Sports talk from on high! Tuesdays, 5-7pm(ET) http://www.wsruradio.com/
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Instant Replay In Baseball?
Should there be instant replay in baseball? What kinds of plays should be eligible for review? Let us know!
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
OK. I'll bite.
Umpires are tools. And not just that way. They were initially present at baseball games as objective arbiters of disagreements between players. So, essentially, they are a method of coming to agreement about what factually happened on the field. They are useful to the game only to the extent they can conclusively judge the outcome of a play with accuracy. If a computer or machine can do so better -- more conclusively or more accurately -- baseball would be better served by using that machine. Computers are better at accurately determining balls and strikes, fair balls and foul, and home runs at least. I can imagine ways in which such use wouldn't even constitute "instant replay", but could serve as the primary call. Having different camera angles would certainly make safe/out calls more accurate, and who really wouldn't want that?
Crafty has a point. Umpires are supposed to make impartial, accurate judgements on all plays on the field. So if they can't do it correctly, what do we do? I think instant replay is sufficient.
I like a little human error in baseball. Also, baseball is a sport so steeped in tradition and superstition, that I don't think we can ever do without umpires. Instant replay provides an opportunity for review, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the correct call will be ultimately be made. Some plays are too close to call.
If instant replay were instituted, I think it should be limited to home run calls and plays at the plate. Therefore, balls & strikes, plays at the bases, the infield fly rule and such would still be within the call of the umps. And I like the idea of a "manager's challenge", with a limited number of challenges.
If we turn the computers into umpires, we might as well build robots as players.
I don't know about you, but I watch baseball to see the players perform feats of greatness (or mediocrity, or dunderheadedness, as the case may be). I also enjoy the drama of the long season, close games, and playoff series. I don't get much enjoyment from the umpires. If anything, I get frustrated when they blow a call, or have an inconsistent strike zone. The only thing I want from the officiating crew is that they accurately and impartially provide a context in which the players can perform, and in which the outcome of the game/season/series is decided by the players, not the arbiters.
I would get no enjoyment from watching robots play baseball (greatness, and drama, depend on human action, I think). I might get more enjoyment from watching a fairly officiated game, though, instead of one in which an umpiring mistake impacts the outcome.
Would you rather the Yankees lose out on a playoff spot because an umpire blows a call at home plate, or because the Rays play better in an accurately ruled game on the last day of the season? If the situation were reversed (so the Yankees win), would that change?
Though I generally hate technology, I think the more the better in this case - as long as it is objective and efficient. I've been saying for some time that balls and strikes (which is typically the biggest point of contention in any given game) should be done by a computerized grid. Kids playing wiffle ball with a lawn chair serving as a strike zone have more objectivity than MLB. Think about it.
I believe replay is inevitable, though I'm sure there will be baby steps and growing pains. For me, the main concern is keeping the game moving along, which shouldn't be too hard granting that the ways of technology are often mysterious.
4 comments:
OK. I'll bite.
Umpires are tools. And not just that way. They were initially present at baseball games as objective arbiters of disagreements between players. So, essentially, they are a method of coming to agreement about what factually happened on the field. They are useful to the game only to the extent they can conclusively judge the outcome of a play with accuracy. If a computer or machine can do so better -- more conclusively or more accurately -- baseball would be better served by using that machine. Computers are better at accurately determining balls and strikes, fair balls and foul, and home runs at least. I can imagine ways in which such use wouldn't even constitute "instant replay", but could serve as the primary call. Having different camera angles would certainly make safe/out calls more accurate, and who really wouldn't want that?
Crafty has a point. Umpires are supposed to make impartial, accurate judgements on all plays on the field. So if they can't do it correctly, what do we do? I think instant replay is sufficient.
I like a little human error in baseball. Also, baseball is a sport so steeped in tradition and superstition, that I don't think we can ever do without umpires. Instant replay provides an opportunity for review, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the correct call will be ultimately be made. Some plays are too close to call.
If instant replay were instituted, I think it should be limited to home run calls and plays at the plate. Therefore, balls & strikes, plays at the bases, the infield fly rule and such would still be within the call of the umps. And I like the idea of a "manager's challenge", with a limited number of challenges.
If we turn the computers into umpires, we might as well build robots as players.
I don't know about you, but I watch baseball to see the players perform feats of greatness (or mediocrity, or dunderheadedness, as the case may be). I also enjoy the drama of the long season, close games, and playoff series. I don't get much enjoyment from the umpires. If anything, I get frustrated when they blow a call, or have an inconsistent strike zone. The only thing I want from the officiating crew is that they accurately and impartially provide a context in which the players can perform, and in which the outcome of the game/season/series is decided by the players, not the arbiters.
I would get no enjoyment from watching robots play baseball (greatness, and drama, depend on human action, I think). I might get more enjoyment from watching a fairly officiated game, though, instead of one in which an umpiring mistake impacts the outcome.
Would you rather the Yankees lose out on a playoff spot because an umpire blows a call at home plate, or because the Rays play better in an accurately ruled game on the last day of the season? If the situation were reversed (so the Yankees win), would that change?
Though I generally hate technology, I think the more the better in this case - as long as it is objective and efficient. I've been saying for some time that balls and strikes (which is typically the biggest point of contention in any given game) should be done by a computerized grid. Kids playing wiffle ball with a lawn chair serving as a strike zone have more objectivity than MLB. Think about it.
I believe replay is inevitable, though I'm sure there will be baby steps and growing pains. For me, the main concern is keeping the game moving along, which shouldn't be too hard granting that the ways of technology are often mysterious.
Post a Comment