Instant replay--maybe.

[Jurassic Referee]

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

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

Selig to decide.

[GarthB]

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."

[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???

[Rich]

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[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,

[Dakota]

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?

[mbyron]

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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

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.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

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!

[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.

[jimpiano]

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.

[lawump]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

They weren't making $300,000 in 1999.

But they were making well into the six figures.