Replay to Expand in 2014

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
MentalDisabldLst said:
My point was, yeah, it should be fixed.  And yeah, people shouldn't be dumb.  But replay has not hurt the adjudication of this issue - pointing out this flaw is not an indictment of replay.
 
I disagree. This speaks to the flaws in the implementation of the replay system. They're not correcting the mistakes that are correctable, leaving alone controversial/close calls. Again, this system has only a passing resemblance to a system with the goal of getting as many calls as possible right in a timely manner. A failure of the system on an easily-determined factual matter calls into question the capability/willingness of MLB to make the replay system actually succeed.
 
EDIT: I'll add that the fact that these errors occurred in the past is no excuse for a replay system to fail in this simple regard.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,697
NY
Has there ever been a replay system that involves communicating with officials who aren't on site?  I'm waiting for the first incident where the headsets fail in the middle of a review and the umps can't get an answer from MLB headquarters.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,536
glennhoffmania said:
Has there ever been a replay system that involves communicating with officials who aren't on site?  I'm waiting for the first incident where the headsets fail in the middle of a review and the umps can't get an answer from MLB headquarters.
NHL has the war room in TOR. That's all I think.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,808
soxhop411 said:
NHL has the war room in TOR. That's all I think.
 
And it works extremely well. I think having the umps in NY is the right way to go, but the challenge structure is wrong. Honestly, I think they need even more umps - someone needs to be watching each and every game back in the war room and should be ready to buzz the umps or whatever if a call needs to be reviewed. Leaving it up to the managers doesn't seem like the way to go and the on-field umps definitely aren't going to initiate reviews themselves, at least not as often as they should. It would take a lot more manpower but that seems like the best way to me.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
cromulence said:
I'm glad they're doing this, but has a rule ever been changed (or instituted for that matter) in the middle of a season?

In this case I'd guess everyone - umps, players, coaches, etc. - are all for it, but it still seems odd that several hundred games were played under one interpretation and now the rest will be played under a new one.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,626
South Boston
Boggs26 said:
I'm glad they're doing this, but has a rule ever been changed (or instituted for that matter) in the middle of a season?

In this case I'd guess everyone - umps, players, coaches, etc. - are all for it, but it still seems odd that several hundred games were played under one interpretation and now the rest will be played under a new one.
I may be misremembering, but didn't the whole replay thing start when a HR was incorrectly called a foul or something, them BAM in the playoffs, they announced replay for HRs?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,536
Reds manager Bryan Price ejected for arguing a reviewed play.

Seems like they still got the call wrong even with replay.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,286
a basement on the hill
A Replay Disaster Scenario.
 
I was listening to the radio broadcast of the Sunday night game between LAA and MFY--8th inning of a pitcher's duel with the score tied at 2. Ellsbury walks to lead off.
 
Did anyone else watch this shit? I don't feel like writing it out.
 
What ruined, I mean fucking RUINED the game and the experience of listening to it on the radio, the replay scenario that played out:
 
McCann at the plate on a 2-2 count gets slightly grazed by a pitch and heads to first, but the umpire didn't see it that way, and neither did the announcers. Pitch didn't hit him they think and he should get back in the box. But Joe G. comes out and does the stall-for-time thing with the umps till someone in the booth must have said yes--the pitch grazed his arm. This shit took for e v e r. Umpires waddling over to put on the headphones and shit. 
 
When finally it was determined that yes, McCann had been grazed by the pitch. Scioscia comes out and changes pitchers. 
 
I can't come close to explaining how much this whole sequence sucked, but if you can imagine-- there was probably 14 minutes between the pitch that caused the challenge and the next pitch of the inning.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,697
NY
I was watching that, and if that was clear and convincing but the replay in the Reds game was not then I have no clue what they're looking at or how they're making these decisions.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,536
glennhoffmania said:
I was watching that, and if that was clear and convincing but the replay in the Reds game was not then I have no clue what they're looking at or how they're making these decisions.
its like they flip a coin for every  replay….
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,808
teddywingman said:
A Replay Disaster Scenario.
 
I was listening to the radio broadcast of the Sunday night game between LAA and MFY--8th inning of a pitcher's duel with the score tied at 2. Ellsbury walks to lead off.
 
Did anyone else watch this shit? I don't feel like writing it out.
 
