Why No Replay Review?

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The calling umpire judged that it wasn't really close -- the ball was well over the wall. It only looks close if you don't know the rule (or are listening to clowns on TV).

The same umpire that judged that is wasn't close called the other hit a HR.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

So let me get this straight... you expected the UMPIRES to make a ruling, and then on their own decide they might be wrong and go to replay? Coaches didn't complain or ask them to confer - so why would they? Blaming the umpires for not going to replay is frankly idiotic.

Why are MLB umpires so stubborn...what ever happen to getting the call right and not saving face at all costs.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

The same umpire that judged that is wasn't close called the other hit a HR.

So? Are you suggesting that a mistake in one case has any bearing on another case? Or maybe that he has poor judgment in every case? I would disagree with both claims.

[rookieblue]

Reynolds claimed in an interview that Ron Washington merely asked him "what did you have?"

When Reynolds told him, Washington retired from the field.

Not interference, despite what Cruz or the idiots in the booth say. Reynolds got a good look at it. There was no need to rely on video "to get the call right," because he got it quite right without it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Why are MLB umpires so stubborn...what ever happen to getting the call right and not saving face at all costs.

This has nothing to do with saving face or being stubborn. Washington didn't ask him to go look. Do you ever make a call you don't think is right? Ever? I'm not asking if you're always right ... I'm asking - don't you ALWAYS think your call is right, at the moment you made it?

So ... what would prompt someone, after making a call he believes to be right, to waffle on his OWN call and say, "Hey guys, I'm not sure on that one, let's go watch tv." It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This has nothing to do with saving face or being stubborn. Washington didn't ask him to go look. Do you ever make a call you don't think is right? Ever? I'm not asking if you're always right ... I'm asking - don't you ALWAYS think your call is right, at the moment you made it?

So ... what would prompt someone, after making a call he believes to be right, to waffle on his OWN call and say, "Hey guys, I'm not sure on that one, let's go watch tv." It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't.

Sure we make the calls we think are right. But if there is a process to verify that call, especially based on the fact that the manager is out there asking about it, why not take advantage of it.

I made a call this summer on a HR ball that was way over the foul pole. Very difficult call. I called it fair and did not back down even though the defensive manager came out to argue. But if replay had been available, I would have used it. Chances are it would have confirmed my call, but it takes away any doubt.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This has nothing to do with saving face or being stubborn. Washington didn't ask him to go look. Do you ever make a call you don't think is right? Ever? I'm not asking if you're always right ... I'm asking - don't you ALWAYS think your call is right, at the moment you made it?

So ... what would prompt someone, after making a call he believes to be right, to waffle on his OWN call and say, "Hey guys, I'm not sure on that one, let's go watch tv." It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't.

Of course we make the call we think is right at the time, but you would have to be an egotistical maniac if you've never had a moment after making a call on a whacker, nutcutter, whatever where you haven't said, at minimum, "boy, I wish I could see that one again." And I think we've all had the ones where we say "s***, I missed it" a split second after the call is made.

The problem with the replay system (besides the fact that there is one) is the vagueness and ambiguity in the procedure. Perhaps it is because we have a small sample size of when replay has been used, compared to say football, to really identify the problems with it.

It seems clear baseball does not want it in the managers hands (ie, no red flag). So it is left up to the umpire when to and when not to use it. Which creates alot of different outcomes.

If MLB wishes to use replay in whatever capacity, they should just have the "buzz" system used in college football and hockey. Call what you got, and if something is wrong, we have a chance to go fix it (if the play is reviewable to begin with). Whether it be a war room like in hockey, or a 5th umpire on the crew, if you want replay in baseball, this would be the way to do it.

In the extra umpire system, it may also be beneficial to have an umpire get an "off-day" every 5th day in a 162 game season. It would create more opportunities for AAA guys to be evaluated on the MLB level. Also a day off after a plate day may help some of the veteran umpires recover. May eliminate some of the "next-day arguments" that come out of the holes. May give the umpire some mental rest and allow him to be a bit more patient in a game management situation.

I'd be happy to read about some of the cons you all could come up with.

But most importantly, replay being called for by somebody who actually can see the replay before he calls for it eliminates the wasted time when they do actually get it right on the field. Manager comes out to argue, CC feels the buzz, says "Ron, don't worry, we're already going" and you go look. No buzz, manager wastes 20 seconds giving the booth time (which he currently spends trying to convince the umpire to go to replay anyways), umpire says "Ron, I think I got that right because of X Y Z, and they're not buzzing, so lets play" and the umpire looks good because he got it right the first time.

