Electronic Umps

[brandda]

The quote below was posted in a previous thread. That one was getting long so I decided to start a new one:

Originally posted by jicecone
When are people going to understand that we are dealing with human beings. WE AINT PERFECT. This sickness in sports that everything has to perfect in officiating is ruining the games. And that is what they are, GAMES. When are they gonna make a perfect batter? Last I heard 300 was a good average. Heck, thats subpar for almost everthing else in life. The computer age has made us realize that we can now divide a number into infinite parts and therefore we belive that exactness is necessary in everthing we do.

Dont get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with change and improvements in sports and everything else, it is necessary. However,lets keep things in perspective. Next thing you know we will have electronic devices to tell if the runner was really out or safe. How about instant replay!

I think jicecone is correct as regards the current state of tech in sports, however, this raises an interesting question to me. I figure it's 10 years tops before MLB starts to use an electronic ump at the plate to call balls and strikes. Good or bad?

On the plus side, it does remove judgement and improve call accuracy. On the minus side is the whole "umpire judgement is part of the game" argument. I am curious as to the board's opinion on a development that I see as inevitable.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by brandda
I think jicecone is correct as regards the current state of tech in sports, however, this raises an interesting question to me. I figure it's 10 years tops before MLB starts to use an electronic ump at the plate to call balls and strikes. Good or bad?

They've had them before, they didn't work (and it wasn't (mostly) because of the technology). Sometimes the rules need to be flexible.

[Ump20]

Originally posted by brandda
The quote below was posted in a previous thread. That one was getting long so I decided to start a new one:

I think jicecone is correct as regards the current state of tech in sports, however, this raises an interesting question to me. I figure it's 10 years tops before MLB starts to use an electronic ump at the plate to call balls and strikes. Good or bad?

On the plus side, it does remove judgement and improve call accuracy. On the minus side is the whole "umpire judgement is part of the game" argument. I am curious as to the board's opinion on a development that I see as inevitable.

I think that expectations for major league level officials has filtered down into youth sports. Fans expect 100% accuracy in officials when none would want to work in an environment where their bosses had the same unrealistic expectations of them. Also, in general we have become a whole lot less civil toward one another, the after effects of September 11th not withstanding.

However, I think sometimes umpires forget that when they officiate most are doing so for compensation. This means we are working. As such our employers (the leagues, teams and coaches) expect our best effort i.e. knowledge of the rules, punctuality, appearance, and above all hustle.

When we give less than our best effort it reflects upon us as individuals as well as advancing perceptions that can infect us all. Jim/NYC

[greymule]

If MLB instituted an electronic strike zone that went strictly by the book, both batters and pitchers would hate it. I also suspect that pitchers would quickly learn to exploit the "weaknesses" of the system, figuring out where the system calls strikes most unlike the way the human umps called them (probably at the top of the zone on the corners).

If the league kept adjusting the machine until it got pretty close to what everyone was used to, it might work, but I'd hate to see it.

Remember, the machine would call a ball on an 0-2 pitch belt high and half a millimeter outside, even to a pitcher who was standing with the bat on his shoulder hoping to strike out and get back to the bench.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by brandda

How about instant replay!

The ONLY thing I would like to see MLB adopt as it related to Instant Replay is whether or not a HR was indeed a HR.

We have already seen this year, I believe a Diamondback / Giants Game in which Replay would be helpful.

We had the Yanks/ Orioles Series yrs. back where REPLAY CLEARLY showed the young FAN reach into the field of play to catch the ball and therefore, only 2 bases (not 4) should have been awarded.

I'm not saying we should have replays on strikes / balls; outs / safes; or any other infraction, but on HR (the ball is dead to begin with), if we have the technology I say use it.

Before the DH was adopted, we had many a viewer say "that's not baseball what are they doing", yet the DH is still around. Then there's more playoff games, again some people said "the tradition of baseball is being jeopardized", and this type of format is here to stay.

So for all the traditionalists out there, baseball has CHANGED over the years. Other sports like Football, Basketball and Hockey all use replay, why not baseball?

Some say it will add more time to the game. I say it won't because on a call such as a questionable HR, the manager is going to come out and cause a delay anyway, so one might as well go to the replay and get the call CORRECT.

Using replay for a HR (ONLY) IMO is not taking away the human element.

Pete Booth

[jicecone]

"However, I think sometimes umpires forget that when they officiate most are doing so for compensation. This means we are working. As such our employers (the leagues, teams and coaches) expect our best effort i.e. knowledge of the rules, punctuality, appearance, and above all hustle.

Lets cut this compensation discussion right at the roots. You go to the doctors and pay wether his decision is good or bad. I tell the leagues that are association services, they are paying for the best AVAILABLE official we have. If they want a perfect one, then we cant help them. Doctors, Engineers Lawyers, Writers and every other profession including officials, make mistakes but you still pay for their services. Even if they dont hustle or make the right diagnosis. Yes, sometimes it does result in the loss of their job but, I would say most of the times it does not.

MLB could very well go to electronic officiating in the near future because they are so tied into the telvision revenue. Say what you want , the networks have a good deal of influence into Professional Sports. Mabey it might better for the Professional game because it will bring in more money. Then again mabey not as already stated, it takes the judgement part of the game, out of the game.

Think about it, a perfect game. Which means everyone played perfectly, it was officiated perfectly and the score resulted in a perfect score of 0. No runs , no hits, no errors, no nothing.
B O O O R R R R I N G !

[greymule]

I thought that in that Yanks-Orioles series, the kid reached over and caught a ball that the outfielder would under ordinary circumstances have caught. That would be an out, wouldn't it (not 2 bases)?

[Marty Rogers]

I never saw a fielder THAT tall.

[greymule]

It wasn't a matter of tall. If it's the play I remember, the ball was dropping vertically more than it was traveling horizontally. If the kid hadn't reached over the rail, the outfielder probably would have made the catch. I'll see if I can find a picture on the Web, or maybe somebody else remembers.

I do remember that the kid's father later contacted the Yankees and asked for some sort of compensation for the help his kid gave. Don't know if he hired lawyers or not.

[Richardr10]

Sometimes the rules need to be flexible. [/B][/QUOTE]


I'm not sure I follow this Flexible?

[Rog]

re: "I'm not sure I follow this Flexible?
You might just have a point there. Any chance you can contact Charlton Heston, and see if he might just put on his old robe, pick up his hammer and chisel and carver the Official Rules of Baseball into some granite tablets.....

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
We had the Yanks/ Orioles Series yrs. back where REPLAY CLEARLY showed the young FAN reach into the field of play to catch the ball and therefore, only 2 bases (not 4) should have been awarded.

Pete,

That story was an instant legend. That boy has gone down in the history books as one of the most infamous influences on the outcome of a baseball championship ever. They play 162 games in a season, and still the whole thing can be boiled down to that one kid who helped steal the series for the Yanks, who went on to win it all.

And that's what's unique about baseball. No other sport has the rich past that baseball has enjoyed. Legends of the future are being created now. That human element makes baseball the wonderful sport that it is. Add computers to replace that human element and the game becomes a little more sterile, the interest becomes more related to stats, and some wonderful magic would be missing from America's game.

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by brandda

On the plus side, it does remove judgement and improve call accuracy. On the minus side is the whole "umpire judgement is part of the game" argument. I am curious as to the board's opinion on a development that I see as inevitable.

The day the human element is removed from the great game of baseball is the day the historians will note as "The Day Baseball Died."