Implement a challenge system, MLB
 

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.

And what do you propose that they can and cannot challenge? Obviously the NFL has a very finite sets of situations that coaches can challenge so what would you propose?

-Josh

In a nutshell, anything that can be fixed without giving a team an advantage:

Fair/foul. Umpires would need to be trained to call fair on close ones as calling foul would kill the play.

Homerun/no homerun: Already reviewable under MLB guidelines.

Force plays: simply out or safe.

Tag plays: Make the tag or miss it?

Balls and strikes calls would be unreviewable.

Possible problems: what to do on situations when calling third out incorrectly. Play typically comes to a halt, but a team could be put at a disadvantage.

What about catch/no catch? That's one where replay would be a mess.

Reviewing the third out: no significant disadvantage is likely here. False positive (3rd out incorrectly awarded to the defense): the offense gets to keep playing, so they won't mind if play has stopped (except maybe on scoring plays if the runner has to go back). False negative (3rd out incorrectly withheld from the defense): the defense won't mind if play continues, because the inning will end and runs possibly negated.

I don't mind 20 challenges a game if the umps are having a bad night, but I like something I read somewhere: 1 wrong challenge = ejection and no more challenges that night.

If I were king of baseball this would be my challengeable play list.
--Home Runs
--Catch/No Catch (If a catch on a fair ball is overturned batter awarded 1B and all other runners advance 1 base from time of 'catch', if no-catch is overturned, batter is out - play by an infielder, all runners return to base occupied at time of pitch/play by an outfielder, all runners advance 1 base from time of pitch [this is assuming that a diving outfielder, or one against a wall is most likely not going to throw anybody out, a stretch sometimes, but ya gotta do something])
--Missed Base
--Leaving early on a tag
--HBP or not
--INT/OBS (if not called)
--Fan Interference (if not called)
--Safe/Out on last play of game (or potentially last play of game)
--Administrative type of events, batting out of order/4-outs, lost count, etc.

I would not allow challenges on ball/strikes, fair/foul or check swings.
The only safe/out call challengable would be the one that may or may not end the game.

I know I would if I were a fan in attendance at this game.......slow, slower, slowest.......

Rev and Two Bits,

Many of the situations you want to review would not just slow the game down, it would mean you would have to guess how it would affect other things going on during a play, like runners at other bases, time plays and the like. How in the world can you think that you can use replay to decide all these things correctly?

As officials, I can't believe how much damage you want to do to the game with these proposals. It's not some kind of end-of-quarter-replay you want, you want to make perfection come from imperfect people. It is absurd.

With no runners on, no problem. With runners on, then there could be an issue. But NFL has some situations that aren't reviewable, and any MLB review system would have the same.

Bottom line is any system is better than what we have now.

I think it's fine the way it is.

Agreed.

As amateur officials, don't we do that already? Don't we award bases on obstruction by what we think the runner could reach without obstruction? If an amateur can do that with a two-man crew, I would think a pro could do with four sets of eyes AND a dozen cameras watching.

I simply don't see how trying to officiate a game accurately using all tools at your disposal can damage the game.

The more technology gets in, the less necessary the umpires would be. Where do NFL officials get their training? Is it as good as the current umpire system in place? No need to earn a place, cameras will do the work for you.

Why meet any of the requirements? 20/20, no need. Just be able to look at a screen and you can make it as an umpire to MLB. Good job.

Leave technology out and leave the human elements in. It's more fun. Can't argue with a camera or computer. Let Bobby Cox yell at a screen or Lou Pinella kick dirt on a camera. To heck with part of the show people come to see. That is taken out by IR. If one disagrees about a call at 1B, let's just go to the screen. The umpire should call all close ones safe and then go to the screen to see if they were really out if is an inning ending call.

Actually, that might be entertaining. Kind of reminds me of watching A.J. Foyt nearly throw a laptop in the pits of the Indy 500.

Purists, changes are coming in some shape or form. Selig or his successors will see to it.