If you want replay, this is the route to go.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jay R

Sure we make the calls we think are right. But if there is a process to verify that call, especially based on the fact that the manager is out there asking about it, why not take advantage of it.

I made a call this summer on a HR ball that was way over the foul pole. Very difficult call. I called it fair and did not back down even though the defensive manager came out to argue. But if replay had been available, I would have used it. Chances are it would have confirmed my call, but it takes away any doubt.

1. Because it slows down the game and shouldn't be used when not necessary. It's the crew's call when to use it, not the manager's.

2. This one wasn't difficult.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Jay R

I made a call this summer on a HR ball that was way over the foul pole. Very difficult call. I called it fair and did not back down even though the defensive manager came out to argue. But if replay had been available, I would have used it. Chances are it would have confirmed my call, but it takes away any doubt.

Perfect example, thanks.

If replay had been available, and NO ONE came to argue, would you call home run and then say, "Wait, I'm not really sure, let's get replay"????? Heck no.

I'm not saying refuse a request to check ... but any umpire that makes a call and then ON HIS OWN wants to review it, is probably not cut out for this job.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If replay had been available, and NO ONE came to argue, would you call home run and then say, "Wait, I'm not really sure, let's get replay"????? Heck no.

I'm not saying refuse a request to check ... but any umpire that makes a call and then ON HIS OWN wants to review it, is probably not cut out for this job.

They posted an interesting stat on beisbol replays the past year during the game. Iirc out of 69 fair/foul calls looked at at, 24 calls were reversed as being wrong. Iow they had almost 35% of the calls reviewed wrong. Thoughts?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

They posted an interesting stat on beisbol replays the past year during the game. Iirc out of 69 fair/foul calls looked at at, 24 calls were reversed as being wrong. Iow they had almost 35% of the calls reviewed wrong. Thoughts?

35% of the reviewed calls were wrong?

What percent is that of all calls?

[JJ]

Here's my million-dollar idea: Instead of physical metal foul pole, use a laser instead. It would go up infinitely, so there would be no doubt about whether a shot went "over" the foul pole. If a ball even barely nicked it, the computer that it was tied into would indicate that the laser's continuous beam was interrupted, so the fair/foul for this one would be easy. It could be modified with a series of other lasers extending along the fenceline that, if interrupted, would indicate a fair ball if the ball passed through them - which would deal with the ball that "wraps around the foul pole".
Of course, there may be other problems - you'd probably have to put up a VERY high plexiglass wall along the top of the outfield fence so the fans couldn't toss a beer cup through the laser beam...
I'll give it more thought, send it to R & D, then present it to the fiscal dept for a feasibility study....and then I'll get back to you....

JJ

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

35% of the reviewed calls were wrong?

What percent is that of all calls?

No idea, but imo you'd have to take some judgment calls out of the discussion. Who's to say who's judgment is right on some calls? That's why I personally find the NBA claims of having the highest accuracy rate of call-making for all major sports very suspect. Hell, I've officiated basketball for over 50 years and I don't have a clue as to what constitutes a foul in the NBA.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Here's my million-dollar idea: Instead of physical metal foul pole, use a laser instead. It would go up infinitely, so there would be no doubt about whether a shot went "over" the foul pole. If a ball even barely nicked it, the computer that it was tied into would indicate that the laser's continuous beam was interrupted, so the fair/foul for this one would be easy. It could be modified with a series of other lasers extending along the fenceline that, if interrupted, would indicate a fair ball if the ball passed through them - which would deal with the ball that "wraps around the foul pole".
Of course, there may be other problems - you'd probably have to put up a VERY high plexiglass wall along the top of the outfield fence so the fans couldn't toss a beer cup through the laser beam...
I'll give it more thought, send it to R & D, then present it to the fiscal dept for a feasibility study....and then I'll get back to you....

JJ

Where would you locate the beam detector for the top of the foul pole beam? The beam source cannot be configured to detect an interruption in the beam. IOW, same problem.

Also, lasers don't work in the rain.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Where would you locate the beam detector for the top of the foul pole beam? The beam source cannot be configured to detect an interruption in the beam. IOW, same problem.

Also, lasers don't work in the rain.

How about a very thin strand of transparent aluminum?