What ruined, I mean fucking RUINED the game and the experience of listening to it on the radio, the replay scenario that played out:
 
McCann at the plate on a 2-2 count gets slightly grazed by a pitch and heads to first, but the umpire didn't see it that way, and neither did the announcers. Pitch didn't hit him they think and he should get back in the box. But Joe G. comes out and does the stall-for-time thing with the umps till someone in the booth must have said yes--the pitch grazed his arm. This shit took for e v e r. Umpires waddling over to put on the headphones and shit. 
 
When finally it was determined that yes, McCann had been grazed by the pitch. Scioscia comes out and changes pitchers. 
 
I can't come close to explaining how much this whole sequence sucked, but if you can imagine-- there was probably 14 minutes between the pitch that caused the challenge and the next pitch of the inning.
 
It took even longer because the umps huddled up and discussed it and stuck with the original call, and THEN Girardi challenged it. The part that's bugging me the most is that I've seen some really obvious replays take wayyyy too long. It was pretty obvious that the pitch hit him, but the umps had the headphones on for a solid two minutes. They need to make up their minds more quickly if the play isn't close. I think they're really scared of missing one and having it be a huge controversy (AKA the example above).
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
teddywingman said:
When finally it was determined that yes, McCann had been grazed by the pitch. Scioscia comes out and changes pitchers. 
 
I can't come close to explaining how much this whole sequence sucked, but if you can imagine-- there was probably 14 minutes between the pitch that caused the challenge and the next pitch of the inning.
 
You can't look at it that way, though.  Had the call been made correctly the first time, Sciocsia would have made the pitching change anyway, so the time that was impacted by replay was only from when the pitch was thrown until when Scioscia came out to make the pitching change.
 

OfTheCarmen

Cow Humper
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2007
5,259
I was also watching that and was confused that Joe was able to ask for a challenge.  I thought managers had 1 challenge before the 6th or 7th and if they got it right, they got another, and the umps could initiate a challenge for anything after the 6th or 7th.
 
Am I just misunderstanging the rule?  If I am not, and Joe came out and asked them to review it....what the hell is the point of the challenge?
 
"Hey, that looked close...you wanna review that?"
"Nah"
"Oh...then I wanna use my challenge"
"Oh alrighty then"
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,808
OfTheCarmen said:
I was also watching that and was confused that Joe was able to ask for a challenge.  I thought managers had 1 challenge before the 6th or 7th and if they got it right, they got another, and the umps could initiate a challenge for anything after the 6th or 7th.
 
Am I just misunderstanging the rule?  If I am not, and Joe came out and asked them to review it....what the hell is the point of the challenge?
 
"Hey, that looked close...you wanna review that?"
"Nah"
"Oh...then I wanna use my challenge"
"Oh alrighty then"
 
I don't like this either, but it seems to be that the umps won't challenge on their own unless you've exhausted your challenge already. Obviously once the game is into the 7th it makes no sense to hold onto the challenge but I'd like to see less and less dependence on the managers having to come out and challenge.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The rule is that the manager may initiate a challenge at any point, if I'm reading this correctly.  That means even after the start of the 7th.  The thing that changes is that after the 7th, the umpire crew chief can also decide to review something.  The way it's written is that the crew chief can be asked to review something by the manager even if the manager is out of challenges, but can say no in that circumstance if he does not believe a review is warranted.
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?c_id=mlb&content_id=66737984&vkey=pr_mlb&ymd=20140116
 
I'm a big proponent of getting the calls right and using technology to increase the rate of calls that are made correctly, but the rules for MLB's implementation of replay are pretty ridiculous.  Why limit when an umpire can decide a replay is needed?  Why include that there must be clear and convincing evidence to overturn the call on the field, placing emphasis on the original call, rather than letting the review technician simply make the right call based on what they see?  Why even use a challenge system, rather than just having the manager go out, make his case, and letting the umpires either review or not based on the situation?  Removing the challenge system removes the stalling tactic side of this, and that's an issue we haven't see the worst of.  If a manager has a replay available in the 8th inning with the bases loaded and needs time for a reliever to warm up, he can burn a replay challenge that he knows he's going to lose to let his reliever finish warming up.  That can, and at some point, probably will happen.  And why not put monitors in the stadiums and let the umpires review calls themselves.  I don't see a single advantage to having a crew in New York handle all of the calls.
 
