Replay to Expand in 2014

Dan Murfman · Jul 16, 2013

soxhop411 said:
Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale56m
Joe Torre says they expect to implement expanded replay in 2014
https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/357173555412209664

Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale54m
The replay may include plays at the bases, and not just fair or foul, or trapped balls in outfiield
https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/357174061006196736
I know near the end of last season they were suggesting various forms of replay they could use (like having an ump in the press box) and "challange flags" for the managers, So it will be interesting to see how replay works next year, as I feel they do not want a manager to ask for replay on every play they think is "wrong"

Torre is going to be on WFAN this afternoon with Francesca

glennhoffmania · Jul 16, 2013

Before they talk about expanding the scope they should fix the process. Get a guy in the booth to relay disputed calls to the field. This nonsense with three umps leaving the field and watching a monitor is less than ideal.

Light-Tower-Power · Jul 16, 2013

I agree that having the on-field umpiring crew going to a monitor multiple times a game would take up far too much time. NBA officials have the monitor right at the scorer's table and still sometimes take several minutes to review calls. Having the umpiring crew leave the field and come back to review calls more than the occasional home run call would not be in the best interest of speeding up the game.

tims4wins · Jul 16, 2013

Light-Tower-Power said:
I agree that having the on-field umpiring crew going to a monitor multiple times a game would take up far too much time. NBA officials have the monitor right at the scorer's table and still sometimes take several minutes to review calls. Having the umpiring crew leave the field and come back to review calls more than the occasional home run call would not be in the best interest of speeding up the game.

Which is why they need a booth replay official. Shoot, it could even be at the MLB HQ like the NHL does it. Don't even need a guy in the park.

canderson · Jul 16, 2013

They need to implement the Wimbleton system of in/out for fair/foul. Hell it could work for the strike zone too.

glennhoffmania · Jul 18, 2013

If they have replay for fair/foul how would a reversal work? Runner on 1B, batter hits a ball down the RF line called foul but after review it's ruled fair. Now what?

They're also apparently considering the use of a challenge system, which would be awful. Either try to get the calls right or don't. Don't put the burden on the managers to decide within a matter of seconds if they want to use one of their allotted challenges.

Plympton91 · Aug 15, 2013

Oh, good grief. Every game is already televised and every close play shown on replay. They don't need to spend a damn dime to broadcast the home team's feed onto the jumbotron and let the umps watch it again along with everyone in the park. This "proposal" is designed to make the change as burdensome as could be thought possible, so as to give the owners an excuse to reject it.

Van Everyman · Aug 15, 2013

"Arguments will be still part of the game," former manager Tony La Russa told USA TODAY Sports on Tuesday.

If they don't figure something out with balls and strikes, you better believe arguments will still be part of the game, Tony.

OttoC · Aug 15, 2013

Plympton91 said:
Oh, good grief. Every game is already televised and every close play shown on replay. They don't need to spend a damn dime to broadcast the home team's feed onto the jumbotron and let the umps watch it again along with everyone in the park. This "proposal" is designed to make the change as burdensome as could be thought possible, so as to give the owners an excuse to reject it.

I agree that they should be able to use the telecasts. A lot of the blown calls on baserunners is due to the umpire is due to the umpire being on the wrong side of the play. This isn't necessarily because the umpire messed up; he may simply not have been able to get into the position needed to see the play fully. An off-field umpire would be able to check the video and make a correction but I suspect that MLB and the owners don't want to add 15+ umpires. This same umpire could easily correct fair-foul calls and for the most part judge if a ball is a home run or not. Although in this latter case, the clubs could make it easier by making some changes. For example, the shelf atop the LF wall at Fenway is something that causes a lot of problems (in fact, Fenway leads the list, 2008 to present).

http://retrosheet.org/ReplayHR.htm

CoffeeNerdness · Aug 15, 2013

A fixed system won't rely on a camera person's angle, zoom level, field of view, etc. If a dedicated system improves the calls then I'm all for it.

OCD SS · Aug 15, 2013

Plympton91 said:
Oh, good grief. Every game is already televised and every close play shown on replay. They don't need to spend a damn dime to broadcast the home team's feed onto the jumbotron and let the umps watch it again along with everyone in the park. This "proposal" is designed to make the change as burdensome as could be thought possible, so as to give the owners an excuse to reject it.

