MLB to Exapnd Instant Replay in 2014 - UPDATE
 

Lame.

I'm just curious as to how much it will slow the game down.....even further.

Blown calls that would have been overturned http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/08/7-bl...nstant-replay/

Would that include safe/out at the plate on inside-the-parkers?

:p

And 3 of the 7 wouldn't have been overturned -- typical idiocy by McPaper.

Haven't seen the Carlton Fisk/Ed Armbrister play in a long time.

Thoughts:

1) Maybe when you have a ball in your hand you should tag the dude when you bump into him.

2) Darrell Johnson must not ever cuss. "Lousy Operation" is a pretty funny comment.

You know, I recall this same resistance from football officials when they first fixed their game by adding replay.

ESPN's PTI discussed how it may be better to have these challenges at "baseball central" so MLB could call what to challenge in the game, vice "coaches challenges." Rationale being, what happens if you're OUT of challenges and there's a controversial play in the 13th inning?

They also mentioned how this might "quicken" the game as managers wouldn't "waste so much time" arguing calls. That was interesting.

A couple of questions:

1) Bottom of sixth, two out, close play at first, runner ruled out to end of inning, right after the opposing pitcher throws his eight pitches, the manager comes out and challenges the call saying he was safe. Is the challenge allowed, when is the cut off point where challenges aren't allowed?

2) What is the standard for overruling a call. When a call that should be overturned isn't, who in the Commissioner's Office will take the blame?

I like this article's take on it.

Why not have a 5th umpiring crew member at each ballpark be responsible for replay review in an expanded format? Makes better sense than the new, proposed policy.

Here is another situation:

Runner at third, bottom of the ninth two out tied game, ground ball to third, runner holds, on the throw to first the runner at third breaks for home, the play at first is ruled out, extra innings. However home team manager challenges and the call is overturned, but the runner at third, who was halfway to home when the batter is ruled out, does he score? The first baseman could say if the first base umpire had ruled the batter safe, he would have then throw home to retire the runner trying to score.

Another question -- Does it have to be a "call" to be reviewed? That is, can a manager challenge a "no call" on, say, a possible balk?

I'm not a fan of replay in football, either. I know that puts me in the minority. Football is not baseball. Baseball already is struggling with pace of play, I really worry what this could do.

I suspect they will allow additional challenges in extra-inning games -- maybe one for every two or three extra innings.

Far more expensive than simply having them at a central location in New York. For all practical purposes they could review the plays from their home.

Heck, that's what we all do.

To have a 5th umpire traveling w/ all of the crews is not practical or cost efficient.

That's not the current policy as I understand it. If a manager has used his two after-the-7th-inning challenges, c'est la vie. So he'd better use those judiciously.

From the article:

"Schuerholz said that 89 percent of umpires’ calls — including apparently all safe/out calls — would be reviewable. The 11 percent of “unreviewable” plays includes balls and strikes and whether or not a pitch hit a batter."

Really? I wonder why that's untouchable as well? I vividly recall when Derek Jeter sold a HBP where replays clearly showed the ball hitting the knob of his bat. Why not allow a challenge for that? That's as much a potential game-changer as a missed pulled foot call at first base, which, like a HBP, may be tough to see even with replay (assuming that's the reason to not allow a challenge for that).

I think that the concept of replay is fine, however I see where there could be some potential problems with placement of baserunners on overruled calls, etc. It also probably means the end of the "neighborhood" play at second on a double play (which is fine by me).

I haven't seen a "neighborhood" call in MLB in I don't know how long.

I'm guessing that baserunner placement will simply be a judgment call by the suits that are asked to adjudicate the challenge.

I certainly have.

Just wait until an extra-inning game gets decided by a blown call in a playoff series.

My guess: Since there are fewer games at one time during the playoffs, all calls (or at least all extra-inning calls) will be reviewed as they happen from the central location. Similar to the NFL where there's a challenge during the first 28 minutes of each half, but only "booth reviews" during the last two minutes (or whatever the specifics are).