I want this system to work, but MLB did about as bad a job of rolling this out as they could have.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,697
NY
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
I'm a big proponent of getting the calls right and using technology to increase the rate of calls that are made correctly, but the rules for MLB's implementation of replay are pretty ridiculous.  Why limit when an umpire can decide a replay is needed?  Why include that there must be clear and convincing evidence to overturn the call on the field, placing emphasis on the original call, rather than letting the review technician simply make the right call based on what they see?  Why even use a challenge system, rather than just having the manager go out, make his case, and letting the umpires either review or not based on the situation?  Removing the challenge system removes the stalling tactic side of this, and that's an issue we haven't see the worst of.  If a manager has a replay available in the 8th inning with the bases loaded and needs time for a reliever to warm up, he can burn a replay challenge that he knows he's going to lose to let his reliever finish warming up.  That can, and at some point, probably will happen.  And why not put monitors in the stadiums and let the umpires review calls themselves.  I don't see a single advantage to having a crew in New York handle all of the calls.
 
I want this system to work, but MLB did about as bad a job of rolling this out as they could have.
 
I agree except for the part about clear and convincing.  If there's any doubt I think they should defer to the original call made on the field.  But the part that I find most ridiculous is letting the umpires decide whether a replay is needed.  They're going to be hesitant to start a process that could make them look bad.  Why they can't have a 5th ump sitting in a booth making this decision is beyond me.  Get rid of the challenges, both to avoid the delay tactics you mentioned and to eliminate any involvement of the teams in the process.  The best way to get calls right is to have an objective observer determine if a tough call made in real time was wrong or not.  The goal should be to get rid of discussions and arguments between coaches and umps, not to encourgage them.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
glennhoffmania said:
 
The goal should be to get rid of discussions and arguments between coaches and umps, not to encourgage them.
 
I agree with this 100%.  There are a number of ways to skin this particular cat, but I think what you suggest could work quite well.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,808
I'm with all of that, but I totally disagree on having a monitor for the on-field umpires to use. I thought that system was really slow last year and that was with very limited replay. It also came out that they were using surprisingly small monitors for the reviews, which makes sense if you consider the logistics of installing a huge TV just off the field at Fenway or Wrigley. I think using a central location is the best way, but it just needs some tightening up overall - especially with how the challenges are initiated. I know that the umpires can initiate a challenge by rule, but so far in practice it seems that they won't unless you're out of challenges. Maybe I'm wrong but don't think I've seen it happen.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,697
NY
I'm not in favor of in-field monitors either.  I think the field umps should be left out of the process entirely, and someone (whether in a booth or at MLB headquarters) should make the call and pass it on to the crew chief.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I'm fine with the idea of keeping the field umps out of it, but I don't like one office in one location handling all of it.  There are too many ways that can go wrong, just from a technological standpoint.  Keeping the review crew on site might mean having to hire a bunch more people, but it minimizes transmission errors and also means each crew is focused on one game and not up to 15 of them.  This would make Glenn's idea of removing challenges possible, as well.
 

OfTheCarmen

Cow Humper
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2007
5,259
cromulence said:
I'm with all of that, but I totally disagree on having a monitor for the on-field umpires to use. I thought that system was really slow last year and that was with very limited replay. It also came out that they were using surprisingly small monitors for the reviews, which makes sense if you consider the logistics of installing a huge TV just off the field at Fenway or Wrigley. I think using a central location is the best way, but it just needs some tightening up overall - especially with how the challenges are initiated. I know that the umpires can initiate a challenge by rule, but so far in practice it seems that they won't unless you're out of challenges. Maybe I'm wrong but don't think I've seen it happen.
 
Havent the umps initiated replays a couple times simply to verify the count?  Granted they got it wrong that one time, but that's the most memorable "ump initiated replay" I can think of.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,697
NY
Regarding having a larger payroll, if replays will always be initiated by someone not on the field they'll have to hire more people whether they sit at the parks or in NYC.  They'll have to be watching every second of every game, so they need at least 15 reviewers plus whatever crew they'd have to assist.  The only issue is whether it makes sense to have them travel around or sit at MLB all of the time.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
They could also have a crew for every stadium.  They work when the team is home, and don't when they're not.  They could also pull from the umpire pool by expanding the total number of umpires operating at the major league level and increase the size of each crew by one person, then rotate them through the booth from night to night.
 