I think the challenge system is the likely next step.

2 challenges per coach, in those situations outlined before in this thread, if those two are successful they may get a third. 90 seconds or whatever, indisputable evidence, blah, blah...

I think this may actually help with some manager confrontations, if they come out on a judgement call the conversation is simple:
"what did you see?"
"he beat the tag, anything else sir?"
Anything else by coach besides "no thank you" and "I want to challenge" is end of discussion, then ejection

Agree, also

I agree. Baseball is the last place where the technology doesn't rule. I'd like to see it stay that way.

If I were a Detroit Tigers Fan on Wednesday, I'd rather sit through an extra 10 minutes a game every game for five years and see History made, than save 10 minutes and have an imperfect person ruin perfection...and every football official I've ever talked to who works under either NCAA or NFL replay systems thinks that having replay there makes them better officials. Lord knows MLB needs anything they can get their hands on to get better officials.

MLB umpires obviously have access to video. Jim Joyce and the crew looked at the play immediately after the game was over. The issue is not access to video, the issue is should there be a system in place to change calls based on replay.

The reality is the average public does not know the rules they get upset about. And the commentators do not know either. I can see it now, a runner ties the throw and catch and when the play is not overturned you will hear cries for they "current" system does not work, similar to the cries you hear about from football fans when the call does not go the way they "think" it should. And the best example of this was the Super Bowl with Pittsburgh and Seattle (a family member of mine was on that team BTW). There were video that covered many of the controversial plays, but they were not reviewable.

Peace

The commissioner is certainly capable of defining the parameters after getting feedback from Umpires, Players, and Owners. I am pretty sure Jim Joyce would welcome it, if one of those parameters was whether any close play in a perfect game was safe or out, especially the 27th.

Would everyone like it if the outcome of a game was changed after the fact? What if for argument sake this play took place with a runner on 3rd and the score was 0-0? Would the outcome of the game be something we should overturn because we do not like the result? You say it like the commissioner would be the voice of reasons, when other plays have been. Remember people are upset over the other sports and their systems. I have heard people want to include Passing interference as reviewable under IR rules for the NFL. Where does it stop?

Peace

Well let's say it was the 7th game of the World Series and game tied in bottom of the 9th with runner on 3B and this same safe call happens? Yes, the correct outcome of the game, and Series, has not been decided, review, reverse and play on. What do you think Jim Joyce would think about blowing a call that ended the World Series, with a bad call? Or the umpires, players, or owners? Who among us could sleep well for a long time after a blown call that ended the Series in error, or a perfect game?

I said, the commissioner would get feedback from umpires, players and owners, so one should assume any rule change has acceptance. Whatever that is, is where it stops.

Well lets say it's the 7th game of the World Series and game tied in the bottom of the 1st with runner on 3B and the same safe call happens?

Do you review ALL safe/out calls? At any time in any game? Any one of 'em could have a influence on the game, dependant on what occurred after.

Read the title of the OP. That answers your question.

I'm not sure THIS commissioner is capable of anything.

Would you review if a player is actually touching 2nd base when turning a double play? If so, this would be interesting.

Read the title of the OP. That answers your question.
__________________
"Not all heroes have time to pose for sculptors...some still have papers to grade."

Put a fifth official upstairs
 

who could buzz down on obvious blown calls that can be fixed with minimum or no disruption.

The umps union should be OK with this, it increases jobs 25% and finds a place for the older guys to transition into retirement. Opens things up on the younger minor league guys, who need a pay bump BTW.

The dugouts will crane their necks and look upstairs rather than jaw with the field ump, maybe allowing some time and space for steam to blow off.

A 1-2 challenge per team per game system could work as well under certain circumstances. Balls / Strike No, Questec is grading umps now based on that.

Put some penalty for challenges not overturned so managers don't use them frivolously.

It's hard for me to imagine that a qualified experience ex-MLB ump in place near a replay booth couldn't have at first look, buzzed down and fixed the perfect game fiasco as well as many others.

