Mets / Braves - Top 5th

[David B]

Originally Posted by cookie

A question on mechanics with reference to this play:

Did the U3 (Dreckman) ask for help and therefore, there was a conference that ultimately led to a reversal of the call?

OR did the crew chief (I believe Davis) on his own call for a conference, and that ultimately led to the reversal (Dreckman changing his call)?

The report I read in the paper indicated that Davis called for a conference among the umpires first. If it did occur this way, is this an acceptable procedure for umpire crew (whether 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, or 6-man) to at least start a discussion?

I was watching the game and never did understand the mechanics. If U3 was unsure he should have looked to U2 who had a much better view of the play.

But upon watching the replay U2 was acting like he did not see anything.

The other thing from what I saw is that U3 was surprised by the catch attempt and did not go out hardly at all which put him in a straighline since the F8 was coming right at him.

But once U3 asked for help I'm sure that U2 and U1 both had seen the no catch.

I can understand the award of one base, but since the passing of runner is a live ball play, (ball is not dead) then he could have been called out.

Shortly after this PU missed a close pitch and allowed Hudson to vent and Cox. I thought that was unusual but I'm sure they all felt like they had enough egg on their faces.

thanks
David

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by David B

Shortly after this PU missed a close pitch and allowed Hudson to vent and Cox.

How does one "vent and Cox?"

Never mind. I don't want to know.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by David B

But upon watching the replay U2 was acting like he did not see anything.

That would be Brian Gorman, who acts that way all the time. Hustle is not in his vocabulary.

(Note: In a 4-man crew it's not the second base umpire's call on such a fly ball when U2 is in the infield. My lack of hustle comment refers to the many times I've seen Gorman look totally lazy out there.)

[Dakota]

PMFBI... As a fan of MLB, I disagree strongly that replay should be used. I also do not like the use of the QuesTec for controlling the strike zone.

One of the reasons (IMO) baseball is such a good game is due to the officiating by completely human umpires, including their skills and their approaches to the game.

If using technology to call the "perfect" game was such a good thing, why did Curt Schilling take a bat to one of the QuesTec cameras recently?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Dakota

PMFBI... As a fan of MLB, I disagree strongly that replay should be used. I also do not like the use of the QuesTec for controlling the strike zone.

One of the reasons (IMO) baseball is such a good game is due to the officiating by completely human umpires, including their skills and their approaches to the game.

If using technology to call the "perfect" game was such a good thing, why did Curt Schilling take a bat to one of the QuesTec cameras recently?

If Curt Schilling is your Poster Boi for "why no technology in baseball officiating" God Help The Old Guard.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by fitump56

If Curt Schilling is your Poster Boi for "why no technology in baseball officiating" God Help The Old Guard.

I clearly identified my perspective on this as a fan, not a member of the guard, old or new. My point with Schilling was simple, but apparently not simple enough for you to comprehend. Umpires don't like the "technology" solution. Neither do pitchers. Why? It removes the human element (or in the case of QuesTec, just distorts it, since the technology still requires a different human to calibrate it, and the umpires and players recognize that each ball park calibrates it differently).

And, neither does this fan like the technology-supplied solution.

Getting the technically correct call 100% of the time by using technology is not a good thing, IMO. I disagree at this fundamental level. 100% correct calls enforced by automatons is not the holy grail of the ideal baseball game.

Anyone who thinks the "technology" will end with QuesTec and video replay fails to recognize the real trend. Eventually, the technology will be there to use electronic sensors to make sure many more parts of the game are done 100% "correctly." Will this make baseball a better game? Absolutely NOT!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That's rich. Pot, meet kettle.

Machine-generated accuracy (whatever percentage) has not improved baseball and increasing the percentage further with machines will not improve baseball. The "uniform" strike zone is also a myth, whether in QuesTec parks or not.

You can argue all you want about what MLB wants. With that farce of a pretend commissioner, what MLB wants has not been in the best interests of baseball for some time now.

Excellent post, start to finish.

Interesting that people are against athletes using technology (is steroids not a form of technology?) to improve their part of the game, but all for replay to improve the umpires part of the game?

I say, if you rule out steroids, you HAVE to rule out replay.

I am sticking with that.