There are plenty of options better than having one crew in New York taking calls for the entire league.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,697
NY
I totally agree with that.  I just meant that they'll have to hire more people either way. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
glennhoffmania said:
I totally agree with that.  I just meant that they'll have to hire more people either way. 
 
Yeah.  It looks like we both think that would be a good thing.
 
 
wolfe_boston said:
"Get off my lawn" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 
All of us loved this game before a review system was implemented.  Again, some people, including me, don't think increasing the accuracy rate from 99.5 to 99.8% is worth some of the other effects it has on the game.  By the way, I also hate the use of a replay system in the NFL.  I hate hearing the announcer say, "he has to make a football move" in reference to a possible catch.
 
If Joe Morgan and Don Baylor are to be dismissed as idtiots, I will now conduct a poll by contacting MLB umpires. 
 
I'm replying here to stop cluttering the tracking replay thread with general replay discussion.  Here's my original response from that thread which I deleted.
 
Wolfe, you keep throwing out numbers like "increasing the accuracy from 99.5% to 99.8%."  Care to back that up with something?  I have a hard time believing umpires get 99.5% of reviewable calls right, with or without replay.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,808
OfTheCarmen said:
 
Havent the umps initiated replays a couple times simply to verify the count?  Granted they got it wrong that one time, but that's the most memorable "ump initiated replay" I can think of.
 
Those seem kind of unique since losing track of the count is pretty much an umpire fuck-up to begin with. I was thinking more along the lines of a controversial play happens and without being prompted or questioned, the umps start a review. Or even the manager comes out to ask for a review and gets one without having to use his challenge. I could definitely be wrong but I don't remember it happening.
 

OfTheCarmen

Cow Humper
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2007
5,259
cromulence said:
 
Those seem kind of unique since losing track of the count is pretty much an umpire fuck-up to begin with. I was thinking more along the lines of a controversial play happens and without being prompted or questioned, the umps start a review. Or even the manager comes out to ask for a review and gets one without having to use his challenge. I could definitely be wrong but I don't remember it happening.
 
Of the 172 replays currently listed by http://baseballsavant.com/apps/replays.php, a lot more Umpire initiated replays than I would have thought (37/172, 21.5%).  And similarly interesting was how many of them ocurred prior to the 8th inning.  I didnt count them all, but I'd say at least 50%.
 
# Game Date Game Challenging Team Type Over Turned?
150 2014-04-24 Royals vs. Indians Umpire home-plate collision No
148 2014-04-24 Phillies vs. Dodgers Umpire home-plate collision No
135 2014-04-21 Astros vs. Mariners Umpire force play No
133 2014-04-21 White Sox vs. Tigers Umpire tag play Yes
123 2014-04-20 Orioles vs. Red Sox Umpire home run No
111 2014-04-19 Phillies vs. Rockies Umpire home-plate collision Yes
110 2014-04-18 Angels vs. Tigers Umpire home run Yes
106 2014-04-18 Orioles vs. Red Sox Umpire force play Yes
102 2014-04-16 Nationals vs. Marlins Umpire home run No
98 2014-04-16 Pirates vs. Reds Umpire home-plate collision No
88 2014-04-14 Nationals vs. Marlins Umpire stadium boundary call No
85 2014-04-13 Marlins vs. Phillies Umpire home-plate collision No
81 2014-04-13 Indians vs. White Sox Umpire home run
72 2014-04-11 Nationals vs. Braves Umpire home-plate collision No
70 2014-04-11 Athletics vs. Mariners Umpire home run Yes
69 2014-04-11 Nationals vs. Braves Umpire home-plate collision No
66 2014-04-10 Athletics vs. Twins Umpire home-plate collision No
65 2014-04-09 Marlins vs. Nationals Umpire home-plate collision No
63 2014-04-09 Athletics vs. Twins Umpire tag play No
62 2014-04-09 Pirates vs. Cubs Umpire home run No
60 2014-04-09 Marlins vs. Nationals Umpire home run No
56 2014-04-09 Marlins vs. Nationals Umpire home run Yes
54 2014-04-09 Rangers vs. Red Sox Umpire home run No
50 2014-04-08 Mets vs. Braves Umpire force play Yes
46 2014-04-07 Athletics vs. Twins Umpire home run No
35 2014-04-05 Yankees vs. Blue Jays Umpire home-plate collision No
24 2014-04-03 Mariners vs. Athletics Umpire home-plate collision No
21 2014-04-03 Cardinals vs. Reds Umpire home run Yes
20 2014-04-03 Rockies vs. Marlins Umpire tag play No
19 2014-04-03 Mariners vs. Athletics Umpire home run No
13 2014-04-02 Cubs vs. Pirates Umpire force play No
11 2014-04-02 Twins vs. White Sox Umpire other Yes
9 2014-04-01 Blue Jays vs. Rays Umpire home run No
2 2014-03-31 Indians vs. Athletics Umpire home-plate collision No
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
In fairness to wolfe, I think DDB's quote completely and emphatically confirms his point, and if you want to say the phrase "unwritten rule" doesn't apply to what's described there I think you're arguing semantics. The gist of the quote is that umpires have traditionally called plays based primarily on what they see, but additionally and importantly on what they know about the expectations of the participants. Since the rule book says nothing about this latter part, it's certainly an unwritten something or other....call it an "unwritten secondary criterion" if you want, but let's stop talking as if wolfe is just making up shit, because a pretty good authority has just been quoted resoundingly to the contrary.
 
