Instant Replay?

[SRW]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APW...D8LE2I300.html

I know it's baseball, but some interesting stats at the bottom of the article:

Baseball also revealed a number of statistics on umpires. The Questec computer system, used in 11 ballparks, said 94.91 percent of ball-strike calls were correct, up from 94.20 percent in 2005. That represents a decline from 8.65 to 7.64 missed pitches per game.

[DaveASA/FED]

I would say that is pretty darn good! 95% (rounded off) is pretty good. And I bet you the ones that were off weren't off that darn much, they were hittable get to swinging!!!!!!

[CecilOne]

Or does it prove that the computer system incorrectly identified 5%?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Or does it prove that the computer system incorrectly identified 5%?

Good point. I'd like to see the computer analysis broken down by pitcher. THAT would be interesting.

[tcannizzo]

I am not a big fan of instant replay in any sport. But I think there is one place in softball that it could be useful; and it ain't the strike zone.

I would not object to cameras at home plate to determine whether the batter was out of the box at the time of making contact with the ball. There isn't a set of eyes on the field that can possible make this call. PU has to watch the ball, BU doesn't have a chance. This would be a clear case where an extra set of eyes would prove beneficial to the game and would not be a threat to the umpires. Was the foot down and completely out of the box? Yes or No. As an umpire, I would actually welcome this in the game. No, I would not expect it to ever happen for obvious reasons. But, we know there are a large number of no-calls due to it can't be seen.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

I am not a big fan of instant replay in any sport. But I think there is one place in softball that it could be useful; and it ain't the strike zone.

I would not object to cameras at home plate to determine whether the batter was out of the box at the time of making contact with the ball. There isn't a set of eyes on the field that can possible make this call. PU has to watch the ball, BU doesn't have a chance. This would be a clear case where an extra set of eyes would prove beneficial to the game and would not be a threat to the umpires. Was the foot down and completely out of the box? Yes or No. As an umpire, I would actually welcome this in the game. No, I would not expect it to ever happen for obvious reasons. But, we know there are a large number of no-calls due to it can't be seen.

I disagree that there is ever any need for instant replay to be used in the game. This call can be made, I have made it several times, but the infraction has to be obvious for me to do so. But, isn't that the way it is with any call?

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

I disagree that there is ever any need for instant replay to be used in the game.

For the record, (repeated from my OP), I am not a big fan of IR for any sport. Plus, it is completely theoretical, because our game will never have IR, cost prohibitive.

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

This call can be made, I have made it several times, but the infraction has to be obvious for me to do so. But, isn't that the way it is with any call?

No, the infraction does not have to be obvious. The only requirement is that you must see it and not guess it.

Let me ask you this question which will help explain my position.

In your personal experience, which would you say occurs more frequently:
a.) you have made the call
b.) you have defensive team representatives screaming that "she is/was out of the box"

I would be willing to bet money, that most umpires would answer (b).

Certainly, the call can be made. My position is that this is not an easy call. Not only is it a difficult call, but it just might be the #1 most difficult call to make.

IMO, the majority of violations that actuallly occur are not called. Why? because it is mechanically impossible to truly see the violation.

Sure if the batter is blatantly out of the box, let's say an aggressive slapper on a change up, this call can be made.

But, seeing the batterr's foot both completely out of the box and on the ground, AND seeing the ball make contact with the bat to determine which occured first, is not only difficult, but quite possibly impossible.

If you are able to do this consistently and accuratley, please detail your mechanics.

[CecilOne]

Most. maybe all, "defensive team representatives screaming that "she is/was out of the box"" are wrong, just begging or don't know where the box is or where the foot was on contact.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

This call can be made, I have made it several times, but the infraction has to be obvious for me to do so. But, isn't that the way it is with any call?

ditto !!

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Most. maybe all, "defensive team representatives screaming that "she is/was out of the box"" are wrong, just begging or don't know where the box is or where the foot was on contact.

Like the First base coach won't signal safe on EVERY close play either

[tcannizzo]

Ummmmm...sure

but what about the ones who are right?

Suppose they are not "screaming" but were asking very politley, quietly and respectfully as to why you had a no-call?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Ummmmm...sure

but what about the ones who are right?

Suppose they are not "screaming" but were asking very politley, quietly and respectfully as to why you had a no-call?

Then I would respond politley, quietly and respectfully as usual.
I'm not saying it isn't a difficult call in many cases, just that we are more knowledgeable, better positionied to see it than the dugout/stands, and neutral. Screaming was not the point.

It seems the different views are whether it is impossible or just difficult in some cases. As many times as many of us have called this correctly, the only issues are
- non-violations thought to be by the defense
- those we miss, the only ones that matter
Among those we miss are those too close to know for sure, so must be ignored.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

No, the infraction does not have to be obvious. The only requirement is that you must see it and not guess it.

Which for me means that it has to be obvious!

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Let me ask you this question which will help explain my position.[INDENT]In your personal experience, which would you say occurs more frequently:
a.) you have made the call
b.) you have defensive team representatives screaming that "she is/was out of the box"[INDENT]I would be willing to bet money, that most umpires would answer (b).

But of course. Same with any close play. Close play at first base and you hear from whichever coach/fans didn't get the call. Fly ball that lands on the line, half the folks will say fair while the other half say foul. A pitcher who has a "hinky" deliver, but in all aspects of the rule is legal, you will hear parents/coaches talking about her being illegal. I am not going to call an illegal pitch just because they think she is illegal, but if I see her do something illegal, then you can be darn sure I will call it then. Same with a batter out of the box. Just because coaches/fans think she is out of the box doesn't mean that she is, however, let her make contact with the ball with her foot on the ground clearly(obviously) outside the box, and you can bet that she will be called for it. I have heard coaches/fans want an out simply because the batter, usually a slapper, steps outside of the box without making contact with the ball.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

IMO, the majority of violations that actuallly occur are not called. Why? because it is mechanically impossible to truly see the violation.

It may be that they are not called, yet I disagree that it is mechanically impossible to see the violation. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No.