Instant Replay?

[HollywoodLeo]

Safe and out? Catches and traps? Balls hit down the lines? This can't work!!

Why not?

Every time I see a close play on TV shown in slow motion 10 times over I know right away what the call should have been.

The umps would as well if they were allowed to watch it.

No way is baseball going to stop and review plays at first base or any other base.

I agree, MLB is scarred of change.

They should but they won't.

Even in the WC game no one could tell for sure.

I believed I pointed that out as one of the rare occasions where it wasn't so clear cut.

That play was the exception and not the norm.

I watch a lot of baseball, so it's not as though I'm talking out of my ass, either.

This takes way too long and don't try and bring up the coaches coming out to argue argument.

If you put a time limit on it and limit the number of plays a manager can have reviewed, then I can, and will, bring the coaches arguments into it.

They slow down the same no matter what, tell me what the difference is.

Already heard and don't buy it. If you keep reviewing plays throughout the game, I'd rather have arguments.

Naturally there'd be a limit as to how many plays they can review, thereby preventing them from challenging any and every close play.

Catches and traps are already taken care of now thanks to the 2004 ALCS. Even then you can't tell if the ball hit his glove or dirt.

Really? I generally can tell plain as day whenever the broadcast slows down and shows the ball either in the glove or on the grass.

And how was it taken care of?

Balls hit down the line are tricky too. What if he calls it foul when it was fair? What then? Automatically give them bases?

Nah, if it's called foul then you can't challenge it, pretty much for that reason.

But if it's foul and called fair you can bring the runner back to the plate with another strike. (if he didn't already have 2)

It just can't work!! Baseball is long enough as is. No reason to make it a 4 1/2 hour affair when its not needed.

Just because there are legit questions that have to be answered about certain details doesn't mean it can't work.

It can work, and it wouldn't be 4 1/2 hour long affairs because managers wouldn't be able to just challenge any and every play at a whim.

[HollywoodLeo]

Instead of arguments you want 10 reviews a game? Makes sense

I don't see anywhere in which I stated I wanted 10 reviews a game.

[love_that_reefer]

LOL so there will be a limit on the reviews and after that the arguments then come? There is a flow to baseball unlike in football. Safe and out calls affect other plays in the field that can't be ****ed with. Your solution to the fair foul problem is extremely iffy. Umpires learned from the 2004 ALCS and don't make the out call until they know for sure or the cacther tags them. And yes it would be a 4 hour affair and long because of way too many things to review. It's not needed for one and stop taking offense for me answering your scenarios such as the WC game. You brought it up, not me. You can argue all day long but umpires get things right 100 times more than not and everyone knows umpires do not costs teams games.

[HollywoodLeo]

LOL so there will be a limit on the reviews and after that the arguments then come?

What's funny about limiting it?

At the risk of being accused of being for IR because I have a hidden agenda of wanting to make baseball "more like football" it works perfectly fine in the NFL with limits.

I'm sure an NFL game would be slowed down just as much if coaches were able to throw the red flag nilly willy without consequence.

Do the same thing in baseball and you don't slow it down.

If a manager still wants to argue? Toss his ass before he finishes a sentence.

Arguing with the umpires after they take the time to watch it in slow mo? He'd deserve to be tossed.

There is a flow to baseball unlike in football. Safe and out calls affect other plays in the field that can't be ****ed with.

Exactly.

Which is why I don't like it when other plays in the field are affected by an incorrect call.

Your solution to the fair foul problem is extremely iffy.

Please explain.

I wouldn't argue about awarding one base on a reversed call if they allowed fouls to be challenged.

I mean, it wouldn't be the only situation in baseball where a set number of bases are awarded to a runner.

Umpires learned from the 2004 ALCS and don't make the out call until they know for sure or the cacther tags them.

None of this removes the umpires from being humans capable of making incorrect calls.

And yes it would be a 4 hour affair and long because of way too many things to review.

If they're not reviewing any more than 1 or 2 plays a game then there aren't "way too many things to review"

It's not a hard concept, really.

It's not needed for one and stop taking offense for me answering your scenarios such as the WC game.
You brought it up, not me.

Who's taking offense?

I took absolutely zero offense. I simply shot down that example you threw out there as an attempt to support your argument.

And I brought it up because it was a good example of an occasion where it'd come in handy...even if it was a rare occasion where it's not so clear cut.

You can argue all day long but umpires get things right 100 times more than not

Bullshit.

Umpires are human and they make the wrong call more often than you're willing to admit they do.

I watch games all the time and I can't remember how many times i've either cursed or wiped my forehead being thankful my team "got away with one" due to bad calls.

and everyone knows umpires do not costs teams games.

Bullshit.

Just because there are other factors that are the fault of the losing team that, had they only done it better, they would've won despite the bad calls does not mean that an umpire can't affect the result of the game with a bad call.