Except, this isn't what wolfe is talking about.  He's not arguing that umpires should be able to call plays based on those factors without being subjected to technology which can confirm or overturn their call... he's arguing that runners who make bad decisions should be punished for them with an out regardless of whether a tag has actually been made or not.
 
No one is going to argue that umpires should never rely on factors other than seeing and processing that a tag has or hasn't been made, or that it's never excusable to have to lean on the expected result when making a decision.  Umpires are human and plays don't always unfold in ways in which they can accumulate enough empirical evidence to get the call right... which is why replay is necessary and is going to be a positive for the game over all in the long term.
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
Snodgrass'Muff said:
They could also have a crew for every stadium.  They work when the team is home, and don't when they're not.  They could also pull from the umpire pool by expanding the total number of umpires operating at the major league level and increase the size of each crew by one person, then rotate them through the booth from night to night.
 
There are plenty of options better than having one crew in New York taking calls for the entire league.
Why can`t the official scorer be the replay official also. His requirements seem to be somewhat similar to an umpire, in that he must know the rules, be aware of whats going on in the field, and of course be thin-skinned. Why not rotate another umpire through the booth?
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,808
OfTheCarmen said:
 
Of the 172 replays currently listed by http://baseballsavant.com/apps/replays.php, a lot more Umpire initiated replays than I would have thought (37/172, 31.5%).  And similarly interesting was how many of them ocurred prior to the 8th inning.  I didnt count them all, but I'd say at least 50%.
 
# Game Date Game Challenging Team Type Over Turned?
150 2014-04-24 Royals vs. Indians Umpire home-plate collision No
148 2014-04-24 Phillies vs. Dodgers Umpire home-plate collision No
135 2014-04-21 Astros vs. Mariners Umpire force play No
133 2014-04-21 White Sox vs. Tigers Umpire tag play Yes
123 2014-04-20 Orioles vs. Red Sox Umpire home run No
111 2014-04-19 Phillies vs. Rockies Umpire home-plate collision Yes
110 2014-04-18 Angels vs. Tigers Umpire home run Yes
106 2014-04-18 Orioles vs. Red Sox Umpire force play Yes
102 2014-04-16 Nationals vs. Marlins Umpire home run No
98 2014-04-16 Pirates vs. Reds Umpire home-plate collision No
88 2014-04-14 Nationals vs. Marlins Umpire stadium boundary call No
85 2014-04-13 Marlins vs. Phillies Umpire home-plate collision No
81 2014-04-13 Indians vs. White Sox Umpire home run
72 2014-04-11 Nationals vs. Braves Umpire home-plate collision No
70 2014-04-11 Athletics vs. Mariners Umpire home run Yes
69 2014-04-11 Nationals vs. Braves Umpire home-plate collision No
66 2014-04-10 Athletics vs. Twins Umpire home-plate collision No
65 2014-04-09 Marlins vs. Nationals Umpire home-plate collision No
63 2014-04-09 Athletics vs. Twins Umpire tag play No
62 2014-04-09 Pirates vs. Cubs Umpire home run No
60 2014-04-09 Marlins vs. Nationals Umpire home run No
56 2014-04-09 Marlins vs. Nationals Umpire home run Yes
54 2014-04-09 Rangers vs. Red Sox Umpire home run No
50 2014-04-08 Mets vs. Braves Umpire force play Yes
46 2014-04-07 Athletics vs. Twins Umpire home run No
35 2014-04-05 Yankees vs. Blue Jays Umpire home-plate collision No
24 2014-04-03 Mariners vs. Athletics Umpire home-plate collision No
21 2014-04-03 Cardinals vs. Reds Umpire home run Yes
20 2014-04-03 Rockies vs. Marlins Umpire tag play No
19 2014-04-03 Mariners vs. Athletics Umpire home run No
13 2014-04-02 Cubs vs. Pirates Umpire force play No
11 2014-04-02 Twins vs. White Sox Umpire other Yes
9 2014-04-01 Blue Jays vs. Rays Umpire home run No
2 2014-03-31 Indians vs. Athletics Umpire home-plate collision No
 
