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.

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.

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

lol :D

Read four posts above.

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

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

[QUOTE]Apples / Oranges

In 90-95% of OBS calls the runner gets ONE base. If he trys for more absent any post OBS evidence the call is what it is.

if judgement is involved it's not that difficult.

Example:

R2: B1 singles

R2 is obstructed by F6 in going to third base. R2 trys for home. R2 is going to be awarded third base.

R2 now trys for home where he is out by a mile or good margin. The OUT call stands. If he is out by a whisker or couple of steps, award home.

IMO, it's not that complicated

Now Tag Plays in which you are a proponent of using replay.

Sitch: Game tied bottom of 9 R1/R3. 1 out

Infield playing IN.

Ground ball RIGHT at F4 who applies a TAG on the oncoming R1. The umpire calls OUT and F4 flips to F3 for the DP and send the game into extras BUT

R1 is SCREAMING that F4 missed him. The manager challenges the call.

Upon review F4 did not tag R1.

Now what!

Send R3 back to third put R1 on second base?

Would that have been the likely result if the call were correct to begin with?

Very Unlikely because with the score tied and infield playing in IF the umpire ruled safe F4 would have thrown home to get R3.

Do you score the run and end the game?

Again very doubtful.

Now we have a situation in which the umpires are in a "catch 22" Replay SHOWED that the call was incorrect BUT it's virtually impossible for the umpires to place runners. No matter what they do an argument will follow AFTER replay.

In other words, the station breaks for a commercial while the umpires are reviewing replay. They come back and for sake of argument put R1 at second and R3 back to third.

Now Each manager is going to be upset and an argument will most likely occur. So not only did the game slow down for replay we STILL have the ensuing argument ANYWAY.

Leave the Replay system where it is. THAT'S ENOUGH

Pete Booth

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.

Pete, I made the above post midway on the first page of this thread. I understand that what you explained could occur. There is no system that will be 100% perfect, but an improvement over the current system can be made.

The whole quotes thing was overlooked I guess. We know the call wasn't correct in the sense of right/wrong. I thought I stated that in the last post.

But, the call was correct in the sense of he did everything he was suppose to in making his call. I have clearly stated that. I have not been hiding the fact that the call was missed.

And, from his vantage point, it was correct in the sense of the strict single definition you want to nail it down to. From his viewpoint, it was right and correct or however you want to describe it. Use quotes, don't use quotes. It doesn't matter. He made the correct call from his viewpoint.

I guess I see what you were trying to say ... but putting something in quotes doesn't mean "use alternate definition" or anything along those lines. Doing that did nothing to clarify things. It wasn't overlooked ... it just didn't mean anything.

The improvement should be made within the system itself, meaning MLB should take over the Training of umpires and get the "best of the best".

Presently you make "chicken feed" in the minors. You can make more money if you are manager of Wal-Mart. If MLB took over the training of umpires perhaps salaries would increase. I am NOT saying a minor league umpire should make what the PRO umpire makes BUT they should be able to make a decent living. This would attract more umpires and allow MLB to get the "best of the best"

I would try that approach FIRST. If that does not improve the quality of umpiring, then by all means give your method "a shot"

Many times calls are missed because the umpires are NOT in the proper position.

As you say NO SYSTEM is perfect but IMO, Expanded Replay in baseball could be a joke.

Pete Booth

Do you believe it would be if it went in as I detailed earlier in this thread? I too see lots of pitfalls available should IR get expanded, but I do believe it could be expanded and the game made better without risking the integrity of the game.

If you guys remember, there was a LOT of resistance in football circles when the NFL first began IR. There were some problems, some wrinkles, and even some decrying it as the end of the sport. The same arguments were made then - "The human element must be kept in the game, etc". And today, it's an accepted part of the game, and I don't believe very many people would currently consider it a negative.

Pete and Mbcrowder both bring up excellent points. Pete, I had never thought of having MLB take over umpire training.

Mbcrowder's response is very good, too. The game has changed over the years. We all know at one time players didn't use batting helmets. Over 100 years ago, they didn't even use gloves! However, over time, these have been accepted into the game, and I would expect over time IR would be accepted just as it has in the NFL.