Some will still get missed, deal with it.

Mark me down in favor of a challenge system + a fifth ump in the booth::D

While we're at it, why not an electronic strike zone? Should a team lose the World Series on a 7th-game, 9th-inning called strike on a pitch two inches off the plate? Wouldn't be right.

The PU could still rule on foul balls, checked swings, HBP, balks, etc. (for the time being).

Olympic swimming is timed electronically. Why not sensors in the ball, the bases, the bats, the gloves? Think of the new, fun statistics this would generate: close play out, or CPO, would tabulate the number of times a guy has been out at 1B by less then 0.10 seconds, just as extremely close play out (ECPO) would tabulate the outs by less than 0.03 seconds.

"Tim, if Mike Sample were only a fifth of a second faster to 1B, he'd have 17 more hits this season."

"Thanks, Joe. Very interesting. Let's discuss this for a while."

How about this?
 

Hey guys; I'm a ASA slow-pitch softball umpire so claim no special knowledge or privilege - but I had an idea:

From what I saw on the replay of this event, it appeared that Mr. Joyce DID confer with his fellow umpires; that is what we all (umpires) should do if there is reason for us to believe we may have missed something.

Following all of that; why not make replays available to umpires to use to review a call when, and only when, THEY feel they might need that extra help?

Wow. Selig didn't reverse the call. Instant replay was not expanded. And yet, the sun continues to rise in the east and baseball games are being played every day.

Who'd have thunk it? 99.9999999999+% of the world has moved on.

The premise of this whole discussion is that a missed call costing a pitcher a perfect game is the end of the world. I'm not convinced that it's worse than replay. ;)

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

Naw, a perfect game is 25 ejections before a pitch is thrown....aka a Joe West wet dream.:D

The biggest issue you'll find with replay is it starts to make many of your rules much more technical. Think of how technical a catch/no catch is now in football. You will end up with the same thing on what constitutes possession of a catch by a fielder either on a fly ball or a play like the Detroit game. And I guarantee the force play at second as they turn a double play would become reviewable. Slippery slope.

No. 27 pitches.

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

Hahahaha.

FED: 1 pitch and 35 batters switching batter's boxes.

It is possible for a pitcher to throw a 54-hit complete game shutout and not retire a single batter.

1) Do away with cameras in the tunnels and add a 5th official (for review) to every game. Rotate responsibilities ... 5-man crew.
2) ONE challenge per team - failed challenge = ejection.
3) No more managers/coaches coming out to argue. You want to come out, it's to make a challenge - anything else is quick ejection. Any sustained arguing is a 1 week suspension. (There is NO REASON MLB allows these protracted "Look-at-me" productions from it's coaches. It's asinine).
4) Reviewable items:

Plays at a base or plate where there is no subsequent play and the ball was caught.
Catch/no catch where there is no subsequent play.
Left early / missed base.
Fair ball can be changed to foul (but not vice versa).

Reviews may be initiated by the booth before the next pitch, unless the coach comes out of the dugout for any reason (otherwise, coaches will come out to delay the game to give more time for review).

Submitted for your consideration
 

From Bruce Weber, author of As They See 'Em, published 4 June in The New York Times. Pretty much sums up my views, as well.

June 4, 2010

The Perfect Asterisk
By BRUCE WEBER

The egregious call at first base by the umpire Jim Joyce that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher, Armando Galarraga, the chance to be only the 21st major-league pitcher to have tossed a perfect game has unleashed consternation on the land. History is denied! Incompetence reigns! Something must be done! Expand instant replay!

Nah.

First of all, history wasn’t denied; it was made. Galarraga’s magnificent performance last Wednesday will always be the perfect game with the asterisk, the one every commentator mentions whenever perfect games are mentioned, the tainted perfect game and thus the most famous perfect game of all time.

