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

[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.

[DG]

Finally saw the replay. Announcers should join Leyland, just horrible announcing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

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.

In FED, yes, the umpires get to make up something they think is fair.

In your example, if 1BU said it was a catch, why would they overturn it: it WAS a catch.

AFAIK the only relevant provisions for placing runners appear in existing replay rules, which don't apply to the OP. And placing runners for a HR or foul ball is not difficult.

[jchamp]

Replay proponents have some merit to the arguments. There are some situations that could always be reviewed without disturbing the action of the game (the "flow" or "pace" of the game is another story).

-When a safe or no-catch is ruled which, corrected, would result in a third out.
-Safe or out call with ball in fielder possession near the relevant base and only one runner on base. (Including stolen base attempts.)
-Fair/foul/foul-tip/catch/no-catch with no runners on. (Assuming players proceed as if it is fair and no catch is made.)
-Game winning run safe or out with ball in fielder possession at the plate.

If these are implemented as reviewable plays, the evolution that is similar to that in football is likely. That is, players and officials both "automatically select" the option that allows action to continue, knowing that it can be corrected with the official review. It would eventually be up to the whole community how much they are willing to endure before some amount of regression occurs.

Umpires should not default to "safe" on close third outs or other correctable situations just because they know they can correct it later. It opens the door to horrendous blunders if anyone involved is mistaken about the game situation. It would also result in two vastly different forms of game play, depending on whether the level has replay or not. A huge shift in playing style between the minor leagues and major leagues would create an intangible transition cost between the levels and hurt both of them. Between the measurable monetary outlay, and the immeasurable impact on the quality of the game, the cost to implement replay is simply too high.

[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.