The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:14pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Instant replay--maybe.

Recommended for "boundary" calls only......

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096923

Selig to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Selig to decide.
That's not how I read this line:

"A final vote could take place at the baseball's winter meetings in December."
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ca
Posts: 47
MLB Umps

Wow all those guys are going to get paid a hell of allot more! The will use this as an negotiation tool.

Maybe the pension will go up and some of the guys can afford to retire???
__________________
It's for the kids
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:33pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by oyaisee
Wow all those guys are going to get paid a hell of allot more! The will use this as an negotiation tool.

Maybe the pension will go up and some of the guys can afford to retire???
Afford to retire? Making $300K should encourage sound investing, shouldn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:47pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
That's not how I read this line:

"A final vote could take place at the baseball's winter meetings in December."
Just read another story that said if Selig approves, he then has to run it by the owners. If they say "go for it", both the players association and the umpires association also have to approve it. It sounds like the process will take about eleventeen years.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Hmmm,

"Selig to decide."

To the contrary . . . On the "Mike Tirico Show" Selig said that he had stepped completely aside and the decision will be made by a simple vote of the owners.

Regards,
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 01:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C
"Selig to decide."

To the contrary . . . On the "Mike Tirico Show" Selig said that he had stepped completely aside and the decision will be made by a simple vote of the owners.

Regards,
What do you expect from a CS "leader" and pretend commissioner?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 02:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C
"Selig to decide."

To the contrary . . . On the "Mike Tirico Show" Selig said that he had stepped completely aside and the decision will be made by a simple vote of the owners.

Regards,
Tee, ESPN is now reporting that the players' union and the umpires would also have to approve the change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESPN from link in OP
The plan needs approval from the players' association and umpires.
For a dead-ball fair/foul call such as one over the fence, I could see this getting approved. Hard to see why the players' union wouldn't approve it. Some umps will probably have "slippery slope" concerns, though, so perhaps not.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 02:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Solomon also said that to speed up games, baseball was considering limiting the number of times a hitter could step out of the batter's box during an at-bat and the number of times any player could visit the mound.
Puh-leeze.

How about you decrease the time between innings to 45 seconds. That would take close to an hour off each game.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 03:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Puh-leeze.

How about you decrease the time between innings to 45 seconds. That would take close to an hour off each game.

you cant sell ads that way!
__________________
It's sad when you're at a baseball game and realize that you'll never have the money, status or talent that the guys on the field take for granted. And it gets even worse when the grounds crew gives way to the players.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 08:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Not only will the player's union have to rule on this, in order to implement any video replay would require a re-write of several rules in section 9! Seeing as how normal rules cannot get past the player's union, I highly doubt that video replay will get in.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 09:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzy6900
Not only will the player's union have to rule on this, in order to implement any video replay would require a re-write of several rules in section 9! Seeing as how normal rules cannot get past the player's union, I highly doubt that video replay will get in.
The Player's Union will have no problem okaying these replay rules,,,,since the changes highly favor them. After all, who would not want a called double turned into a home run, or a called foul become the same? Replay would hardly work the other way.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 09:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
Afford to retire? Making $300K should encourage sound investing, shouldn't it?
Not to hijack a thread, but...

you would think making that amount would encourage sound investing...but it frankly shocked me how many of the umpires who lost their jobs in 1999 "fell on hard times". (And I'm not talking about the ones who had only been in MLB for a few years...I'm talking about long time vets). It seems some do not invest well enough.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 09:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawump
Not to hijack a thread, but...

you would think making that amount would encourage sound investing...but it frankly shocked me how many of the umpires who lost their jobs in 1999 "fell on hard times". (And I'm not talking about the ones who had only been in MLB for a few years...I'm talking about long time vets). It seems some do not invest well enough.
They weren't making $300,000 in 1999.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 06, 2007, 10:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
They weren't making $300,000 in 1999.
But they were making well into the six figures.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Instant Replay? SRW Softball 12 Fri Nov 17, 2006 03:07pm
Instant replay in MN HS BB MN BB Ref Basketball 9 Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:42pm
Instant Replay in the CFL ref18 Football 1 Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:27pm
Instant Replay??? IREFU2 Basketball 4 Mon Mar 14, 2005 04:20pm
Big Ten Instant Replay. JRutledge Football 19 Thu Sep 02, 2004 07:49pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1