Instant replay--maybe.

Dakota

Tim C wrote
"Selig to decide."

To the contrary . . . On the "Mike Tirico Show" Selig said that he had stepped completely aside and the decision will be made by a simple vote of the owners.

Regards,

What do you expect from a CS "leader" and pretend commissioner?

mbyron

Tim C wrote
"Selig to decide."

To the contrary . . . On the "Mike Tirico Show" Selig said that he had stepped completely aside and the decision will be made by a simple vote of the owners.

Regards,

Tee, ESPN is now reporting that the players' union and the umpires would also have to approve the change.

ESPN from link in OP wrote
The plan needs approval from the players' association and umpires.

For a dead-ball fair/foul call such as one over the fence, I could see this getting approved. Hard to see why the players' union wouldn't approve it. Some umps will probably have "slippery slope" concerns, though, so perhaps not.

Dan_ref

Solomon also said that to speed up games, baseball was considering limiting the number of times a hitter could step out of the batter's box during an at-bat and the number of times any player could visit the mound.

Puh-leeze.

How about you decrease the time between innings to 45 seconds. That would take close to an hour off each game.

UmpLarryJohnson

Dan_ref wrote
Puh-leeze.

How about you decrease the time between innings to 45 seconds. That would take close to an hour off each game.

you cant sell ads that way!

ozzy6900

Not only will the player's union have to rule on this, in order to implement any video replay would require a re-write of several rules in section 9! Seeing as how normal rules cannot get past the player's union, I highly doubt that video replay will get in.

jimpiano

ozzy6900 wrote
Not only will the player's union have to rule on this, in order to implement any video replay would require a re-write of several rules in section 9! Seeing as how normal rules cannot get past the player's union, I highly doubt that video replay will get in.

The Player's Union will have no problem okaying these replay rules,,,,since the changes highly favor them. After all, who would not want a called double turned into a home run, or a called foul become the same? Replay would hardly work the other way.

lawump

RichMSN wrote
Afford to retire? Making $300K should encourage sound investing, shouldn't it?

Not to hijack a thread, but...

you would think making that amount would encourage sound investing...but it frankly shocked me how many of the umpires who lost their jobs in 1999 "fell on hard times". (And I'm not talking about the ones who had only been in MLB for a few years...I'm talking about long time vets). It seems some do not invest well enough.

GarthB

lawump wrote
Not to hijack a thread, but...

you would think making that amount would encourage sound investing...but it frankly shocked me how many of the umpires who lost their jobs in 1999 "fell on hard times". (And I'm not talking about the ones who had only been in MLB for a few years...I'm talking about long time vets). It seems some do not invest well enough.

They weren't making $300,000 in 1999.

lawump

GarthB wrote
They weren't making $300,000 in 1999.

But they were making well into the six figures.

waltjp

jimpiano wrote
After all, who would not want a called double turned into a home run, or a called foul become the same?

The pitcher?

canadaump6

We cannot ruin the tradition of baseball by changing calls based on what an instant replay shows. That is for hockey only. I wouldn't mind though if they showed replays of a close call; more entertainment for the fans, thus more revenue, thus higher umpire salaries. Everybody wins.

DonInKansas

canadaump6 wrote
We cannot ruin the tradition of baseball by changing calls based on what an instant replay shows. That is for hockey only.

And football and tennis and basketball and damn near every other sport.........

With the stupidity that is the alignment of baseball stadiums and their funky signs/colors/walls and ground rules, I'm all right with getting it right for HR and fair/foul calls at the pole. Using "tradition" to excuse something that can be fixed easily is idiotic. The replay will take less time than the manager's tirade and subsequent ejection over the blown call.

Interested Ump

Jurassic Referee wrote
Just read another story that said if Selig approves, he then has to run it by the owners. If they say "go for it", both the players association and the umpires association also have to approve it. It sounds like the process will take about eleventeen years.

It might take eleventeen minutes. 😉 My bet is that Selig had a clear poll of the Owner's. I am surprised this has taken as long as it has. The suspense factor, the emotional outbursts when your team gets hosed, it's marketing, it's hype, it's...

Oh, getting the right call. Forgot that one. 😀

gordon30307

Personally, I'd hate to see IR. Baseball just does not lend itself well to this. The games are long enough as it is with out IR.

I'm afraid that once the door is open other plays will be subject to review as well taking the human element out of the game.🙁

UMP25

My only real question is this: unlike football, where a team has to use a timeout to challenge something--and said timeout is not "used" if they win the challenge--how would this be done in baseball without totally reworking the rules? Would it be done via a challenge? If not, how? Methinks this is something that must be worked out if I.R. is gonna work at all.

GarthB

UMP25 wrote
My only real question is this: unlike football, where a team has to use a timeout to challenge something--and said timeout is not "used" if they win the challenge--how would this be done in baseball without totally reworking the rules? Would it be done via a challenge? If not, how? Methinks this is something that must be worked out if I.R. is gonna work at all.

My proposal:

If the replay does not result in a change of the call, the calling umpire gets to kick the skipper who appealed the play in the balls.

fitump56

fitump commenting:

Ready?

Here comes the Tpo Four "Reasons" to not have IR.

Woops, I mean the Tpo Four Whines About IR.

Whine One:

gordon30307 wrote
Personally, I'd hate to see IR.

Always followed by:

Baseball just does not lend itself well to this.

Whine Three:

The games are long enough as it is with out IR.

Now we get to the real point, it might put piss poor umpires out of work, make them look (more) foolish than they ae...ad infinitum.

Whine Four:

I'm afraid that once the door is open other plays will be subject to review as well taking the human element out of the game.🙁

Yes, next will come "Do yo want robot PUs and blah blah blah

jimpiano

UMP25 wrote
My only real question is this: unlike football, where a team has to use a timeout to challenge something--and said timeout is not "used" if they win the challenge--how would this be done in baseball without totally reworking the rules? Would it be done via a challenge? If not, how? Methinks this is something that must be worked out if I.R. is gonna work at all.

It is hardly a big deal. Managers ask all the time for an umpire to get some help....a TV review of a ball in the stands or fair/foul is just a logical extension of that request.

The NBA and NHL already review plays without a coach request.

BretMan

jimpiano wrote
It is hardly a big deal. Managers ask all the time for an umpire to get some help....

Here's what makes it, if not a big deal, then certainly a "trickier" deal: While a manager might ask for help, we are not necessarily always obliged to seek it.

If IR slips in, there has to be some mechanism to determine when it would be used. Would it be used at the request of the manager or the discretion of the umpires?

PeteBooth

mbyron wrote
Tee, ESPN is now reporting that the players' union and the umpires would also have to approve the change.

I do not see the Umpires as having much say in the matter if both the owners and players union approve. If the owners and players Union approve then Bud wouldn't stand in the way.

I am not certain but if the GM's voted 25-5 then it stands to reason that for all practical purposes the owners have already given their vote of confidence.

Therefore, all that is left is for the players union to agree and then it is a done deal.

Pete Booth