Not necessarily. In the begining yes BUT

Look at the rule changes the NFL has put in to protect the QB.

If some "high priced" F4's (ie Robinson Canoe) or F6's (Derek Jeter) are out for the season on a play in April, I can see the rule changing so that these guys do not have to take a beating, similar to the QB rules that the NFL has put in over the years. In a way, I could see MLB adopting either the FED or NCAA slide provisions (with the exception of home plate) to keep players safe.

I agree with you on the placement of runners.

This is the infant stage for MLB replay and just like the NFL, it will most likely get "tweaked" each and every year.

Pete Booth

This is the infant stage for replay and IMO, rule changes / adjustments will most likely follow:

In the play you presented I could see a rule amendment that said something along the lines of: if a call is overturned, all runners return to their TOP base unless forced to advance as a result of the over-turned call. To me that's fair because without replay the game would have gone to extra innings, it still might but at least the offense has another "shot" to win whereas without replay they wouldn't.

Pete Booth

So, maybe they'll change it should that happen. But don't you think that was already discussed during the negotiations before they rolled this out?

I've seen very few and the announcers get all over the ump when he does it.

It's gone. Has been for years.

Just keep on of the challenges in your pocket. Not rocket science.

I agree with you as far as the slide rule. Some of the so called "slides" that they get away with (at least in the playoffs) are ridiculous.

The information from the report and from the talking heads is not yet accurate. ESPN stated last night that the infamous short-outfield IFF call from last year would be reviewable. That one is entirely judgement (whether it was catchable) and should not be reviewable.

I totally agree - why isn't HBP included? A few years back, Brandon Inge (playing on the Tigers) got grazed by a pitch with the bases loaded... it would have forced in the go-ahead run. The HP umpire did not see the ball barely nick Inge's jersey and replays showed that it should have been ruled a HBP. Tigers went on to lose the game in extra innings.

Review exists solely for judgement calls.

True, but they have to be clearly missed judgment calls such as when an umpire judges the catcher tagged the runner before the runner touched home, and replays show the exact opposite.

The IFF call from last year's playoffs was not a missed judgment call. It was simply a call where different judgments may exist, such as on balls and strikes, checked swings, interference and obstruction. You can't legitimately review those.

That's what I was thinking - everyone just wants a "perfect world" and it won't ever happen.

Thanks
David

7 freaking calls over a 40 yr. time span, has someone's panties in a frenzy? And it's only someone's "OPINION", (and we know what those are synonymous with), that they were blown calls.

Get a life.

Listen, bottom line here is that if your going to loose sleep about whether someone is going to try and overrule your decisions on the field whether by picture, replay, verbal abuse or any other means, then maybe you need a little thicker skin to do this job. Over thousands of games that I have officiated in two sports, I find it nearly impossible to count on two fingers the number of games where everyone has agreed with every one of my calls.

I still sleep soundly, each and every night. (with the exception of the nights I pig out out on the delicious Mexican food)

Well, you know there were probably 7 calls over the last 40 days that would get overturned by the new replay system. These so-called expert journalists just felt 7 critical calls made during post-season play were worthy of mentioning in their argument.

The problem is, not all 7 deserved mentioning, and they probably left out a few others that were more applicable. Just off the top of my head, I recall the gross phantom tag by Chuck Knoblauch against Jose Offermann in the 1999 ALCS that would get an overturn.

The Armbrister/Fisk collision? Hell no. In fact, there's a rule that covers that.

And then to top the week off I sat and watched a portion of the NYY vs Red Sox game yesterday until I had to shut it down because of this horrible announcer whose first name is Tim.

What an idiot he is. You just can't fix Stupid.

Thinking about stupid announcers,

I think that replay in the NFL has forced the announcers to know the rules a bit better. They have to be able to talk about the play like "I think the QB's hand was moving forward... The referee is going to call this an incomplete pass". Perhaps the addition of instant replay to more situations in MLB will force the talking heads to actually learn some of the rules...

I know, fat chance, but I can hope...

