Replay to Expand in 2014
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes Balls and Strikes
I wonder what kinds of secret signs players will give managers to let them know to challenge. Like on an outfield catch/trap, if a fielder tries to fake a catch and doesn't get the call, will he start scratching his nose to signal: Hey, Skip, don't waste a challenge.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I figured cuz he probably just made a show of faking the grab.
So he'd look dumb admitting to everyone in earshot, including the umps, that he was just trying to bullshit the umps.
Van Everyman said:
This is an excellent article on why automated ball-strike calling might not be a good idea:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9940495/ben-lindbergh-possibility-machines-replacing-umpires
LeoCarrillo said:
Nah, baseball players in general are pretty shameless about trying to show their gloves to an ump on balls that short-hopped them by four inches. Hey, gotta give the guy a chance to make the call, right?
Yup, Will not be reviewablesoxhop411 said:
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi1m
Development in replay talks: At request of MLBPA, source says "neighborhood play" at 2B on double plays likely will NOT be reviewable.
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi2m
Manager can challenge flat-out missed catch -- Kozma at World Series -- but not timing of when player caught ball while coming across bag.
https://twitter.com/jonmorosi
soxhop411 said:
How is that a good thing?
If a fielder isn't on the base with the ball, it isn't an out.
If injuries are a problem, just implement rules like with home plate collisions.
To continue to give outs on plays that aren't outs is absurd.
RT @jonmorosi Sources: MLB agreements on expanded instant replay are now "very close" with both MLBPA and World Umpires Association.
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi
4m
Because MLB likes a good challenge, regular-season debut of replay system will occur at a cricket stadium in Sydney, Australia. #Logistics
https://twitter.com/jonmorosi
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi
4m
Because MLB likes a good challenge, regular-season debut of replay system will occur at a cricket stadium in Sydney, Australia. #Logistics
https://twitter.com/jonmorosi
I hate that they're going to use challenges. The point of a replay system is to correct mistakes. If a call is wrong, change it. There's no reason to have managers involved, and no reason why they should be limited to two corrections if the umps blow more than two calls during a game.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Well, I think one intended consequence of the "challenges" system is that it will defuse a couple of the "manager tantrums" that occur when a call happens that they don't like. You can't very well throw a hissy fit out there when you have a tool to show whether you're right or wrong. I guess over balls and strikes they still could, but Larry-Bowa-esque shitfits over missed calls should markedly decline, with a corresponding increase in the speed of the game.
And to the people who say they like manager tantrums because they're entertaining, go watch a fucking soap opera and get your emotional outbursts there. They're probably the same people who say they want to keep replay out of baseball because they like the "human element" making a complete mockery of a sporting event. Me, I like to tune in to see if the guys wearing my laundry can hit, pitch and field better than the guys in the other laundry, not whether the coin flip for umpire brain farts happens to land in my favor or not.
And to the people who say they like manager tantrums because they're entertaining, go watch a fucking soap opera and get your emotional outbursts there. They're probably the same people who say they want to keep replay out of baseball because they like the "human element" making a complete mockery of a sporting event. Me, I like to tune in to see if the guys wearing my laundry can hit, pitch and field better than the guys in the other laundry, not whether the coin flip for umpire brain farts happens to land in my favor or not.
Ok then what happens when a really shitty call is made but a manager has used his two challenges? We'll see a tantrum and hear a bunch of complaints about how the challenge system sucks.
The replay systems shouldn't become some sort of strategy used by coaches. It should be there to correct mistakes. If the umps blow five calls but only two can be corrected then the system isn't working like it should. I see no reason why coaches should have anything to do with the review process. Let someone in a booth or in a studio somewhere handle it.
The replay systems shouldn't become some sort of strategy used by coaches. It should be there to correct mistakes. If the umps blow five calls but only two can be corrected then the system isn't working like it should. I see no reason why coaches should have anything to do with the review process. Let someone in a booth or in a studio somewhere handle it.
glennhoffmania said:
At the end of the day, someone has to decide whether a play needs to be reviewed. If it's left to the guys in the booth in NY watching the game, they may stop the game several times to "double check" the play, which is going to be annoying if it results in a bunch of upheld plays but delays the game. If it's left to the umps, they'll almost never resort to replay. If you give teams unlimited challenges, you're going to see a lot of strategic usage to slow the game down, throw a pitcher off his game, etc. I think the challenges system is the best alternative.
