1 in 5 wrong? Really?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

what are you going to do if a close call that "changes the game" is not conclusive and you have no replay to back up either way?

The same thing they do in every other sport with instant replay -- the official's original call stands. IR isn't used to choose a side; it's used to overturn the official's call, but only if there's conclusive video to show the official was wrong. In every other instance, the call stands.

Originally Posted by briancurtin

1/5 seems ridiculous, but this year has been really bad...

You only think so because the media portrays it as such. Selective memory.

[zm1283]

I love how fans and the media all claim that the umpiring is so much worse now than it has ever been. Of course this is a myth, because we all know that the only thing that has changed is more cameras, HD televisions, and 24-hour sports channels replaying every call of every game. Furthermore, I would say that training, uniformity, and professionalism is better now than it has ever been with MLB umpires. I realize I'm biased, but the strike zone in MLB seems very consistent from umpire to umpire. I think they're all a bit too tight with the top of the zone, but for the most part they're pretty dang consistent.

The game has been fine for over 100 years without replay. There aren't any more calls being missed now than there were 30, 40, or 50 years ago, so there is no reason to go and change things now.

[mbyron]

It was my understanding as well that the claim is 20% wrong of the 1.3 "close calls" per game. If we say that's .25 of a blown call per game on average (not just outs, but fair/foul, above the HR line/below the HR line, etc.) that's one blown call for every 4 MLB games.

Apart from the fact that that number is ASTONISHINGLY low just in its own right, the question is whether it warrants more replay. One argument that shouldn't fly any longer is that more replay would slow down the game: if replay were targeted at the 1.3 "close" calls each game, it would have no significant impact on the length of games.

That said, I'd still like to know how many of the "close" calls really affected the outcome. Apparently the downside of adding more replay isn't so bad; but what's the upside, really?

[jicecone]

Being over 80% perefect, (and I believe this is low) in a GAME where Professionals are considered good if they hit close to 30% of the time and pitch perfectly less than 70% of the time is pretty dam good.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It was my understanding as well that the claim is 20% wrong of the 1.3 "close calls" per game. If we say that's .25 of a blown call per game on average (not just outs, but fair/foul, above the HR line/below the HR line, etc.) that's one blown call for every 4 MLB games.

Apart from the fact that that number is ASTONISHINGLY low just in its own right, the question is whether it warrants more replay. One argument that shouldn't fly any longer is that more replay would slow down the game: if replay were targeted at the 1.3 "close" calls each game, it would have no significant impact on the length of games.

That said, I'd still like to know how many of the "close" calls really affected the outcome. Apparently the downside of adding more replay isn't so bad; but what's the upside, really?

Well that is if it only takes a minute to decide. But what if the discussion takes over 5 minutes because of the things we have discussed like not very many good angles? For example if they make the Bob Davidson fair/foul call apart of replay, how long would it take for that call to be made either way? In the NFL and in the NBA, taking more than 5 minutes is not totally out of the question. And if baseball has IR, what is the procedure and how long are they going to debate a call. Remember coaches already delay the game to debate calls they do not like and there is no replay. What is going to happen in a baseball season? Is there going to be a screen near the field? Will a person at each game need to be there to decide what play is to be reviewed? Will there be a limit on the number of IR reviews? And just because ESPN says that only involves 1.3 plays a game, does that mean a team will not think more plays are missed which would further delay the game? I do not have the answer, but I cannot imagine that this would not delay the game more than it is already delayed with the other things that slow the game down.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by yawetag

The same thing they do in every other sport with instant replay -- the official's original call stands. IR isn't used to choose a side; it's used to overturn the official's call, but only if there's conclusive video to show the official was wrong. In every other instance, the call stands.

What is the "same thing they do in other sports?" The reason I say this in football there are a bunch of plays they cannot review because there is entirely a judgment call. In basketball they do not review all calls. And if you let the public have their way, they would want to review those too.

Peace

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What is the "same thing they do in other sports?" The reason I say this in football there are a bunch of plays they cannot review because there is entirely a judgment call. In basketball they do not review all calls. And if you let the public have their way, they would want to review those too.

There's IR in football and hockey. No, it's not for any play, but there are defined plays. I would assume baseball would also define which plays can be reviewed.

In football and hockey, if the play is reviewed, the official's call is only overturned if there's conclusive video to show the original call was incorrect. In any other situation, the original call stands.

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

This study says that on average there are 1.3 calls PER GAME that are "too close to call- in other words, "ties".

Actually, we have no indication as to what ESPN's criteria was in determining which calls they decided to review, other than "requiring instant replay."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by yawetag

There's IR in football and hockey. No, it's not for any play, but there are defined plays. I would assume baseball would also define which plays can be reviewed.

In football and hockey, if the play is reviewed, the official's call is only overturned if there's conclusive video to show the original call was incorrect. In any other situation, the original call stands.

I am fully aware of all of this. That is why I made the statements I did. But based on what this report said, there were no criteria other than leave all plays up for debate and review. If baseball does that, then you will have a lot of problems with timing of the game.

Peace

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by yawetag

You only think so because the media portrays it as such. Selective memory.

It could be that...or the fact that I typically watch one or more baseball games every day.