Yeah, because the home team broadcast controlling the feed to the jumbotron is guaranteed to be impartial. Nevermind varying degrees of quality on Jumbotrons in 30 ballparks. A fixed system goes a lot farther to keeping rulings impartial and fair.

glennhoffmania · Aug 15, 2013

The Jumbotron idea makes no sense, but there's no reason they can't use the cameras that are already in place for the tv broadcasts to get all the replays they need. How many calls can't be corrected by watching the tv replays? This is typical Bud. He ignores an obvious problem for far too long, and then when he decides to fix it he goes to the opposite extreme.

singaporesoxfan · Aug 15, 2013

I agree with OCD, you need an impartial camera view. Plus on the practical side this system was probably necessary to get the umpires union to agree - this way there's an additional set of umpiring jobs (an additional umpiring crew rotates through NY to monitor replays) and the umps don't feel like they're being shown up by MLB If their calls are overruled.

glennhoffmania · Aug 15, 2013

glennhoffmania said:
If they have replay for fair/foul how would a reversal work? Runner on 1B, batter hits a ball down the RF line called foul but after review it's ruled fair. Now what?

They're also apparently considering the use of a challenge system, which would be awful. Either try to get the calls right or don't. Don't put the burden on the managers to decide within a matter of seconds if they want to use one of their allotted challenges.

I'm still waiting to hear how they'd answer my question above.

And my second point is in response to this new challenge news.

MakMan44 · Aug 15, 2013

glennhoffmania said:
I'm still waiting to hear how they'd answer my question above.

As stupid as it sounds, probably make it like a ground rule double.

Plympton91 · Aug 15, 2013

I would imagine that the fair ball called foul thing will be done much like fan interference, the umpire puts the runners where he thinks they would have ended up. I would also expect that with replay available, there will be a bias toward calling balls fair. I'm not sure that is a good thing. I wouldn't necessarily let fair/foul be part of replay.

The centrally located place with access to all the TV cameras make a whole lot more sense than a second set of MLB cameras being in every ballpark.

I realize the jumbotron thing has a problem with impartiality, but that was just an alternative relative to the proposal described in the opening post, a plan that seemed to be so expensive and burdensome that it would be rejected.

canderson · Aug 15, 2013

The new rules, basically:

- 3 challenges for mangers (one available through the 6th, 2 additional available from the 7th onward.
- Everything is reviewable minus balls and strikes.
- If a challenge is successful, the challenge doesn't count against the total.
- Home runs reviewable regardless of a challenge.
- Centrally monitored in NYC.

I can't wait for the first player to be to called out on a walk off for failing to touch a base.

Lefty on the Mound · Aug 15, 2013

Are they going to make the replay that the umpires see available to viewers of the TV broadcast? I would expect they would want to. Otherwise they risk getting the call right and still tucking off the fans who see something different on what us available via broadcast.

Lefty on the Mound · Aug 15, 2013

Errr....ticking off.

rlcave3rd · Aug 15, 2013

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2013/08/baseball_set_to_add_video_review_challenges.html

The link above seems to contradict some of the other reports, stating that managers will not be permitted to argue. If this is true, it may have the effect of shortening games a bit -- assuming that replay decisions can be made in less time than would have been spent arguing, I suppose.

Dan Murfman · Aug 15, 2013

1st and 3rd and there is 1 out. Ground ball to 2nd and they turn 2 using the old neighborhood play. If its challenged are they going to call the guy safe and allow the run to score?

JimBoSox9 · Aug 15, 2013

I Hope (and think) that the neighborhood play is not going to be reviewable, given it was implemented to protect 2B/SS from injury, if they are now forced to touch the base, there will be more injuries to players..

How do you make it not reviewable? Force plays are in bounds. You can't put a phantom tag exception in the books. You can't call a runner out when the whole world is seeing safe in slo-mo.

I expect it'll be fun: unwritten rules will be made by the managers about when and what is acceptable to challenge and what makes you an asshole. Everyone will more or less agree to lose their challenge flags on phantom tags, someone will break the rule every now and again, and there will be much screaming from the talking heads on my television.

Rasputin · Aug 16, 2013

[SIZE=11.818181991577148px]And one source at the [/SIZE]World Umpires Association said they plan to ask for – and expect to be granted – what amounts to a doomsday trigger: If a manager is out of challenges and an imperative call is close, they can request a replay themselves.

What kind of fucknuts uses a phrase like "doomsday trigger" to refer to something that so obviously must be included? It's like saying you're making a pizza and they expect that they will be granted the doomsday ingredient: cheese.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 16, 2013

singaporesoxfan said:
I agree with OCD, you need an impartial camera view.

Wait, how can a camera make something look better for one team or the other? I've been watching replays for decades and I've never seen one where I said, "Well, he looked safe, but I'd really want to see the visiting team's feed to be sure." That just seems....absurd.

donutogre · Aug 16, 2013

The thing I like the least about this so far is the fact that you get one challenge from innings 1-6 and then two from 7 through the rest of the game. Why are plays happening in the first six innings less "valuable" than ones happening near the end of the game? Stupid.

since '75 · Aug 16, 2013

i think the ratio of challenges per game should match up to the amount of suckage of the particular crew working said game...

glennhoffmania · Aug 16, 2013

Plympton91 said:
I would imagine that the fair ball called foul thing will be done much like fan interference, the umpire puts the runners where he thinks they would have ended up. I would also expect that with replay available, there will be a bias toward calling balls fair. I'm not sure that is a good thing. I wouldn't necessarily let fair/foul be part of replay.

