Implement a challenge system, MLB

[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.

[jdmara]

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

[TwoBits]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[Reffing Rev.]

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

I don't mind 20 challenges a game if the umps are having a bad night

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

[jkumpire]

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.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

.

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

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

I think it's fine the way it is.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I think it's fine the way it is.

Agreed.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

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.

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.

[GA Umpire]

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.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Let Bobby Cox yell at a screen or Lou Pinella kick dirt on a camera. .

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.

[BigGref]

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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I think it's fine the way it is.

Agree, also