What about instant replay in the MLB?

by boo15749 on Apr 21, 2010 4:33 PM EDT

Note: Hugo - Promoted from Fanposts. Great fanpost, Boo.

In the game thread last night someone (think it was Craig) tossed out why instant replay is used so sparingly in baseball. Yes I'm a young whippersnapper but I want to present my argument for what I think is the best system baseball could implement to use instant replay right.

My ideal system would be extremely similar to the NFL's. Each manager has two (or one, can't decide which would be better) challenge "flags". A call must be challenged before the start of the next pitch, and the manager can only challenge plays culminating in an out or base advancement (eg - a base stealer was safe/out, should have been the other), except in the case of foul balls (as happened in the Red Sox game - an incorrect foul ball would probably have to result in a ground rule double). Basically, you cannot challenge a ball or strike call. As well, if a manager is correct on both flags he receives an additional challenge, like in the NFL. Also like the NFL, if the call is deemed inconclusive, the call on the field stands. My issue with my current system is it doesn't punish managers for getting calls wrong (in the NFL, an incorrect/inconclusive challenge results in the loss of a timeout). A possible workaround is that an incorrect challenge could count as a coach's mound visit for that inning or the upcoming inning (if the challenging team is hitting). I'm not really crazy about this part of the system, let me know what you think.

The only real issue I see with this is that baseball games are pretty damn long as it is. I think the argument for keeping the "human element" is absurd - umpires were hired because they were the best thing available to enforce the rules of the game. More umpires were employed per game (there used to be one umpire per game - batters would sometimes go straight home from second base if the umpire wasn't looking, at least according to urban legend) to better enforce the rules, and now we have a way to check the accuracy of the enforcement reliably. The only way I can think of to speed up the game any measurable amount is to cut down on player meetings on the mound. Of course, coach meetings are restricted to one before the pitcher is pulled, but catcher meetings can be reduced to either of: one meeting allowed per batter, or two meetings per inning (again, before the pitcher must be pulled). This is the part I've thought about the least, so I'd like to hear feedback on that part for sure.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What I think would be interesting about instant replay is the plays that umps don’t really follow the rules for. By that I mean tag plays on SB. How many times have you seen the ball beat a guy, he avoids the tag but is still called out. The umps NEVER honour the rule there. Even on a double play, the 2b is touching the bag so infrequently that I don’t even think it’s 50/50. If you stand near the base, they’ll give you the out. You can almost argue that these are plays that would be recalled 100% of the time. And to be honest, it would be challenged almost every single time it happened. I could see games where managers challenge 3-4-5 plays and keep getting it right. And as much as we can say, then the umps should improve! I think showing how liberal baseball really is with its rules would only damage the image of the game.

So I agree that instant replay is probably a good idea in baseball more than just for HR, but I’m cautious about how it is implemented. It could very well backfire in a very bad way for MLB and the umpires in particular.

by jayjay on Apr 21, 2010 5:34 PM EDT reply actions

good point

though in the current system, a manager/coach can challenge a call that does not necessarily count as an out (the only example i can think of is not touching first base, and even then i’m not entirely sure if it applies in the MLB). if the coach notices that a player doesn’t touch first and challenges it, then the umpire can call him out (as long as he saw it, of course).

by boo15749 on Apr 21, 2010 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Good point

Those “vicinity” plays are ridiculous and happen every game.

I don’t know that fear of embarrassment is a good reason to not implement a more accurate system. I know MLB touts that their umps are correct some 99% of the time (or some other similarly high number), but for some reason I have this suspicion that they’re including calls that are technically wrong, but by “tradition” they’re correct (ie – vicinity plays). If a system shows that the umpire accuracy is closer to 95 or 90%, then so be it. Move on and get better.

And on to my main argument – I don’t like the idea that it should be on a challenge basis or at least limiting the challenges. If you correctly spot the umpires make 2 (then 3) errors in a game, why shouldn’t you be allowed to point out the errors in the 7th, 8th or 9th inning? I know the argument is going to be made that you need to pick your spots, but I think that’s silly too. If the umpires get it wrong in the 1st inning, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong. I think that baseball, more than football or hockey, sees more games decided in the early portion than the other two sports. It’s not unheard of for baseball games to see no scoring from the 6th-9th inning, making that 1st inning call important.

I would prefer a system that sees independent replay officials at a central location (or multiple locations (east, west, central)) who are able to, within seconds of a play, buzz the umpires and inform them of the incorrect call. Umps huddle for a few seconds to explain the changed call, then indicate to the teams. This could be done in a minute, maybe 2 minutes total. Some days it might save time (think managers freaking out about a contested call), others it might not, but I think getting calls right is more important than saving time. Also, considering that usually the calls will come after a hit/out, from what I remember from attending games, there was a solid 45 seconds or so between the last pitch of one batter and the first pitch to the next batter. It might interfere some times, but I think there’s a long enough pause now that those wouldn’t be major factors. If they want to save time, they can cut down on other things during the games – mound visits, timeouts when everyone is already set, etc…

"Don't tell me it's impossible. Be honest and tell me you can't do it. Tell me you don't know how."

by wroth91 on Apr 21, 2010 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions

i agree with most of your points

but i don’t think the review of every play is feasible. i think the challenge system is a compromise between none (to keep play moving) and review everything (to improve accuracy).

by boo15749 on Apr 21, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with that as well

I just don’t like the idea that errors are only corrected on a limited challenge basis. Every play isn’t feasible, but most plays don’t have an error that need to be reviewed (like I said, even if MLB’s stats are biased, I still think the umps are correct about 90% of the time at least). The ones that do need to be reviewed are obvious within a few seconds anyways – diving catches/traps, bang-bang plays at the bag, fair/foul, fan interference. A lot of plays will see a clean hit or a clear out without any need to look again at the play.

