Yup.
You get some bad calls in your favor, you get some bad calls against you. That's how it is. Baseball is a gentleman's game. Don't mess with the most preserved, classic sport.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
baseball is full of quirks that don't need "fixing". No ballpark is the same as another. No mound is exactly the same height as another. No umpire is the same. That's what makes baseball baseball. It's okay if they want replays for HRs, but there's no way they should use it to replace umpires, flawed calls and all.
Replay is silly for baseball. The game unfolds in such a way that the action is at one place on the field at all times. There are at least three sets of eyes seeing most plays. Umpires need to be encouraged to huddle more often if they are unsure of a call, but replays are just idiotic. Flaws are part of the game.
To answer the other question, I believe close to 60% of MLB ballparks now have the PITCH f/x system installed. MLB only uses it right now to audit umps, with no plans to use it for balls and strikes.
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,225
- 664
- 126
I don't think any replays should be done for balls or strikes, as that would be ridiculous, but I DO think it should be done with HRs. Like it or not, the HR is one of the most defining aspects of the game, and it is an embarassment when those calls aren't made right. That might have been OK in the past, but now when you see a million replays of missed HR calls it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the fans that got screwed. A HR isn't like a ball or strike, which despite baseballs best efforts remains somewhat subjective - the boudnaries for a HR are set.
Just what we need, a manager arguing over every ball that it was really a ball and not a strike. Let's make 3 hour games 5 hours now! Fvck yea!
YES. Baseball is coming back from a huge slump in following and attendance numbers. DON'T F*** WITH IT. I will NEVER go to a freaking game again if I have to sit there and check video replays every 5 minutes.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
You guys are awesome. Unabashedly commenting in a thread before you even read the article. Keep up the good work :thumbsup:
I just hope they don't do it for balls and strikes.. I love seeing the minor differences in split-second interpretation of pitches.
Depending on what it would be used for (Base running, Fair/foul/homerun decisions, balls/strikes) I can see how it could slow down the game. The problem is there's no clock in baseball so there's no real penalty to challenge every call... other than the current system of getting ejected for arguing excessively.
Maybe if they put in a quota on how many challenges could be issued per game, it might be interesting to see the managers decide when to challenge calls. There were some close and some missed calls in the world series that may have changed the outcome of the games/series had replay been available.
Not like it matters, baseball's ratings problems are beyond time impacts of instant replay .
Maybe if they put in a quota on how many challenges could be issued per game, it might be interesting to see the managers decide when to challenge calls. There were some close and some missed calls in the world series that may have changed the outcome of the games/series had replay been available.
Not like it matters, baseball's ratings problems are beyond time impacts of instant replay .
I read the article. Every single word. I also know that it's pretty easy once you cross the line to venture further and further in... and I stand by what I say when I say "DON'T F*** WITH IT." Don't. At all. Not for disputed home runs, not for pitches, not for out/safe calls, NOTHING. Like I said, you get calls in your favor, you get calls against you. It's part of the game, it's been part of the game for over a century (maybe close to two) now and it's one of the few sports that still retains the classic feel because it's not necessarily growing more technical. The number one thing I hate about football is that with every season it banks more and more on who can manipulate and adhere to a rule book the best and who has the best support OFF the field. Games rely on some degree of human error whether it be from the players or the refs to be entertaining... taking that aspect away to any degree removes a portion of the passion from the game, to me.
Don't assume I didn't read the article just because I comment on the potential that this decision has.
If they do...all records need to have an * next to them.
It's baseball. Entertainment. Who cares?
It's baseball. Entertainment. Who cares?
There was the infamous Derek Jeter home run against the Orioles in I think 2002. Another in the Rockies / Padres playoff. Or, how about that game which also had a disputed call on the game-winning slide at home? I'd think that situation is important enough to replay.
The fact is if the technology exists for the home viewer to make better decisions than the umpire, then it should be available to the umps too. How many times have we seen k-zone or the variants on other networks? Or instant replays from 5 camera angles in slow motion to see the tag applied?
But especially home runs in or out, fair or foul, just have an extra official ump in a video room that relays calls to the field. No need to have an official replay booth on the field disrupting the flow of the game like in football.
Replays in baseball are usually very conclusive unlike football where you're looking for knees and the football in the middle of a pack of men. Foot touches the base, ball hits glove, easy to videotape, easy to review. Tags at other bases usually very easy to quickly call on camera too.
What about this... a ball is hit shallow into the outfield with a runner on first and second. The ball is scooped up and is thrown to second base instead of third... the the runner from first barely makes it in time but is incorrectly ruled "out", the ball is then thrown to third base, the runner originally from second turns around and runs back and the ball is overthrown to second, the runner advances to third safely. Upon review, the runner from first base is actually ruled "safe"... but if he was safe wouldn't there have been a force-out on third when the ball was successfully thrown there?
A situation like this happens almost every game, give or take the part where the runner may or may not have been incorrectly ruled "out".
What do you do? Do you rule that the runner originally from first is safe after reviewing, but the runner going to third is now out because the other team WOULD have forced him out (shafting the hitting team by having a man on second instead of third) or do you shaft the fielding team by allowing them BOTH to stay safe?
The point? Don't complicate it. It happens.
In terms of strikes/balls, the strike zone for a player is mildly subjective as a strike is really any ball that the batter could reasonably hit so long as it's directly above home plate. The "over the pitcher's shoulder" view from the outfield really doesn't give a better view than the guy standing right behind home plate has. If you're going to review it, where do you draw the line? 51% of the ball has to be over home plate? If the height of the ball goes from "halfway between the waistline and top of the shoulders" down to the knees, without having a camera at an exact, front-on angle you really can't accurately tell that. Just don't mess with it.
While I can admit that the HR/Foul thing is more or less fool-proof, I think it's stupid to allow the review on one thing, but not another. If it moved on to include clutch plays, if you're only choosing to review a play that single-handedly has an impact on who wins, that's just not right. For me it's an "all-or-nothing" thing, with "all" being complete and total bastardization of the sport.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Sorry. I actually didn't mean to quote you, or if I did, it was by accident (ironically because I didn't read your post closely!). I wouldn't mind seeing a HR review system, but I don't think it's that practical. First, there are few debated homers and, for most that are in dispute, the umps get the call right. Second, you're also right that replay has no place in 99.9999% of baseball plays.
isgust; I can't remember the last time I sat through an entire game.what we need are challenge flags, more challenge flags...
would be hilarious to see lou pinella throwing the challenge flag to ice a pitcher, lol.
would be hilarious to see lou pinella throwing the challenge flag to ice a pitcher, lol.
You win the award for the dumbest argument in the thread!
Plus bonus points for having the first 80% of your post having absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand...you might as well have posted about the genocide on Darfur to present an argument against instant replay in baseball.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Granted he's arguing about full-fledged replay systems, but his argument makes sense. There is little room for replay in baseball and even if they start using it to track HRs then fans will start demanding it be used to determine whether runners are safe or not. That can't happen because it will ruin the sport.
I've seen much more tangential / stupid posts on Anandtech.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter