Wednesday, May 28, 2008

IN-stant RE-play. We demand a RE-play. A replay

MLB is talking about adding instant replay for HR calls. I guess it would be similar to what the NFL does when it looks like the referee gets a call wrong; the manager will challenge the ruling and the ump will review the video in order to get the call correct. Some people, like ESPN's Douche Morgan, feel that having instant replay in baseball is a bad idea. His argument (re-typed by me with his typos and grammatical errors removed for clarity) is as follows: I do not think you* can have replays because you** would use it too much. There has been talk of using it for HR in the 8th or 9th inning, but that is not fair because often the winning HRs are hit earlier in the game. Replay would slow the game down more, so I think we will just have to live with the decisions of the umpires.

* By "you", he means MLB.
** By "you", he means the managers of baseball teams.

Okay, so to his first point: "you" would use it too much. Brian's simple solution: "We" put a limit on how many times it can be used. And honestly, how many times per season is a HR not clearly a HR? Out of the thousand games each year, does this happen more than 10 times a season? I would be shocked if it does.

To his second point: There has been talk of using it for HR in the 8th or 9th inning, but that is not fair because often the winning HRs are hit earlier in the game. Brian's take: This is valid. Make them challengable (is that a word?) the entire game.

To his third point: Replay would slow the game down more. Brian's response: Moronic, and I will prove so with a hypothetical that actually happened, meaning it's not really a hypothetical. Let's say Joe Crede hits a HR inside the fair pole, but the umpire rules it a foul ball. Crazy Bones will be in the White Sox dugout and he will see that it was indeed a HR, so he will come out and begin to argue with the umpire that ruled it foul. He will continue to argue for 4 or 5 minutes until he gets ejected. Then he will grab ahold of 3rd base and throw it into the outfield. Now tell me, what will take more time: Crazy Bones and his arguing, or the review of a call to get it right?

To a fourth point that Joe didn't make, but I hear others making: Where will it end? If they start reviewing HR calls, what's to stop them from reviewing other things? Brian's response: Uh, they make it a rule that only HR calls are reviewable. Seems pretty straight-forward there. Or, better yet, just get rid of umpires altogether. Who needs 'em? I can play a pickup baseball game with a dozen or so of my friends without the benefit of any umpires, and we would get along just fine. MLB will have the benefit of replay if something is questionable.

Radical? Yes. Logical?

Probably not.

Labels: , , |

4 comments:

  1. Jane Says:

    I say the idea is all wet. You were right, it would probably only be used 10 times a season. Certainly not worth all the rigmarole.

    (Sorry, I'm old school about baseball. Like, 1920's slang kind of old school.)

  2. Michael Says:

    As a baseball umpire, I can give you a solution that would eradicate 99% of the blown HR calls - use six umpires for every game, even regular season games. Having umpires down the left and right field lines to rule on outfield hits is a lot easier than expecting one of the base umpires to bust to the outfield 300 feet and try and rule on a fly ball that reaches the wall in three seconds.

    But hey, what the hell do I know? :)

  3. Brian Says:

    Ah applesauce Jane. We'll have to continue this conversation down at the speakeasy. I'd continue it here, but I'm not about to take any wooden nickels.

  4. Jane Says:

    And how!