"Don't tell me it's impossible. Be honest and tell me you can't do it. Tell me you don't know how."

by wroth91 on Apr 21, 2010 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm of two minds on it

On the one hand, it’s just baseball; on the other hand, I hate to see people get things wrong for no reason. I don’t like the idea of coaches challenging plays, but I guess I would be okay with a central body somewhere doing a replay review when a manager came out to argue. Of course, whether or not he’s right doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ejected.

For a game that the public already perceives as slow enough as it is, implementing replay challenge is not going to help. I think it needs to be established prior to the implementation of the rule that it should not be slowing down games.

As long as the tagging of guys who aren’t force outs and phantom douple plays go, the stolen base is one of the most exciting plays in baseball . . . I’m not saying I don’t want the ump to get it right, but it would be a lot less exciting if we had to wait thirty seconds for the result every time. And if they are going to get rid of phantom double plays, guys are going to have to be taught to slide into second without trying to rip up the second baseman’s legs or else no one is going to want to play second. How many more injuries are we willing to see so that 2nd basemen will have to stay on the bag? How many fewer double plays will we have to see while 2nd basemen wait on the bag for the umpire’s call?

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Apr 22, 2010 8:05 AM EDT reply actions

you're right about the vicinity plays

it’s a recognition of the fact that the fielder has to get out the way of the oncoming runner or risk serious injury, and runners are rarely called for interference just for sliding out of the basepath.

I’d be okay with replay if they coupled it with another change to make the game go faster (stepping out of the batters box in certain situations results in an automatic strike, taking too long to throw the ball is an automatic ball, etc). But I hate the NFL’s replay system because I find it overdone and absurdly legalistic and I’d rather baseball didn’t adopt it. I’d want a system where the umps would use it as a tool to help them do their job and make the right call, not where the coaches could use it to overrule the umps’ calls.

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Apr 22, 2010 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions

for sure it needs a speed change for any such system to be implemented

and the replaying every close play both takes away from the excitement of the game and basically makes umps obsolete anyway. the thing that is striking about the NFL’s system, though, is that it works (IMO, at least). the NBA and NHL review when it’s deemed necessary, but you still get disputed plays that aren’t reviewed anyway.

and jesse’s point about vicinity plays is very good. i don’t know how they would incorporate anything like that.

by boo15749 on Apr 22, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

If you are going to allow managers to challenge plays, I’d make the consequences of failing on the challenge quite high. If the challenge is rejected, the player in the play is removed from the ball game. For example, the batter hits a ball and the play at first base is very close but it called out. If the batter or the manager dispute the call and lose the challenge, the batter is ejected. That would certainly make managers think twice before making a challenge.

Regarding vicinity plays, I think they are a necessary evil to protect the fielders. I suppose that if you wanted to get rid of them, you’d probably have to make deliberately contacting the fielder during a play an automatic out.

by siggian on Apr 22, 2010 9:46 AM EDT reply actions

that's my big issue too

my idea was to make the “punishment” something that happens naturally in the game, which of course is very different in a game governed by innings rather than time. in the NFL, timeouts usually happen whether or not they’re used as a challenge, so it doesn’t make much of a difference time-wise. the problem is that there isn’t really a natural thing you can take away from a team that makes sense in the flow of the game (you can’t make the hitting team start the next inning with one out, or anything like that)

by boo15749 on Apr 22, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Expanded Instant Replay

I’m not really an advocate of it, mostly because I don’t see that there’s a lot of need for it and I see the potential for it being expanded and abused in silly ways. Personally, I’d like to see the current access to technology used more in the review and auditing process for officials. Have a baseline acceptable error level and guys who fall under it lose the right to ump major league games.

I think speeding up the game really could come from enforcing existing rules on time to plate, between pitches, etc. Limit all of the little now acceptable between pitch activities and you’ll speed the game up immeasurably.

by dexfarkin on Apr 22, 2010 11:15 AM EDT reply actions

makes sense

my idea is mainly to get rid of blatantly (on replay) wrong calls. i’m thinking of foul balls and stolen bases, but it’s true, it probably would balloon pretty quickly

by boo15749 on Apr 22, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand that, and I’m all for the new HR confirmation, but it’s got the potential to get overused very quickly, and for, what, a difference in 5-10 calls a season for each team? I don’t see it improving the game enough in relation to the effort to implement and maintain to be worth it. And I see the potential downside of it being misused and/or expanded under the pressure of certain ballclubs.

Mind you, I’m kind of a traditionalist in the sense that I like the idiocincies of different umpires strike zones and the idea that a umpire who blows a call and knows it is going to balance that out later. It’s worked in baseball for long enough, that I’d rather see the technology going to making the umpire corps better trained, better reviewed, and consistantly having to improve their consistancy to stay as big league umps. I’m willing to accept getting hosed on a call so long as I know it’s going to be applied fairly to everyone, and not have the Yankee/Red Sox advantage going on.

by dexfarkin on Apr 22, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

makes sense

my idea is mainly to get rid of blatantly (on replay) wrong calls. i’m thinking of foul balls and stolen bases, but it’s true, it probably would balloon pretty quickly

by boo15749 on Apr 22, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions