplete. repeat play with a toss up in front of the plate. there are still 2 outs" and then start the clock

Steve,

There is no way of knowing to what extent replay will change the game. First of all, my post predicts the elimination of umpires. Therefore, the cameras will make the decision on fair/foul calls or catch/no catch calls. I made no mention of any technology overruling and human made call. My post regarded the complete replacement of human, on field umpires with automated decision making equipment.

Questec proves humans do not need to be in the line of fire to judge whether a pitch touches the strike zone. As the resolution of digital cameras improves along with lasers, and other forms of sensory equipment, any and all calls can be made with umpire replacing machinery.

No more excuses, no more arguments...

Truly a better world #$@ abetter world $(@)! a better world&*%$#$$^a better world

Fizz, pop!

D

One last thought...

When instant replay first became popular, fans clamored for it to be utilized because of blown calls. When pro football implimented it, some fans, players and coaches said that it would destroy the game. Did it?

We saw a college football season put it to good use and a professional system that has damn near perfected it. The length of time and multiple angles help get the call right. That is what officiating is supposed to be about. Too often we find guys that say, just call it and let them figure it out. Instant replay has made officiating better, not worse. The accountability makes them hustle more, get into a better position and really focus on the play.

Like football, basketball and hockey, instant replay in baseball would likely have a limited use. Those of you who can't figure out how it can be used for fair/foul or catch/no catch calls amaze me. In football those fair/foul calls are akin to the OOB or line call. (Was his toe on the line or not?) The catch/no catch is almost exactly the same in football. (Did he catch it or not?)

I said it before, we can operate on a 60' field with one man. When you get to Varsity ball, you need two or three. The big boys use four and come play off time, six men are out there. The more eyes the better. The replay cameras are just that. The unbiased eye in the sky.

Ah, what the heck. I'm up, the Pats lost so I'm in the mood.

Disclaimers:

I can't dispute that accuracy is better. Science is always bettering our lives.

Replay hasn't hurt football. The challenge element is strategic and almost makes it fun.

Arguments (Blue, I'm not argiuing, I'm just talking...):

My view is it's Paul Bunyon vs. the sawmill, cloning pepole, (D-man, D-man, we're talking about sports here)...

Right, it's more like kids watching TV rather than reading. My opinion stems from a nostagic vision of the way it used to be (still is in baseball). I try to keep a certain work ethic and pride in this little hobby of mine. I don't know why I even care. I'll never work a game where replay comes into, well, play. Umpiring Baseball, MLB, is a profession that pulls the elite from an enormous and seemingly eternal proving ground. They miss so little. Especially nowadays with the cuurent trend of crews getting together to discuss certain calls.

As far as my science fiction posts of robot players and computer optic officials, it's just that, fiction. It also reinforces my stance that unless technological help is going to absolutely ensure that no call is incorrect, then just let the human officials officiate the human game. Inconclusive replays should not be tolerated.

I'm not saying it's wrong (let me submit a proof that replay is bad and a pitch can rise), I'm just saying I don't like it.

D-MAN

A guy at the plate who strikes out alot with the bases empty and a two run lead and you still blame Buckner?

Context, Gappy:

Never blamed him. Take the play out of the magnifying glass. Technology could have fixed maybe one of those knees. Then the Sox lose in 15. I don't blame Grady for 03 either.

The last guy to break the ice doesn't cause the ice to fail, he just gets blamed.

D

Schiraldi got off the ice just in time & he has been skating ever since. I don't mind. I'm a Met fan.

Gedman (I think he's managing somewhere), Stanley (pitching coach for Norwich, CT AA team) all those accomplices are flourishing. Maybe if Rice hit into a few less DPs that year he'd be in the hall already. Now he may never get in. (background music: "Here on the island of misfit toys, here we don't want to stay".)

Now that's funny stuff right there!

Hermie would be proud!

"Nobody want's a baseball player with a hole in his glove."


Tim.

Dave Yeast played this video at the NCAA umpire meetings in Chicago earlier this month. The video clearly shows that the ball remained on (above) the field of play. A spectator reached out into the field of play to try and catch the ball while the catcher from ASU tried to catch it. The plate umpire correctly ruled spectator interference and declared the batter out. It was rather easy to see that the fan leaned over and deprived Gosewisch of an opportunity to catch the ball.