Saying an umpire can't cost a team a game is being very naive.

[love_that_reefer]

You call it naive, I and any player who was taught the game correctly call it the truth. Never let the umpire be a factor. I do not have the strength to go through all of your points because this one is the bottom line. Umpires do not lose teams ballgames! I will use YOUR example of the WC game. Not one player blamed the umpire. I wonder why?

P.S. You missed my point about the coaches arguing. Once they run out of reviews, which is just a silly thought, another play will come where it was debatable and they will still come out and argue. Tossing his ass does nothing because they still stay out there. I hope instant replay is never brought into baseball because it will crush the flow of the game and it's not needed. No one has ever said "They aren't the real champions because of that one call".

[HollywoodLeo]

You call it naive, I and any player who was taught the game correctly call it the truth. Never let the umpire be a factor. I do not have the strength to go through all of your points because this one is the bottom line. Umpires do not lose teams ballgames! I will use YOUR example of the WC game. Not one player blamed the umpire. I wonder why?

Of course players shouldn't blame the umpires when they could've won had they (in the Padres' instance) hit more runners in and/or held the lead to not even set up the situation, that would be foolish, dumb, and short sighted.

But that doesn't change the fact that an umpire's decision can affect the outcome of a game.

You're being naive in analyzing the game.

If an umpire's decisions have no affect on the game why do they even have jobs? Why are they taking money from the sport that could be better spent elsewhere....if they have no affect on the game's outcome?

It completely boggles my mind how someone can even attempt to argue that an incorrect call has no outcome on the game.

There's a difference between placing blame on an umpire and stating the fact that his decisions can affect the outcome of a game.

Where you're being naive is that you insist on viewing this from the perspective of a baseball player in the game and not an outside analyst.

P.S. You missed my point about the coaches arguing. Once they run out of reviews, which is just a silly thought, another play will come where it was debatable and they will still come out and argue.

True....and toss his ass if he does.

Tossing his ass does nothing because they still stay out there. I hope instant replay is never brought into baseball because it will crush the flow of the game and it's not needed. No one has ever said "They aren't the real champions because of that one call".

If a manager knows he's going to get tossed the second he steps outside the dugout with the intent of arguing I guarantee you won't see very many arguments.

They argue now because they can get away with it.

P.S. Why is the notion of only having so many reviews silly?

The entire concept of the notion is to force the manager to be picky as to when he chooses to challenge so that we don't have 10-15 reviews a game.

[love_that_reefer]

Of course they affect the game but they don't lose/win games. And in no way am I naive about this game.

[brewersfan19]

Not a huge fan of it for baseball, but for fair/foul calls, home runs (for example the intance in the Rockies/Padres play-in game), or calls at the bases, I can live with it I guess, as long there are specific guideslines that teams must follow. No intance replay not for balls and strikes. Teams should only be allowed one instance replay call per game.

[HollywoodLeo]

Of course they affect the game but they don't lose/win games. And in no way am I naive about this game.

And my argument is a game should not be affected by a bad call...or, at the very least, the amount of times it is affected by a bad call should be limited as much as possible.

Allowing instant replay would accomplish this.

Putting limits on how many times you can invoke instant replay would prevent the one and only true argument against it. (it'd "slow the game down")

[brewersfan19]

But it also takes away the human element. And just like in the NFL when first used, I am afraid that the Umpires will rely on it too much and it will slow down the game. Just my opinion on the matter.

[HollywoodLeo]

**** the "human element"

The "human element" is why we need instant replay.

I'd rather have the game be fair than to pointlessly cling on to a principal matter.

Umpires are human, they're going to make mistakes, I'd rather have a system in place where we can reverse these mistakes...especially if it's at a crucial moment in the game.

At least the "slow the game down" argument makes some semblance of sense. It's simply shot down when you take other things into consideration.

I've never bought into the "human element" argument and never will because it makes absolutely zero sense at all.

[brewersfan19]

point taken. I have experienced the down side of bad calls by the umpires (referees) for my favorite teams as well, and sometimes those incorrect calls hurt more than others, but just like everything else in life, instant replay has its pros and cons.

[HollywoodLeo]

Everything has pros and cons, but the pros of instant replay far outweigh the cons.

[brewersfan19]

You are probably right, just like the authenticity of the game as well. Just call me old fashion.


I am sure that baseball will adopt some kind of instant replay format in the very near future. So, we are probably discussing a subject that will takes place sooner than later anyways. But it is fun to talk about though.

[HollywoodLeo]

just like the authenticity of the game as well. Just call me old fashion.

At the risk of sounding like I'm insulting you, because I'm not trying to, that's part of the problem.

A lot of baseball fans are "old fashioned" and are afraid to change anything because they fear that it'll "**** with tradition"

Why cling on to something just because it's the way things have been when the alternative makes so much sense?