|
Sat Dec 31, 2005, 12:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. The 2015 scenario: 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." The 2015 scenario: 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] 
|
|
Sat Dec 31, 2005, 09:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
Sat Dec 31, 2005, 11:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
Throwing people out of a game is like riding a bike- once you get the hang of it, it can be a lot of fun.- Ron Luciano
|
|
Sat Dec 31, 2005, 12:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
Sat Dec 31, 2005, 01:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think by "off" they mean off to the side....proving that their mastery of English is just like that of sports: non-existent.
__________________
Throwing people out of a game is like riding a bike- once you get the hang of it, it can be a lot of fun.- Ron Luciano
|
|
Sat Dec 31, 2005, 03:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Future and beyond....
Quote:
|
|
Wed Jan 04, 2006, 06:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Wed Jan 04, 2006, 10:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
Wed Jan 04, 2006, 11:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 03:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
 [Edited by biggref on Jan 6th, 2006 at 03:32 PM]
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 04:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its 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 - thats 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) Im sure we can image many situations, however, I think that should be different thread.
|
|
Sun Jan 08, 2006, 10:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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)
|
|
Sun Jan 08, 2006, 11:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Mon Jan 09, 2006, 07:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
