OT- Major League Baseball to implement Instant Replay in 2014
A long time coming but Selig et all have finally come around to fully implementing instant replay starting in 2014, and it looks like it will be using a combination of the NFL/NHL replay systems with challenges and a centralized center for overruling, or keeping the umpires original rulings.
EDIT: Apparently the MLBPA and Umpire's Union still have to approve before this can actually be accepted but you'd think they'd want to get the calls right anyway so this looks like it will go through unscathed.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2013/08/15/mlb-instant-replay-manager-challenges-on-hold/2659555/
August 15th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^
The average major league game is already less than 3 hours so that's a bit of hyperbole.
August 15th, 2013 at 4:44 PM ^
I've never understood these complaints about instant replay. You'd rather have a badly-officiated game than one that's properly officiated but just takes a little longer?
August 15th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^
but yeah it's pretty dumb this wasn't instituted sooner. RIP Galarraga perfect game.
August 16th, 2013 at 12:09 AM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^
because honestly in some games there are up to 4 or 5 calls that could be reviewed.
August 15th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^
I am no Tigers fan but I hope to never seen anything like this again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuRPMhqJTXw
August 15th, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^
Not clicking. Can't afford throwing my computer across the room.
August 15th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
If the Yahoo! piece is to be believed, there is a proposed distribution for how the "challenge flags" (or whatever they end up being) will be used:
"The most eye-opening proposed change here is that MLB managers would get "challenges," like we're used to seeing in the NFL. Managers would be permitted three challenges — one between the first and sixth innings, and two from the seventh inning on. If a manager wins a challenge, he could retain it. However, an unused challenge from the first part of the game wouldn't carry over to the second part.
It also mentions that the final rulings will come from New York, which seems to be along the lines of how the NHL handles the replay process. Also, acorrding to this, if all goes well, then it would debut in the 2014 postseason with full implementation in April 2015.
August 15th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^
This is great news, and all the so-called "purists" can go chew on it. The classic defense of "the human element" is ridiculous - "the human element" is just a fancy term for "bad calls," and there's nothing "pure" about getting the call wrong.
Hopefully some day we'll get to fully automated strike & ball calling as well. The techonology is very close to being there, but stick-in-the-muds insist on holding the game back. For now, this is a major victory, and worthy of some celebration.
August 15th, 2013 at 5:48 PM ^
With that said, an automated strike zone would be an absolute travesty and would fundamentally alter the game.
August 15th, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^
Yeah, an automatic strike zone would be going too far. That some umpires will call the high strike and some won't is one of the quirks of the game, kind of like the irregular outfield fences. Batters learn to adjust.
Whether a runner is safe or out, though, is something that they've got to get right.
August 15th, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^
Nope Bad calls are bad calls. I don't like them. Make up all the excuses & fancy terms you want to, it still boils down to this: I'm arguing that calls should always be made correctly, you're arguing that they should sometimes be made wrongly. I've got the easier side of that debate. :)
August 15th, 2013 at 6:35 PM ^
Definition from official MLB rules:
"The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."
The thing is that, with the strike zone, a "bad call" is more about whether or not the strike zone is consistent. Different umpires have different strike zones, and players adjust to that. As long as balls and strikes are called consistently over the course of an entire game, then everyone is happy.
Now, please explain to me how you would institute an automated system that could reliably adjudicate balls and strikes based on the above definition that the players would themselves accept, keeping in mind that all these guys grew up with real life, and far less competent humans as umpires.
It would seem that in this debate, you don't have the easier side after all.
August 15th, 2013 at 8:49 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 4:09 PM ^
...I guess that's going to be the end of 2nd basemen or shortstops being able to turn the double play without touching second base. There's no way that play -- which has been an accepted part of baseball for decades -- will be able to withstand the scrutiny of a replay.
August 15th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^
I don't know why you call it an accepted part of the game. Not accepted in the rules, at least. You have to touch the bag for an out. That's how they call it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong - just like they're wrong in thinking a tie goes to the runner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/sports/baseball/19umpire.html
August 15th, 2013 at 8:20 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 9:23 PM ^
The point was (as the article articulated with evidence) that it doesn't happen, people just think it does. Just like there are not ties at first base.
August 15th, 2013 at 10:53 PM ^
Also, you are correct that there is no rule that a tie goes to the runner. The rule states that the ball must beat the runner to record an out, which means that if there were to be a tie the runner would be safe. Hence, tie goes to the runner. Saying that it isn't really a tie because it's unlikely for the ball to hit the glove at the exact same moment as the glove is a pretty dumb argument. We can only judge whether the ball or runner arrives first based on our eyes and ears, so if it SOUNDS like a tie, why would you call it anything else?
August 15th, 2013 at 4:13 PM ^
I feel like this headline should have come from 10 years ago... I hear the argument about "rate of play", etc. but there really is too much at stake. This helps everyone. Personally, I don't think umpires are worse than they've ever been. The problem is that everyone in the entire universe gets to see a replay and the umpires don't. I don't know about any of you, but I wouldn't want that kind of scrutiny at my job.
August 15th, 2013 at 4:46 PM ^
August 15th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
This is vintage Selig: drag your feet on a hot-button issue for a long, long time before finally making the obvious call.
August 16th, 2013 at 3:45 AM ^
What happens if, as I am guessing, the players say "yes" and the umpires say "no?" Umpires have provided the strongest resistance to replay, calling it an "insult," though I would imagine that they see it more as something that diminishes their control of the game.