Second, Joyce’s bungle — and oh, man, it was a beaut! — has hardly reigned. A sturdy baseball citizen who has served in the big leagues with distinction (which for umpires is to say without) since 1989, he was reduced to tears by the fact of his ill-timed mistake and its being trumpeted on front pages and television broadcasts around the world. You think that’s not being held accountable?

And something must be done? Why? Umpires have been ingrained in major-league baseball since the inception of the National League in 1876, somewhere approaching 200,000 games ago, and it’s likely that the umps have botched a call or two in every one of them since then. Somehow this has not eroded the fan base or undermined the integrity of the competition, which is something that the players and the owners have periodically done.

That reality, in fact, should tell us something about the nature of baseball, which is the least programmatic, the least technological of games. It doesn’t even have a clock. The fields have widely varying shapes and sizes, and the primary battleground between offense and defense — i.e., the strike zone — is a box of air with dimensions that have proven impossible to specify. There is a lot less science in baseball, a lot more art, than in any other sport you can name. (Golf and soccer nuts, just pipe down.) It’s an irony that only in baseball do there exist perfect games.

This is the main reason that so many baseball fans are so gaga over statistics, because the game’s ambiguities create a hunger for measurement, for exactitude where it doesn’t exist, and it’s the main reason that baseball is the most written about, most discussed, most intellectually parsed game there is.

It’s also the main reason that instant replay feels more like an intrusion in baseball than it does in tennis or football or basketball or hockey, each of which has adopted some form of video review to re-evaluate some officials’ calls. But the prime responsibilities of officials in those other sports have always been to recognize infractions and assign blame, and umpires don’t do that. And it’s worth noting that those responsibilities — calling penalties, faults and fouls — are largely unaffected by instant-replay rules.

The role of umpires in baseball is much more integral. They aren’t observers passing judgment on the legality of given actions so much as filters through which the action passes; nothing can happen — a strike, an out, a run scored — without their imprimatur. They have no prime responsibilities, just the responsibility to see and acknowledge everything, which is why the technological usurping of any one of them feels especially sullying.

Besides, instant-replay review isn’t about improving umpiring or improving baseball; it’s about improving television, which more and more controls how the game is administered both on the field and off. The implementation of instant replay last year to assist on tricky home run calls was welcomed by many umpires, and I don’t suppose it has ruined anything. But it tastes funny, and it feels like the first sign of a heartbreak, the first loose thread on a brand-new sweater that is waiting for the inevitable tug.

I know the argument: The world has evolved, technology has evolved, and baseball has evolved. As long as we can get it right, why not get it right? Well, for one thing, we’d never have had the part shocking, part anguishing, part cosmically comic final moments of the imperfect perfect game last week; nor the very poignant aftermath as the participants confronted the consequences and one another; nor the eruption of passion and debate among millions of baseball fans.

Is our pursuit of finality, the properly placed decimal point, the world record sans asterisk, ultimate victory even in the fundamentally inconsequential arena of sport, worth trading in all of that? (While I’m making this point, why do we need a Bowl Championship Series? Isn’t it more fun to argue over who’s No. 1?)

Insist, if you must, that the umpires are a problem. But the problem is so much more interesting than the solution.

Bruce Weber’s book “As They See ’Em: A Fan’s Travels in the Land of Umpires” was recently published in paperback.

I like his book and this quote. It sums it up for me as well. Can't argue with anything he wrote. He does what so few of us can do: Put things in writing pretty well.

Update from the Commish......
 

"I doubt it, but I wouldn't ever say never," the baseball commissioner said Monday night at the site of the draft at MLB Network studios. "It's worked out well. Look, I am a traditionalist, but I also want to do what I think is best for the sport."

Read More: Selig to continue to look at expanding replay - MLB - SI.com

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

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.

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.

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.

FWIW, NFL owners did vote out IR at one time. It was reinstated a couple of years later. Anyway, the head coach doesn't throw the red flag until he gets some sort of replay input from the coaches' booth most of the time. Kind of takes out the human element to me.

Replay Update
 

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