Keeping track of replay

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
26,271
right here
OfTheCarmen said:
Anyone know of a way to get a list of all of the replays that get checked?  Could be some interesting analysis around which teams are doing it more, which innings, right/wrong, etc.
 
Let's try to do this, eh? If it happens in a Sox game report it here. Try to give situation, original call, which umpire made it, who challenged it, and result of review. (Anything else we should track?)
I'll try to collate the data now and then as the year goes on and will edit this post so that we can have a clean post with just the info.
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,779
Calgary, Canada
I believe Closecallsports.com was going to keep track of all the challenges. Haven't looked it at to see if there's a way they group them or if you can filter by team, but should be a complete source.
 

JFS7

lurker
Jul 21, 2005
182
from mlb
 
 instant replay mlb,so far

15 overturned / 43 replayed = 35%.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Its not always clear the challenges result in the correct outcome, so I would like to see that tracked if possible (questionable outcome).  I have seen 3 plays that I felt should have been overturned but was not, and I have only seen about a dozen challenges overall.  A play ot 1B (Pirates-Cubs, runner beat the throw but was called out), and more recently a  play at the plate where the runner was called out (Yankees-Blue Jays, C seemed blocked the plate and tagged the runner late) and a play at 2B called safe (Red Sox Rangers,  SS dropped ball after the transfer to throwing hand and runner should have been out IMO). Granted, these were all close plays and perhaps the criteria for overturning is it has to be more flagrant or there are technical interpretations of the rules we are unaware of.
 
I can live with close plays being missed in real time but f they are still missed on replay that would drive me nuts (assuming the call went against the team I am rooting for)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,253
Maine
Sampo Gida said:
Its not always clear the challenges result in the correct outcome, so I would like to see that tracked if possible (questionable outcome).  I have seen 3 plays that I felt should have been overturned but was not, and I have only seen about a dozen challenges overall.  A play ot 1B (Pirates-Cubs, runner beat the throw but was called out), and more recently a  play at the plate where the runner was called out (Yankees-Blue Jays, C seemed blocked the plate and tagged the runner late) and a play at 2B called safe (Red Sox Rangers,  SS dropped ball after the transfer to throwing hand and runner should have been out IMO). Granted, these were all close plays and perhaps the criteria for overturning is it has to be more flagrant or there are technical interpretations of the rules we are unaware of.
 
I can live with close plays being missed in real time but f they are still missed on replay that would drive me nuts (assuming the call went against the team I am rooting for)
 
In part due to the new replay system, the rule regarding balls dropped "on the transfer" counting as possession on a force out was changed.  Players are now required to complete the play without dropping the ball at all in order to get the out in those scenarios.  The replay challenge on the play last night was correctly upheld.
 

semsox

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,708
Charlottesville
Sampo Gida said:
Its not always clear the challenges result in the correct outcome, so I would like to see that tracked if possible (questionable outcome).  I have seen 3 plays that I felt should have been overturned but was not, and I have only seen about a dozen challenges overall.  A play ot 1B (Pirates-Cubs, runner beat the throw but was called out), and more recently a  play at the plate where the runner was called out (Yankees-Blue Jays, C seemed blocked the plate and tagged the runner late) and a play at 2B called safe (Red Sox Rangers,  SS dropped ball after the transfer to throwing hand and runner should have been out IMO). Granted, these were all close plays and perhaps the criteria for overturning is it has to be more flagrant or there are technical interpretations of the rules we are unaware of.
 
I can live with close plays being missed in real time but f they are still missed on replay that would drive me nuts (assuming the call went against the team I am rooting for)
 
Perhaps another to add to the list in last night's A's/Angels game. Announcers certainly thought it would be overturned, but it wasn't. Definitely a close call, but it seems the barrier to overturn a call like this is perhaps higher than I would like. That is, I wish calls like this could be made in a vacuum as to which call is more likely correct, rather than within the context of defaulting to the original call.
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_04_14_oakmlb_anamlb_1&mode=video&content_id=32091111&tcid=vpp_copy_32091111
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
4,159
tims4wins said:
Jesus christ that is maddening. Literally the same play as Sox-Yanks and the call is out. WTF.
I was watching the game and thought the exact same thing...it was the EXACT play as the Sunday night Sox game.  Call on the field was out...not enough evidence to over turn it, so the call remained out.  The opposite of what happened Sunday.
 
I think MLB needs to figure this out and they need to do it sooner rather than later.  I am all for replay and I am definitely for getting the call right, but there must be consistency or they will lose credibility.  I also don't want to see every bang bang play be reviewed for 4 minutes...that breaks up the flow of the game.  I think the league should quickly decide if there is enough evidence for an overturn, if not, let the call on the field stand.  And please, please, please be consistent.  
 