Yes but on IFF, whether it was or was not catchable TRULY is judgment, and not something concrete that can be seen on replay (like safe/out, tag/no tag, etc) - how are you going to review that and definitely change a call like this one.

Doubtful. The overwhelmingly vast majority of plays that will get reviewed under the MLB's expansion of IR use will be your questionable fair/foul and catch/no catch calls, as well as routine bangers at the bases.

Don't forget that these announcers were ball players at one time. The same is true about managers. Do you really expect managers to learn the rules so that they will know when to challenge a rule misinterpretation for the suits in New York to review? Naah, they'll save their challenges for the safe/out call.

I certainly hope so. When you think they misinterpret a rule, you don't challenge; you protest.

True. But the question now becomes, will this be something that gets reviewed immediately under the IR expansion?

Take a recent example, the one where an entire crew didn't know the substitute pitching rule, and allowed a pitcher to be replaced when that pitcher never faced a batter. Sure, the manager can protest. But that protest just gets lodged and gets reviewed later, well after the game ends.

What if a manager wants to exercise one of his IR challenges on this so that he can get the matter resolved immediately, and not have to wait for the protest process to run its course. Will that be allowed?

I say No. Rule misinterps will probably still go through the protest route, just like it does now. So I don't see the new IR expansion doing anything to get announcers to bone up on rules as john5396 hopes.

http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros...tching-change/

They aren't going to use challenges in U10 baseball, which is about the highest level you'll see R3 do that in the situation you described.

One thing I would like to see is IR cause fewer arguments. On a bang/bang play, if the manager comes out the umpire would say "are you requesting a challenge? If not, get back to the dugout." That way as the game is slowed down by challenges, it is sped up by the lack of unchallenged arguments.

No manager would want to do that. A winnable protest is a managers best friend. Win the game, drop the protest. Lose the game replay from the point of your protest.

I'm thinking that will be part of the process.

Challenge or get ejected, manager's choice.

What about if the manager wants the umpire to seek help so he doesn't have to use a challenge?

We have seen calls changed after the umpires huddled. With IR the umpire who made the call most likely isn't going to check with his partners figuring if the coach doesn't like it he can challenge.

Again as i previously mentioned this is the infant stage and I am pretty certain IR will be tweaked after it's indoctrination.

Pete Booth

Yeah I've been thinking about this too. If you come out on the field, you have to challenge or be ejected. So if you're out of challenges and come on the field to argue a call, it's time to hit the showers.

After watching the shenanigans from Chad Fairchild and Ted Barrett's crew this week I am now 100% in favor of instant replay.

In fact Michael Kay and David Cone of the YES network are going over chapter and verse all the missed calls by Ted Barrett's crew this week, which is remarkable because they were all in favor of the Yankees.

You sure hate Chad Fairchild.

Getting similar to hockey......
 

From the MLB press release:

"If a manager is out of challenges, an umpire probably will be allowed to call for a review if he wants to"

Poor English notwithstanding, this fixes nothing. A manager who is out of challenges will argue and argue until the umpire calls for the review. After all, which umpire is going to NOT call for a review at the risk of getting the call wrong? If MLB umpires agree to the proposal under the "getting the calls right" mantra, none of them are going to refuse to check with the suits in NYC.

So in my mind, the manager will really have unlimited challenges.

There is an easy way to fix that.

If they're going to implement instant replay, get rid of tolerating arguing.

The manager can use a challenge if he has one, otherwise he has to keep his yap shut or risk being ejected.

Maybe MLB can build challenges into a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. For example: A player spikes his helmet in response to a call. Instead of getting tossed, the umpires assess his team a penalty of one challenge. If they have no challenges, the player is ejected.

Here is how I would do it:

1) Any home run call, fair/foul call, ground rule double call, spectator interference call (in other words any boundary call) is subject to an umpire initiated review with no challenges at stake.

2) Any manager gets two challenges per nine innings. What if the game goes 20 innings as the Mets had this year. This is akin to the Grand Slam tennis rule in the final set a player gets three incorrect challenges every 12 games.