I understand your general point but the game delays argument doesn't make sense to me. Managers will have a certain amount of time to challenge a play. A replay official would have the same amount of time. They can't hold up the game to decide if a replay is needed. So I don't see how having an objective third party replay official would waste any more time than letting managers challenge 4 plays per game, especially when they may challenge calls that are clearly correct but they couldn't tell from their vantage point. The only way your concern would actually become an issue is if the rules were dumb enough to allow replay officials to double check the play, so just don't let them and the problem goes away.
glennhoffmania said:
I don't understand your last sentence.
By putting the review in the hands of the managers, it avoids MLB being accused of screwing up, which is a nice way for it to protect itself. I think that's the bottom line here.
That said, after the first couple of times that an egregious call doesn't get reviewed due to the manager being out of challenges, I'd hope MLB would adopt an approach where, if either team is out of challenges, the replay ump can signal to the crew that a play should be reviewed (or the on-field umps can ask for help from replay) without a challenge being made. This would avoid a situation where really bad plays were not reviewed b/c a manager used up his challenges.
soxhop411 said:
I still think it's really absurd that "neighborhood plays" aren't reviewable. If the fielder isn't on the bag with the ball, it's not an out.
It will be interesting to see how MLB defines the guidelines for challening the review "in a timely manner." Easiest thing would be like football, where the challenge could be made any time until the next pitch or pick-off attempt. Though that would give either team ample opportunity to delay to see if a challenge is worthwhile.
The "before-the-next-pitch" deadline would also have to include the 1st warm-up pitch for a subsequent half-inning. If not, can you imagine the fooferaw where the top of an inning has apparently ended, the visiting-team's pitcher has warmed up for the bottom half, and the home team's manager challenges the play that ended the previous half-inning just before the lead-off batter steps in to the box?
The "before-the-next-pitch" deadline would also have to include the 1st warm-up pitch for a subsequent half-inning. If not, can you imagine the fooferaw where the top of an inning has apparently ended, the visiting-team's pitcher has warmed up for the bottom half, and the home team's manager challenges the play that ended the previous half-inning just before the lead-off batter steps in to the box?
nattysez said:
In your previous post it sounded like you were concerned that a replay official could hold up the game while he double checked a play to see if he should ask for a review. I was saying they can avoid that by not allowing him to do so. Put a time limit on it. In the NFL, replays initiated by the booth don't take longer than replays initiated by a coach. I don't see how having all replays initiated by an official would have any impact on the pace of the game.
I don't want to see a manager challenge a clearly correct call because his player threw a shit fit, hold the game up, and then not be able to challenge later because he ran out. This kind of system is a gimmick. The point of replay is to get things right. Either get rid of replay, or use it to accomplish the goal of correcting mistakes. Putting it in the hands of coaches and limiting the number of mistakes you can correct per game makes no sense to me. Nor does limiting ump reviews to the 7th inning or later make any sense. Important calls can be made incorrectly in earlier innings.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
terrisus said:
How about the restriction on how fair/foul can only occur in the outfield? I mean, let's not act like balls rolling down the 3B or 1B lines and crossing over the bag are ever disputed calls...
I'd really like to know if "batter hit by pitch" includes whether or not the player made any effort to get out of the way. Like Beltran last year in the World Series.
Not holding my breath, though. I'd guess it's just did/didn't.
Not holding my breath, though. I'd guess it's just did/didn't.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Yeah, that too. I really don't get why they would specifically restrict certain versions of plays from being reviewed.
LeoCarrillo said:
Tim Wakefield would have loved that.
Derek Jeter, not so much.