(as a side note, it's not an enjoyable experience to watch replays for 4 minutes trying to determine if the ball was 'in the glove' or 'in the back of the glove' or 'in the webbing of the glove'.  If it's that dang close, stick with the call on the field.)
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,840
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
normstalls said:
(as a side note, it's not an enjoyable experience to watch replays for 4 minutes trying to determine if the ball was 'in the glove' or 'in the back of the glove' or 'in the webbing of the glove'.  If it's that dang close, stick with the call on the field.)
 
Agreed. The guy making the call on the field could listen for the pop of the ball in the glove while he kept his eye on the bag to see when the runner's foot hit. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
teddywingman said:
The manager's challange aspect of this doesn't work. MLB needs to change this replay system before the allstar game--because right now it's a joke.
 
I said early on that the Rube Goldberg way in which this was implemented suggested to me that MLB didn't want the expansion of replay to be viewed as a success, and would use the "evidence" from this "experiment" in order to claim it doesn't work and revert to a much smaller range of plays that was reviewed.  Nothing I've seen so far in the implementation of the system or interpretation of the replays suggests that I was wrong.
 
I wish I wasn't so cynical.
 
All you have to do is have a 5th umpire in the TV booth with a cell phone who can text the crew chief if the first two or three replays shown on the broadcast indicate that the play was called incorrectly.  That's it.  Very simple.  They didn't pick that option.  Why not?
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Plympton91 said:
All you have to do is have a 5th umpire in the TV booth with a cell phone who can text the crew chief if the first two or three replays shown on the broadcast indicate that the play was called incorrectly.  That's it.  Very simple.  They didn't pick that option.  Why not?
 
I've been on this train as well, for years. It also works well with the future electronic strike-zone calling.
 
According to Olney on his podcast, there are three primary reasons from the MLB for not going to logical route: 1) there aren't enough "qualified umpires" to add 15-17 umpires to the current corps, 2) getting consistent and comprehensive equipment installed at all ballparks in time for Opening Day was nearly impossible, 3) managers would challenge every questionable call to the booth. All of these claims most observers, rightly, can call a big fat "BS" on.
 
The most likely reason is that MLB didn't want to hire more umps. Indeed, IIRC, there were rumors that MLB first proposed non-ump technicians managing the room in New York until it became clear that the advanced on-field experience and knowledge of umpires might be absolutely necessary, and that the umps union would rightly raise a ruckus.
 
The current solution has virtually nothing to do with the on-field problem of bad calls. And, as a result, doesn't actually take necessary logical steps to solve them. However, it does add a new form of human drama to every game. Which, if we look at the WWE, is a saleable good.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I would be fine going with "Jonny Sixpack" looking at replays and if the call is close enough that it takes a fourth angle and specialized umpire training then just let the call on the field stand.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,021
Boston
Plympton91 said:
I would be fine going with "Jonny Sixpack" looking at replays and if the call is close enough that it takes a fourth angle and specialized umpire training then just let the call on the field stand.
 
I completely agree. Hockey is the only sport that does this right with the replay official waiting to be consulted about on ice calls. It makes the entire process so much more efficient. The NFL has a major problem with this as well, it takes an eternity for the official to get off the field and begin reviewing a call. By the time they begin the review process the average viewer has already had the commentator tell them their view or listened to their buddies analyze the play a bunch of different ways. Even more annoying, their buddies don't have to analyze it because it is obvious but the viewer is still left waiting for the official to watch the replay.
 

semsox

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,708
Charlottesville
Wow
 
edit: To clarify, Napoli just got pulled well off the bag, very definitively and the call on the field of out stood. Probably the worst call thus far this year.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Bottom of the 2nd in tonight's game vs the CWS, Napoli very clearly pulled his foot off the bag at 1st, visible on every replay angle, and they called the runner out. I'm starting to think Plympton is correct.
 
Apr 6, 2011
46
rembrat said:
Bottom of the 2nd in tonight's game vs the CWS, Napoli very clearly pulled his foot off the bag at 1st, visible on every replay angle, and they called the runner out. I'm starting to think Plympton is correct.
Me too.  This one seemed fairly obvious and coupled with the mistakes during the Yankee series, my brain was already churning up conspiracy theories.
 

JFS7

lurker
Jul 21, 2005
182
update on replay--102 challenges

35 'confirmed';
30 'stood';
36 'overturned';

1 for record keeping(dont know what this means)

Average length: 2:03.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
41,965
JFS7 said:
update on replay--102 challenges 35 'confirmed'; 30 'stood'; 36 'overturned'; 1 for record keeping(dont know what this means) Average length: 2:03.
Ump forgot the ball/strike count in a NYY/HOU game i believe
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Blown call in tonight's game against the O's. Called fair, clearly foul. 
 

