Umpiring in MLB

[LMan]

Illustration of point #1:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1325768.php

[jicecone]

"Managers would get two challenges per game - just as coaches get in the NFL - and the only plays they could argue are ones that don't require an umpire's judgment: out or safe, fair or foul, home run or not."You know, when your going to present an argument for replay, choose one that has some meat to it. The author of this article establishes criteria for the use of replay and then offers 3 situations that don't meet his criteria.

1. The third strike call would still be holding the game up to this day because it WAS NOT conclusive as to wether it was a clean catch or not. And a GOOD catcher, would have thrown the ball to first.

2. Both of the other calls were judgements calls.

I have no problem with introducing replay into to the game, considering what is at stake and the monetary compensations and rewards. However it needs a lot better argment than this.

[BigTex]

Managers would get two challenges per game - just as coaches get in the NFL - and the only plays they could argue are ones that don't require an umpire's judgment: out or safe, fair or foul, home run or not.


Aren't those judgement calls?

[LMan]

Fair/foul is not.

[BigTex]

How does fair/foul differ from out/safe in judgement?

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BigTex

How does fair/foul differ from out/safe in judgement?

It eaither is or isn't. The umpire(s) may not see the result, but the result is there (ball hit the chalk line, top of the wall, etc). If a ball is called one way, and replay "indisputably" (gotta love that word) shows that it was the opposite, then there's no judgment.

Tennis uses this stuff to see if a ball is in/out on the lines...same concept.

Out/safe is a bit more of a reach from fair/foul, but that is more of a technological issue IMO (camera angles n such).

Do not misread me - I am NOT a replay advocate. But I am also realistic, and think that LIMITED replay will eventually come to MLB in some form..and the most logical place first, is on fair/foul calls.

[BigTex]

The ease of the replay does not make it more or less of a judgement call. Either I judged it landed on the fair side of the line or the foul side of the line....still judgement.

I am against replay also, I think it makes officials try to take the easy way out of things. "What can i call that wont look really bad if it is overturned." It happens in the NFL all the time.

I think the "Baseball Establishment" is strong enough to keep replay out of the game....they have kept the DH out of the NL for this long, keeping replay out should be easy.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LMan

Fair/foul is not.

I'm sorry to disagree, but reality requires it.

Fair/foul decisions are judgement calls.

[mbyron]

LMan, I think I understand the point that you're trying to make, but fair/foul is a judgment call. The contrast class is a rules question: for example, a coach can protest a game over a rules question but not over a judgment call. Your judgments on ball/strike, fair/foul, and safe/out -- however good or bad -- are not protestable.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I'm sorry to disagree, but reality requires it.

Fair/foul decisions are judgement calls.

Then how can tennis use technology to show a line call? That was a job performed by the 'human eye' for decades, and now its not (I watched the US Open this year).

Those WERE judgment calls, now they go to the computer. Please explain the difference b/w that and a ball that 'chalks' down the LF line, for example, but is called foul.

A fair/foul issue related to the field boundaries is susceptible to current technology, as in tennis. Discuss.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LMan

Then how can tennis use technology to show a line call? That was a job performed by the 'human eye' for decades, and now its not (I watched the US Open this year).

Those WERE judgment calls, now they go to the computer. Please explain the difference b/w that and a ball that 'chalks' down the LF line, for example, but is called foul.

A fair/foul issue related to the field boundaries is susceptible to current technology, as in tennis. Discuss.

Your first post didn't ssy that fair/foul decisions SHOULDN'T be judgment calls; you said that they weren't. That is patently wrong.

Who cares what tennis does? I don't see anything in the baseball rule book about fair/foul being called by a cyclops or a computer. In baseball, fair foul decision are still being made by human beings. Those human beings are called umpires.

The recent "huddles" on calls near the foul pole alone should indicate to most that humans are still judging fair/foul calls.

The last I knew, pros schools were still teaching that fair/foul decisions were judgement calls and the MLB still describes it that way. I don't know where you got your information. LLDan, maybe?