I would hope that it would be a consideration - if they review it and see the batter standing there or leaning across the plate, one would hope that would change the call.
terrisus said:
Something seems amiss. Apparently the manager gets 1 over-turned challenge from innings 1-6, and none from 7-... In other words, a walk off fan interference double cannot be challenged by the manager. Does that make any sense?
And what's with the "timeliness" thing? Obviously it takes some time for the clubhouse guy to look at "the same replays available to the reviewers" and then call the dugout. How do they accommodate that? And more importantly, how do the field umpires know whether to review a play after inning 7? They hardly talk to each other now.
I agree with the force play over-ride at 2nd base. The neighborhood play should stand as its been judged forever. I also agree with infield fair/foul because there's no real camera angle that shows where the ball is as it travels over 3rd or first base. You'd need 2 cameras, synched up.
I also question the force play at 1st or 3rd. Today the umpire looks at the bag and listens for the ball. You tell me, based on hundreds of replays we've all seen, when the ball is deemed "caught" on video. Yes you can clearly see the late throws and the early throws, but not the bang-bang ones. Is the ball caught when it hits the glove (as judged by sound today), or when the glove closes (completely...partially?) and how can you tell when the ball hits the pocket by looking at a video?
soxhop411 said:
Thanks - didn't pick up on that. So saving a close-call challenge until the latter innings is pretty important. That will substantially reduce the likelihood of slowing down the game.
Me? I prefer a "booth review" regime for now, which seems to work very well in football. Keep the managers out of it completely while the system is being evolved perfected.
MLBN just explained it a bit better…. say JF is out of challanges and there is a blown call in the 8th inning. He can go out and argue with the ump and try to convice him and the Crew Chief to go to replay, though the ump could say "no"geoduck no quahog said:
I
I'm fine with not reviewing the neighborhood play, but let's just go and find an eloquent way to write it and put it in the rules already. It's now pretty much official.
Managers not being able to challenge home runs is kind of weird. I guess it's good in a way since it saves them from having to use the challenge since the umps will usually review it if there's any question, but still, seems like they should have that choice if Joe West decides to be a douche and not review that HR.
Managers not being able to challenge home runs is kind of weird. I guess it's good in a way since it saves them from having to use the challenge since the umps will usually review it if there's any question, but still, seems like they should have that choice if Joe West decides to be a douche and not review that HR.
You can pretty much tell when it hits the glove as the glove moves a bit. If a play is so close that you can't, there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn. Which is fine because that means it was essentially a tie to begin with, which happens very rarely.geoduck no quahog said:
They're trying to fix obviously incorrect calls like the Galarraga almost-perfect game, not introduce more opportunity for randomness.
cromulence said:
The way it's written, though, the neighborhood play isn't reviewable on a double play. But if the relay to first base isn't in time, then it is not a double play . . . and it might be reviewable.
Lose Remerswaal said:
Very interesting...all they would have to do is put in "attempted" double play to fix that, but for now it would seem you're right.
The way they are doing this is so stupid. On the majority of close calls, the correct outcome is known to people at home within 30 seconds of the completion of the play. There is no need for managers challenges, no need for umpires to meet and view the plays together. Just add 15 umpires, put one in the television booth, and when they see a replay that shows an egregiously wrong call, they radio down to the crew chief and tell them the correct call. It seems like the goal is to design a system that everyone hates, so that they can say, "Well, we tried, let's go back to the old way."
Plympton91 said:
I agree with all of this and have exclaimed that the umps should be on board with always-on instant review because it adds people to their union. MLB is trying to limit scope of instant reply the way NBA (stupidly) and NFL (less stupidly) and tennis (smartly) do. Maybe it's a way to keep umping costs down, because none of those are analogous sports.
NBA and NFL are timed games - you are interrupting flow to review plays. In tennis, between dead-simple rules, easy-to-see calls, an abundance of judges (5 line judges per side + ump), and having electronic sensors on everything, the challenge is truly there as a last-resort to maximize accuracy. Baseball is a different beast from all of these.
There are nuanced rules, messy/hard-to-see plays (on the ground), 4-7 total umps on huge playing surface watching several different types of plays, and no electronic sensors. In addition, time between plays is sufficient for all plays to be instantly reviewed and revised from an ump upstairs. It's a conceptual no-brainer.