 
I stand corrected. I probably just filter those out because the challenge system bugs me so much that I focus on the mangers strolling out to buy time while the bench coach runs over to the phone. I hate it.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
Snodgrass'Muff said:
They could also have a crew for every stadium.  They work when the team is home, and don't when they're not.  They could also pull from the umpire pool by expanding the total number of umpires operating at the major league level and increase the size of each crew by one person, then rotate them through the booth from night to night.
 
There are plenty of options better than having one crew in New York taking calls for the entire league.
 
I really don't think there's any way this would happen. I can't imagine the collective ego of the umpires' union could handle every single one of their mugs not being on camera night in and night out. Can you imagine how much Fat Joe West's singing career would suffer if he were in the booth on Friday night of a Red Sox-Yankees series?
 
In all seriousness, I'm certain the only way we'll see dedicated replay officials is if they're all nameless, faceless officials located in NY.
 

OfTheCarmen

Cow Humper
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2007
5,259
This came up in a game thread over the weekend.  Managers can use and lose their initial replay request and then still petition the umpires to initiate their own review at any point in the game.
 
Is this limited to only certain types of calls, or can they petition on any reviewable play?  When the A's manager came out, his request to review the play was agreed to even though he was out of official reviews, but it was potentially a "home plat collision" rule where there could have been interference called.
 
I doubt there are any numbers to look at for this, but I'd love to see how many requests for review after using up your official review have been rejected.  if these requests are mostly being agreed to, then it seems the whole limited reviews per game thing isnt really working.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,540
Hingham, MA
At this point I think I've seen enough inconsistencies with bang-bang force plays at first that I might be in favor of removing those from reviewable plays. That, or they need to develop a much better definition of "irrefutable evidence". Those calls all seem like coinflips, and the calls I have seen have nothing to do with the call on the field (edit: by which I mean, the original safe or out call is not a factor in what the final call is after replay - I have seen inconclusive replays where the call is changed, and inconclusive replays where the call stands. Heck, I've even seen conclusive replays to overturn where the call stands anyway).
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,586
OfTheCarmen said:
This came up in a game thread over the weekend.  Managers can use and lose their initial replay request and then still petition the umpires to initiate their own review at any point in the game.
 
Is this limited to only certain types of calls, or can they petition on any reviewable play?  When the A's manager came out, his request to review the play was agreed to even though he was out of official reviews, but it was potentially a "home plat collision" rule where there could have been interference called.
 
I doubt there are any numbers to look at for this, but I'd love to see how many requests for review after using up your official review have been rejected.  if these requests are mostly being agreed to, then it seems the whole limited reviews per game thing isnt really working.
 
This is going to be where we could potentially see some really interesting action on replay. Will umps tend to grant the request or no? Which umps will have greater and lesser tendencies to acquiesce? Should managers try to invest in a reputation for restraint in making such requests so that they are taken more seriously or be aggressive in asking for replays to get more?
 
This is a really weird gray zone that hasn't been explored yet.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,677
Mid-surburbia
Reverend said:
 
This is going to be where we could potentially see some really interesting action on replay. Will umps tend to grant the request or no? Which umps will have greater and lesser tendencies to acquiesce? Should managers try to invest in a reputation for restraint in making such requests so that they are taken more seriously or be aggressive in asking for replays to get more?
 
This is a really weird gray zone that hasn't been explored yet.
The near-immediate trend towards all extra requests being granted is inevitable. It needs a tweak.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,586
JimBoSox9 said:
The near-immediate trend towards all extra requests being granted is inevitable. It needs a tweak.
 