That's probably the only way to do it, but it's going to cause a lot of problems. If a ground ball down the line is immediately called foul, how the hell will the umps figure out what would've happened if the fielders hadn't stopped going after it? Will they take into account the speed of the baserunners and batter? Would they give Ortiz a double but Ellsbury a triple? I'm all for expanded replay but this sounds like a bunch of disasters waiting to happen.

John DiFool · Aug 16, 2013

donutogre said:
The thing I like the least about this so far is the fact that you get one challenge from innings 1-6 and then two from 7 through the rest of the game. Why are plays happening in the first six innings less "valuable" than ones happening near the end of the game? Stupid.

I'd give them 2 for 1-9, and another one if it goes to extras.

glennhoffmania · Aug 16, 2013

Coaches should not be involved in determining whether a call is correct or not. If the goal is to get the calls right, the umps need to handle the review process. Either have a fifth ump upstairs communicating down to the crew chief or let the field umps confer and decide whether a review is needed. If there's a blown call and a team is out of challenges the call shouldn't stand simply because of that fact. Plus coaches will inevitably challenge obvious calls, thus slowing down the game by forcing the umps to conduct unnecessary reviews.

Doctor G · Aug 16, 2013

The manager is going to have to emphasize to his players that if they think the ump missed an important call they should argue long enough for their designated video guy to decide whether to alert the manager to throw the flag or not.

I'm assuming players won't get automatically tossed for arguing a call.Managers probably will be limited to either tossing the flag or getting their player off the field.

Got to have a good video guy, and a manager who understands the relative importance of disputed calls to probable game outcomes.

Al Zarilla · Aug 16, 2013

Plympton91 said:
Oh, good grief. Every game is already televised and every close play shown on replay. They don't need to spend a damn dime to broadcast the home team's feed onto the jumbotron and let the umps watch it again along with everyone in the park. This "proposal" is designed to make the change as burdensome as could be thought possible, so as to give the owners an excuse to reject it.

Just a nit, but some A's games aren't, even now that they're a contender again.

VORP Speed · Aug 16, 2013

Al Zarilla said:
Just a nit, but some A's games aren't, even now that they're a contender again.

Every now and then there is a Rays game that isn't televised as well. They start some Saturday games at 6 so they can have concerts after, violating the Fox blackout thing. There are some other weekday afternoon games that they don't bother televising, but those are carried by the visiting team's network usually.

Will the catcher have to wear a green dot on the back of his helmet if he's got a radio in there connecting him to the video coach up in the booth?

The Napkin · Aug 16, 2013

Savin Hillbilly said:
Wait, how can a camera make something look better for one team or the other? I've been watching replays for decades and I've never seen one where I said, "Well, he looked safe, but I'd really want to see the visiting team's feed to be sure." That just seems....absurd.

When one of the teams withholds a replay maybe?

bosockboy · Aug 17, 2013

The in the neighborhood play will be the most fascinating....I think it has to be enforced now.

Van Everyman · Aug 18, 2013

Van Everyman wrote:

If they don't figure something out with balls and strikes, you better believe arguments will still be part of the game, Tony.

Just to follow up on this, here's the problem:

Umpiring controversies will endure even after the anticipated expansion of instant replay next year.

Consider Saturdayâs events at Comerica Park, which surely will serve as a case study for baseball officials studying the issue.

In the fourth inning of Detroitâs 6-5 win over Kansas City, Royals shortstop Alcides Escobar checked his swing on a 2-2 curveball in the dirt. Even though Escobar didnât bring the bat around, he tipped the pitch after it bounced off the ground.

It should have been ruled a foul ball. Tigers catcher Brayan Peña figured it would be, so he didnât retrieve the ball once it skipped away. But home plate umpire Mike Muchlinski saw it differently, ruling the pitch a ball because he didnât notice Escobar had made contact.

Muchlinski conferred with the other umpires, but the original call stood. Detroit manager Jim Leyland argued and was ejected. Peña protested and was tossed, too. The umpiresâ mistake affected the inning, because Chris Getz advanced from first to third on the âwild pitchâ and scored on Escobarâs double.

None of that will happen next year, right? The umpires will check the replay and reverse their call.

Actually, they might not.

Remember: MLB officials have said consistently that balls and strikes wonât be reviewable. The commissionerâs office (correctly) wants umpires to remain the sole arbiters of that aspect of the game. And even though this call indirectly involved the advancement of a baserunner, it was â at its core â a question of Muchlinski ruling on a ball or strike.

http://msn.foxsports...-escobar-081813

What is "correct" about leaving umpires to massacre the part of the game that is gotten wrong the most often? What consultant is telling MLB that there's no way to manage an electronic strike zone? It's been done in tennis for decades now with no problems whatsoever.