Plympton91 said:
zenter said:
Thank you both for more coherently making the point I've been trying to make. Well said.
I also agree. I would have an extra umpire dedicated to each game, only watching video - with a communications link to the field staff. He (and only he) gives a signal that he'll review the play once the ball is dead. If the next pitch is thrown before any ruling is made, play continues (it's up to the batter to step out of the box if he thinks buying time is necessary).
It'll be interesting to see how the umps re-set base runners after an over-turned play. I imagine that's going to lead to a lot of controversy.
It'll be interesting to see how the umps re-set base runners after an over-turned play. I imagine that's going to lead to a lot of controversy.
geoduck no quahog said:
Despite the overriding good of replay, this has to be the biggest flaw: balls in play.
What do you do if a diving CF is given credit for a catch -- but then on replay it's a trap. Does a runner on second just get third, or home? Now, what if said runner on second broke for home and upon rounding third, the 3B coach knows he's gonna get doubled up so he sends the guy home (figuring, well, maybe it'll get overturned and we'll get the run). Now the CF, who knows he got a bullshit out call, throws the ball home and airmails it. Now the batter, who was called out and never even touched first base gets second?
I guess more generally, what happens on any ball-in-play situation in which an out is called -- but the offensive team acts like it isn't -- and then on review, the offensive team is validated.
So, in the above CF trap/catch scenario with a runner at second, if an out's called erroneously on a trap yet the runner keeps heading home, should the CF throw to second and double him up or throw home?
So, in the above CF trap/catch scenario with a runner at second, if an out's called erroneously on a trap yet the runner keeps heading home, should the CF throw to second and double him up or throw home?
I've asked that question a lot. Even worse, what if a ball is called foul so the fielders stop going after it, but on replay it's overturned and ruled fair?
zenter said:
In the short term, yes. But in the long term they'll be replaced by robots, and instituting any kind of replay is the next major step towards that. Best to make it complicated and time consuming so it's less useful.
Brian McTaggart @brianmctaggart 28m
Joe Torre said all teams will have five games in which to use instant replay during Spring Training.
Joe Torre said all teams will have five games in which to use instant replay during Spring Training.
When people talk about call reversal I've always thought the same thing...the ump called it foul and when they check it, it was actually fair. Now what? Doesn't make any sense in terms of helping the game.glennhoffmania said:
On the other hand, expanding replay for base calls actually can help but not sure how often this will have to be checked. If it's almost every play, that'll just draw out games even more....maybe only the challenges could work in that situation?
bobbo said:
Same thing as fan interference - umpire's discretion.
And, it helps with the game by getting the call right.
If you hit a fair ball, you shouldn't find yourself standing at bat again with an extra strike against you.
I agree with not batting again...I just know if I hit a fair ball that was called foul I would've wanted to chance to run rather than just get a base
It seems like they're happy with how it's going so far though http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/in-first-test-of-expanded-replay-call-is-upheld?ymd=20140303&content_id=68627570&vkey=news_mlb
It seems like they're happy with how it's going so far though http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/in-first-test-of-expanded-replay-call-is-upheld?ymd=20140303&content_id=68627570&vkey=news_mlb
I wonder if umpires will be instructed to call a ball close to the foul line fair. This way the runner would only be called back on a review instead of using umpire discretion if it is reversed with a foul call. i don`t think the umpires would do it because it would make them like they get more calls wrong. I do think if they have any doubt they should call it fair though.
That's what they've done with borderline HR calls. When's the last time you've seen a HR reversed after video review?
bobbo said:
Given the odds of a player getting on base are generally lower than 50%, and certainly lower with an extra strike, I would imagine any player would take the option of even just being on 1st over being back at the plate with either 1 or 2 strikes on him.
West seemed to do pretty good with conferencing with other umpires in 2004.
No matter what he has done since then, after the 2004 ALCS, he's pretty much had a free pass in my book.
No matter what he has done since then, after the 2004 ALCS, he's pretty much had a free pass in my book.
