Implement a challenge system, MLB

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Bravo mb. And it wasn't even close to a perfect game. A perfect game is 81 strikes.

No. 27 pitches.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

No. 27 pitches.

1 pitch, and 51 batters switching batter's boxes when the pitcher is ready to pitch.

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

With no less than a dozen cameras at every MLB game, why not have a replay challenge system similar to the NFL? You get two challenges a game, and if you get those right, you get another one. This would aid in getting the call right and may actually speed up the game by eliminating needless arguing between managers and umpires.

R U An umpire......?????? not good for the game!

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

R U An umpire......?????? not good for the game!

Amateur umpire for the last 23 seasons ranging from youth leagues to summer college leagues. I still fail to see how getting the right call is not good for the game.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

Amateur umpire for the last 23 seasons ranging from youth leagues to summer college leagues. I still fail to see how getting the right call is not good for the game.

The correct term is "get it correct". They got the correct call based on what Joyce saw. It has nothing to do with getting the "right" call. It has everything to do with getting the "correct" call which is the call the umpire(s) makes during the play. The call which influences the outcome of the play and the game.

The call was correct b/c his mechanics were correct. He saw the play correctly from his angle. He correctly called what he saw. It was the "correct" call.

If using IR, why have umpires at all? I still wonder why they have football referees still. Just sit behind a screen and watch the game. Easier to call with today's technology. All they are there to do is let the coaches vent their frustrations to during the game.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

The call was correct b/c his mechanics were correct. He saw the play correctly from his angle. He correctly called what he saw. It was the "correct" call.

You're kidding, right? Do you really think Jim Joyce feels that way?

Once again, I will point out the title of my OP: "Implement a Challenge System, MLB". I keep getting responses along the lines of "Well, let's just get rid of all umpires!" A sideline camera from 50-400 feet away can't be the only option in making a judgment. A human official can get closer to the action and make decisions quickly on adjusting the angle necessary to see the play. However, on the occasion that a slow-motion, zoomed-in camera can aid the umpire in making the right call (after a challenge has been made by a manager), then the call should be reversed.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

You're kidding, right? Do you really think Jim Joyce feels that way?

I would hope so. He did things like he was suppose to. He made the call based on the correct mechanics. He did his job. He didn't mess up what he was suppose to do. No one except him knows how he saw the play from where he was suppose to be. Based on doing everything correctly, he made the "correct" call.

As for the system, I like Weber's response to it. There is no need to elaborate on his points nor add to them. I agree with them and hope it influences those who matter that IR should not be expanded. Not even for 1 challenge. Call it as it is and move on. I don't buy the time issue b/c an argument can take longer than just reviewing it immediately. The main issue is to keep the human element of the game and its dynamics. No other game comes close.

Now, we will get the stupid "throw a flag on the field for a challenge" that NFL does. The refs do it so why can't the coaches do it.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

With no less than a dozen cameras at every MLB game, why not have a replay challenge system similar to the NFL? You get two challenges a game, and if you get those right, you get another one. This would aid in getting the call right and may actually speed up the game by eliminating needless arguing between managers and umpires.

no no no no no

arguing in baseball is part of the game...a fun part at that

it is what it is - a game officiated by human beings - for better or worse. and, i think it's for the better all of the time.

[PeteBooth]

Why have umpires at all

Do away with the PU altogether. Set-up a Questech machine and let the machine call the pitches. You have a red light for a strike and a green light for a ball.

let the players shout at a machine when they do not like the call.

Then you can station R2D2's at all the bases.

Pete Booth

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Then you can station R2D2's at all the bases.

Pete Booth

lol

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Why have umpires at all

Do away with the PU altogether. Set-up a Questech machine and let the machine call the pitches. You have a red light for a strike and a green light for a ball.

let the players shout at a machine when they do not like the call.

Then you can station R2D2's at all the bases.

Pete Booth

Read four posts above.

I don't recall ever saying I wanted computers, robots, or least of all, Questech, calling the game.

[MD Longhorn]

GA, I don't think the word 'correct' means what you think it does.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

GA, I don't think the word 'correct' means what you think it does.

correct: in accord with accepted standards of usage or procedure;

It looks like one of the definitions says it means exactly how I have been using it. Which is also why I used quotes. It wasn't correct in terms of what actually happened. It was "correct" in terms of he did everything he was suppose to and be in position to make a call based on what he saw.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

correct: in accord with accepted standards of usage or procedure;

It looks like one of the definitions says it means exactly how I have been using it. Which is also why I used quotes. It wasn't correct in terms of what actually happened. It was "correct" in terms of he did everything he was suppose to and be in position to make a call based on what he saw.

A call is a true-false thing. Your definition of correct could be applied to his mechanics, his positioning, his vocalization, his handling of the situation afterward, his uniform... but not his call. His call may have been correctly made - but it was incorrect.

[grunewar]

In an exclusive and expansive survey of major leaguers conducted by USA TODAY and The Sports Xchange from June 4 to 14, 55% of 584 players who participated said they were against expanding the use of replay as opposed to 43% in favor of it. Each was offered anonymity, but many commented.

"Wow … I find (the results) very interesting," Selig told USA TODAY in a telephone interview Saturday.

entire article is at:

Poll: Most MLB players approve of umpires, don't want replay - USATODAY.com