You're speaking my language.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,615
Watching today's Padres-White Sox game, a Padre was ruled out by the 2B ump on an attempted steal. It was a bang-bang play. Padres challenged the call
 
The runner more likely than not beat the tag, but replays were inconclusive. Not surpisingly, the call on the field stood. I wish I had a stopwatch, though, because the whole process with NYC review took at least 4:30 and maybe as much as 6 minutes. Ridiculous.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,536
some stats on replay up to this point
 
 
 
More than 1,000 games into the season, the complaints about instant replay have tapered to a minimum, like they always were going to, because the game is far better with it than without it.
The focus on the collision rule at home plate is understandable due to the murkiness of the rule, and replay itself is shouldering much of the blame even though it's merely a tool for applying the misguided edict. Same thing went for the ill-fated transfer rule, which got foisted on replay because Luddites love nothing more than yelling from their porches that the robots are taking over.
Well, they are. And good thing. Because data through Tuesday shows nearly 250 blown calls have been overturned so far this season, a staggering number considering at this time last season replay had overturned just 19 umpire misses, all on home runs.
We've learned plenty about replay thus far, and below are 10 things you probably didn't know about it. Before that, here's one thing you almost assuredly do know and, if not, another you ought learn quickly: Replay is good, and it's only going to get better.
1. Umpires blow more calls than anyone anticipated
 
OK, so a society that harbors more contempt for officiating crews than the IRS probably did assume that umpires are every bit as bad as they seem. The truth is they're making instantaneous decisions on calls that come down to minute fractions of a second, and this isn't so much an excuse as it is to point out why instant replay is so vital. To expect anything close to perfection from humans not built to make such calls is ridiculous, especially when technology exists to bring us far closer to that ideal.
 
Through Tuesday, replay umpires overturned 246 of 533 calls, or 46.2 percent of the total run through the New York hub. During studies of calls last year, MLB estimated that umpires missed 377 throughout the season. This number, it turns out, was folly, and the league now understands why it grossly underestimated the number of overturns.
The replay system subsists on television-broadcast feeds. Without replay, broadcasts were far less likely to focus on the sort of super-close play that has become the basis of most challenges. In addition to changing the game, replay has helped TV evolve, too, where it can play advocate for getting the call right. And because of that, baseball is on pace for more than 560 overturns – one blown call remedied every four games.
 
2. Two plays account for more than three-quarters of challenges
Between the force play (235 challenges) and the tag play (171), 76.2 percent of challenges come on two common plays at the bases. Considering the early ideas of expanding replay focused on boundary calls (home runs, ground-rule doubles, fan interference, etc.) and fair-foul calls down the lines, the leap to including plays on the bases proved vital.
Almost all of the force plays happen at first base, with a runner trying to beat out an infield single, whereas the tag plays range around the diamond and can be the most difficult for an umpire to see from a good angle. Surprisingly, umpires seem to do a better job on the tag plays; of the 171, only 80 have been changed, an overturn rate of 46.8 percent. Perhaps force plays are more obvious, or more cameras focus on first base, but managers have been extremely successful on them, overturning 123, or 52.3 percent.
The next most-common challenges are home run (43), home-plate collision (25), hit by pitch (19) and fair/foul in the outfield (10).
3. Officially, the fastest replay was 23 seconds ... and it actually took almost two minutes
Zack Cozart fooled everyone in the stadium 11 days ago, including the firework tech who set off 10 blasts following Cozart's shot down the left-field line at Great American Ball Park. It was a classic line hugger, born for replay, and it showcases the system's inefficiencies.
Reds manager Bryan Price exited the dugout 20 seconds after Cozart swung. He talked with umpires for 44 seconds. They took about 17 seconds to walk to the headsets. At which point MLB confirmed the foul call, a minute and 44 seconds after Price came out of the dugout. Because only 23 seconds were spent corresponding with New York, the reported time is rather misleading.
The fastest call, it would seem, was by umpire Tim Welke on a not-really-all-that-questionable-but-better-safe-than-sorry Alex Avila home run. Welke spent literally eight seconds wearing the headset. One can imagine the umpire on the other side of the conversation told Welke to stop wasting his time.
MLB hoped the replays would take anywhere between 60 and 90 seconds. This has proven the most problematic part of the system. It's not just the managers coming out to do the awkward dance with umpires that initiates the challenge; at least something is happening there. It's that so many of the plays are so close, the crews rotating through New York – especially those there for the first time – have not yet developed the acuity to assess the plays as quickly as they must. It lends credence to the idea of full-time replay umpires, specialists who can cut down on the time.
 
