Detroit @ Boston foul tip that wasn't call...

[D Ray]

MLB.com Must C | Must C Curious: Tigers believe Aviles strikes out - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Agreed, replay of this play and others like it is not "reasonable" IMHO. Replay in MLB really feels like a slippery slope, there is no end to what COULD be replayed and subsequently overturned. Not a fan of replay in MLB (or any baseball) period.

[Welpe]

I agree, D Ray. In other sports it is fairly easy to draw a clear line where replay should and should not be used. With baseball I just don't see that beyond what they have now.

[REFANDUMP]

I would like to think that baseball wouldn't need to go the route of instant replay, but am becoming convinced that is highly unlikely. There are too many blatently blown calls and at some point this will become unacceptable to those in the game (players, managers, team owners, fans). If these guys are supposed to be the best in the business, than I guess I really suck !!!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

than I guess I really suck !!!

Or maybe you've blown more than you think but don't have ESPN replaying it 50 times in an evening.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

...There are too many blatently blown calls...

Many of them are blatant only because of the extensive camera coverage already in place. The foul tip / foul ball call in question would have remained a dispute between Laird and Welke were it not for the multiple camera angles resulting in just the right view of the play. Leyland's ejection and post game rant would not have happened had he not had access to the replay.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Many of them are blatant only because of the extensive camera coverage already in place. The foul tip / foul ball call in question would have remained a dispute between Laird and Welke were it not for the multiple camera angles resulting in just the right view of the play. Leyland's ejection and post game rant would not have happened had he not had access to the replay.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyday would be Christmas. It is what it is...we live in an age of technology, and calls that would never be questioned 50 years ago are now brought into the light of day like never before. The fact is that we have these multiple camera angles, and managers have access to the replay immediately after the play happens. That's why they pay the MLB umpires the big bucks. While it may be unfair for the umpires to be subject to such scrutiny, that's the way it's going to be, so they have to be ready for it every time they make a call, unfortunately.

[voiceoflg]

As a broadcaster and a fan, I wouldn't have a problem with replay like it is now and for whether it is a catch or no catch (though I agree about making the outfield fences simpler to discern). I can see replay used in this particular instance. But limit replays to one challenge per manager. If a call is overturned, a manager gets one more, period. Also if the umpires decide ON THEIR OWN to go to replay, they should do so. If the umpires don't want to use replay and the managers don't/can't challenge, the managers should just live with it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

But limit replays to one challenge per manager. If a call is overturned, a manager gets one more, period. Also if the umpires decide ON THEIR OWN to go to replay, they should do so. If the umpires don't want to use replay and the managers don't/can't challenge, the managers should just live with it.

Again, the problem is not when to use replay, it's how to fix errors, especially placing runners. It's simply not possible to operationalize that in any clear and direct way. And that's a deal breaker for rules committees.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Again, the problem is not when to use replay, it's how to fix errors, especially placing runners. It's simply not possible to operationalize that in any clear and direct way. And that's a deal breaker for rules committees.

How is it handled now? Say a runner is going in this case and everything happens as it did, except 1BU said it was a catch? Aren't there provisions on how to place runners if a call gets overturned on the field?

Not being argumentative. Just want some education on this. Thanks.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyday would be Christmas. It is what it is...we live in an age of technology, and calls that would never be questioned 50 years ago are now brought into the light of day like never before. The fact is that we have these multiple camera angles, and managers have access to the replay immediately after the play happens. That's why they pay the MLB umpires the big bucks. While it may be unfair for the umpires to be subject to such scrutiny, that's the way it's going to be, so they have to be ready for it every time they make a call, unfortunately.

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

Agreed, but the additional scrutiny is what leads to the call for replay, and that, as much as I don't like it, is an irresistible force that will result in expansion of replay eventually.

Following the NFL model, where the crew chief goes "under the hood" to review the play and make a decision is where it all goes off the rails with respect to baseball, IMO. All of the issues raised about the difficulty of reversing a call in baseball are legitimate.

It just seems to me that if the replay umpire is treated like any other member of the crew (with the exception that he has no primary call responsibility, but is just another pair of eyes on the play), who then provides the crew chief with his additional information and allows the on-field crew to decide what, if anything, to do with this information, fits baseball to a "T". It adds no additional delay, has no one going "under the hood", creates no new conundrum over placing runners over what already exists, and would allow many calls to be "fixed".

Would it satisfy all fans, managers, players? Would it fix all "bad" calls? Of course not. But it would be workable, IMO.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

ITA. The umpires of the past kicked more than their fair share of calls.