Like steroids, it seems that MLB is incapable of ever getting ahead of a problem -- when everyone knows what needs to be done, they repeatedly put forward half measures. The challenge system for outs, etc. may work fine. But all that's going to happen if they leave no recourse for balls and strikes is people bitching and moaning again in a year's time.

singaporesoxfan · Aug 18, 2013

I generally agree with having an electronic strike zone but check swing calls and calls like the above (did it hit the bat?) are likely going to require human umps, right? Or has the tech evolved to the point of calling those as well?

Brianish · Aug 18, 2013

Even if the technology exists, MLB would have to establish a rulebook definition for what constitutes a checked swing before it could be utilized.

Snodgrass'Muff · Aug 18, 2013

singaporesoxfan said:
I generally agree with having an electronic strike zone but check swing calls and calls like the above (did it hit the bat?) are likely going to require human umps, right? Or has the tech evolved to the point of calling those as well?

I don't think you can fully replace the umpire behind the plate, so the best way to approach it would be to supplement their own senses with technology and provide them with every tool possible to be getting the calls right. Let the umpire still make the calls. Let them still be a part of every pitch thrown. Just enhance their ability to do their job and hold them accountable for not doing it well.

They're actually talking about this during the Northeast vs Northwest LLWS game right now and how the umpires there love having replay at their disposal. Implemented right, there's no reason the MLB umps shouldn't also embrace the technology.

Lowrielicious · Aug 19, 2013

JimBoSox9 said:
How do you make it not reviewable? Force plays are in bounds. You can't put a phantom tag exception in the books. You can't call a runner out when the whole world is seeing safe in slo-mo.

I expect it'll be fun: unwritten rules will be made by the managers about when and what is acceptable to challenge and what makes you an asshole. Everyone will more or less agree to lose their challenge flags on phantom tags, someone will break the rule every now and again, and there will be much screaming from the talking heads on my television.

I'm not sure that would happen actually. It seems that all the "old school" unwritten rules have been about for so long because "that is how it has always been done", but the review stuff is all new with no "unwritten rules" so I would hope none of that gets made up to go along with it. I guess I shouldn't underestimate the level of stupid still getting about at the managerial level though.

Doctor G said:
The manager is going to have to emphasize to his players that if they think the ump missed an important call they should argue long enough for their designated video guy to decide whether to alert the manager to throw the flag or not.

I'm assuming players won't get automatically tossed for arguing a call.Managers probably will be limited to either tossing the flag or getting their player off the field.

Got to have a good video guy, and a manager who understands the relative importance of disputed calls to probable game outcomes.

This exact issue has attempted to be tackled in cricket with their "Decision Review System (DRS)".

"2.2. The total time elapsed between the ball becoming dead and the review request being made should be no more than a few seconds. If the umpires believe that a request has not been made sufficiently promptly, they may at their discretion decline to review the decision.
2.3. The captain may consult with the bowler and other fielders or the two batsmen may consult with each other prior to deciding whether to request a review. However, in order to meet the requirement of 2.2 above, such consultation will need to occur almost instantly and be very brief."

How much time "a few seconds" is and how long "very brief" is is obviously debatable. But in practice there isn't enough time for replays to come up on the live feed at the very least.
It should be noted that the DRS in cricket is not without it's controversies and is far from foolproof or widely accepted even after over 3 years of use at the top level (I won't bore you with the details of all that though - wiki if you want to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpire_Decision_Review_System).

Rasputin · Nov 6, 2013

soxhop411 said:
We just had our first replay use in the ARZ fall league (they are testing it out) Took around 10 sec to review it

That worked pretty well but I suspect the time limit will be ignored often.

Mighty Joe Young · Nov 7, 2013

I kind of like that cricket time limitation. You really want to force the challenging team to throw the flag before getting feedback from a video replay.

Quite frankly, I'm dreading the whole replay system. One of the absolute beauties of baseball is that 99.9999 % of time time what you see is what you get. Now .. all that instant gratification will go by the board.

Replay to Expand in 2014

news aggravator

Member

meat puppet

news aggravator

ask me about My Pillow

PN23's replacement

Mr. Brightside

meat puppet

news aggravator

bubble burster

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

meat puppet

Well-Known Member

news aggravator

meat puppet

stole corsi's dream

bubble burster

Mr. Brightside

SoSH Member

SoSH Member

New Member

Member

news aggravator

will you be my friend?

news aggravator

Will outlive SeanBerry

loves the secret sauce

Member

Member

meat puppet

Member

meat puppet

Member

Member

Member

wise ass al kaprielian

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

news aggravator

news aggravator

Will outlive SeanBerry

news aggravator

The North remembers