Crazy-long replay times are mostly a thing of the past. Three of the four longest – 4:45, 4:40 and 4:35 – all came April 2, three days into the season. Then again, the second longest was June 12,a hit-by-pitch call that stood and took far longer than necessary.
Of the reported replay times, 91 took less than a minute, 220 were fewer than the target 90 seconds, 329 took two minutes or less, and 61 more than three minutes. Eliminating that last category altogether should be the top priority for replay going forward.
 
 


\
rest can be found here
 
So once again replay is showing how bad umps are
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
One wrong righted every 4 games.  Hallelujah.
 
How many years until the obvious wisdom prevails and they let balls and strikes get challenged?  I say 3-4.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
10,442
Strange one in the Oakland-Toronto game tonight. I'd explain it, but the Times article will do it more succinctly, I'm sure. Basically Toronto challenged to HAVE their baserunner called out, not safe, because the play continued at the plate for a "force" that would become a non-force. Thus a run. 
 
Like I said, the article will be less confusing. Definitely one of the odd, "team wants the opposite of what's good for them because play continued into something else that was better for them" scenarios that folks speculated would be the drawbacks of replay.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/07/03/sports/baseball/ap-bba-blue-jays-odd-replay.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
LeoCarrillo said:
Strange one in the Oakland-Toronto game tonight. I'd explain it, but the Times article will do it more succinctly, I'm sure. Basically Toronto challenged to HAVE their baserunner called out, not safe, because the play continued at the plate for a "force" that would become a non-force. Thus a run. 
 
Like I said, the article will be less confusing. Definitely one of the odd, "team wants the opposite of what's good for them because play continued into something else that was better for them" scenarios that folks speculated would be the drawbacks of replay.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/07/03/sports/baseball/ap-bba-blue-jays-odd-replay.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
I don't think the issue here is that a team is using replay to get its own player called out (so as to gain an advantage afterwards). The issue here is the bigger problem of replay in that you can not turn back time on a play to correct a call and then predict what would have happened later in that play had the correct call been made. 
Players react to the calls as they happen and continue to play accordingly. 
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,909
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
I agree with Lowrielucious: the issue isn't that a team challenged to have their own runner ruled out, but that the a judgment on what the umpires think would have happened occurred vis a vis the play at the plate.

This is a tough one. What happens when multiple put out attempts occur in the same play, and a former PO attempt impacts the circumstances of a succeeding PO attempt? Without being too long-winded, my initial reaction is "tough luck for the Jays, the play at home isn't reviewable." I reserve the right to change this view in a few minutes, but I have to change a diaper now. The diaper condition is under review.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
10,442
Lowrielicious said:
I don't think the issue here is that a team is using replay to get its own player called out (so as to gain an advantage afterwards). The issue here is the bigger problem of replay in that you can not turn back time on a play to correct a call and then predict what would have happened later in that play had the correct call been made. 
Players react to the calls as they happen and continue to play accordingly. 
I agree with your time-travel point being the core flaw. John Gibbons challenging to get his runner on first called out so his runner on third can score is its own extra-illuminating strangeness on top of it.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,909
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Diaper condition confirmed upon review. To clarify, I believe the play at the plate would be eligible for review, but only in regard to whether the runner beat the throw. In other words, the review should be made with respect to the conditions at the time of the play, which was that the force was in order. Tough one, and I'm still somewhat uncertain that it is the correct legal policy.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
I found it curious that Oakland decided to play under protest because the run was counted.  It's their own fault the run scored because the catcher should have tried to apply the tag regardless.
 
Despite the fact that the runner from first was initially ruled safe, in real time, the first baseman doesn't have time to hear the call before he makes the throw home.  So given that he knows he tagged the runner (he clearly made contact), it was on him to communicate to the catcher that the force was off and a tag required.  No different than a play in which the ball is hit to the 1B and he tags first before throwing to second to get the other runner.  First basemen are taught to yell "tag" or something to communicate to the SS/2B that they have to tag the runner because the force is off.  He should have done the same thing upon throwing home.  Based on the fact that the catcher simply caught the ball and made no attempt to tag the runner, we have to conclude the first baseman didn't say anything.  All players involved demonstrated a lack of baseball smarts all around, IMO.