 
Credit to uncannymanny
 

AbbyNoho

broke her neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,172
Northampton, Massachusetts
Is it crazy to think that they're getting some of these wrong on purpose? Like, the umpires didn't want replay but had so much pressure to try it that now they're getting it wrong on purpose so at the end of the year they can see "See, it doesn't work!" and shitcan it?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
To me, that's another play where only one angle was conclusive so if doesn't bother me that much. I'd hate to have backlash over these types of calls be the reason that they didn't continue to review more egregious errors.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Plympton91 said:
To me, that's another play where only one angle was conclusive so if doesn't bother me that much. I'd hate to have backlash over these types of calls be the reason that they didn't continue to review more egregious errors.
I agree with the your thoughts regarding the importance of preserving replay, but isn't one conclusive angle enough to change a call? Do three inconclusive replays trump one conclusive angle that clearly shows the call on the field should be reversed? 
What kind of open bar does the replay cave have, and is there a cover charge?
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,706
ct
Andrew said:
Is it crazy to think that they're getting some of these wrong on purpose? Like, the umpires didn't want replay but had so much pressure to try it that now they're getting it wrong on purpose so at the end of the year they can see "See, it doesn't work!" and shitcan it?
Replay is on the books for at least three seasons so your theory holds no water.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
The problem is that you have regular umps manning the replay center. They have been trained their whole lives to judge the play using one standard - out or safe. They are obviously having tremendous difficulty applying a "conclusive" standard. It requires a whole different way of evaluating the play.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
33,989
Southwestern CT
Bone Chips said:
The problem is that you have regular umps manning the replay center. They have been trained their whole lives to judge the play using one standard - out or safe. They are obviously having tremendous difficulty applying a "conclusive" standard. It requires a whole different way of evaluating the play.
I think the problem is that they don't have the right feed and/or the right equipment to make the calls.

I mean, it's not hard to know what conclusive is. But if you cant see an angle that hives you conclusive evidence, you're not going to make the call.

Why MLB has chosen to implement a system that doesn't give them every angle from every broadcast is the real question. This is clearly what is happening and its beyond stupid.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
34,109
AZ
I hate the rule that evidence needs to be "clearly indisputable" or whatever nonsense they come up with. I hate it in football. I hate it in baseball. I see no reason whatsoever that primacy must be given, automatically, to the call on the field. Use the video, and use the same standard as the umpire uses. Make your best call. If you truly are in equipoise, fine. There needs to be a tie breaker. So, go with the call on the field. Or flip a coin. It's the same. But the range of cases in which you should be in equipoise should be really really narrow. If you're saying "the call stands" to imply the evidence wasn't significant enough to confirm or reverse in more than one out of twenty cases, you're just abdicating.

If you can't tell from video what the answer should be, and if video shows you something that leads you to believe the umpire had a better look than the video ever can show, fine. But I would submit the slow motion video is almost always better than what a human sees in real time. Even a well positioned, well trained one. Tonight is a great example of a circumstance where zero deference should be given to the call on the field. There is no justifiable basis to use an inconclusive bail out on that type of play. It is really close. But there is no reason to suggest the umpire on the field got a better look than the replay shows. The replay official should simply, in this case, make his best judgment, as though he were at the game and saw what's on the video, and treat the call on the field as immaterial. Just look at the video and decide. Fair or foul? Probably foul but not foul enough is horseshit.

If we're not going to give the replay booth that kind of authority and will let them hide behind "inconclusive" a third or more of the time, get rid of the booth. Let the guy who made the call look at the video instead. At least he knows what he thinks he thought he saw and will thus feel more free to say, "whoa, that makes me pause." Extending silly deference to a call a guy may not even be confident in if he saw the video himself is just stupid.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,808
Northern Colorado
Plympton91 said:
To me, that's another play where only one angle was conclusive so if doesn't bother me that much. I'd hate to have backlash over these types of calls be the reason that they didn't continue to review more egregious errors.
The problem is that even the definition of conclusive isn't standard.  If tonight's wasn't conclusive, how was Sunday's overturned double play against the mfy conclusive.  
 
They (and you) can't have it both ways. 
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,470
The rules are fine, the methods are fine.  They have to do a better job, and they have to be accountable after the fact.  They also need to have multiple synched angles if they don't, so they can see the foot on the bag from one side and the ball in the glove from the other, etc, knowing that the moments are the same.
 
But the two things I want to see fixed the fastest are 1) that the managers have to challenge based on their first impression from their eye and not stall to have somebody off site tell them, and 2) when they do it, do it faster.  Hard to ask for better accuracy and faster response at the same time, but if you aren't sure after a minute, the call on the field has to stay.
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,372
Land formerly of Sowheag
I would be happy if they got rid of replay. I would be curious to see if games are getting longer this year. They feel longer.
 
I think it would be a good idea if managers had to challenge the call before coming on the field.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
biollante said:
I would be happy if they got rid of replay. I would be curious to see if games are getting longer this year. They feel longer.
 
I agree 100%. Get rid of it. Yesterday's replay took 3:35 and they still got it wrong. It adds nothing to the game except time - the one thing we don't need more of.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
55,502
San Andreas Fault
They need to train umps or whoever look at the replay in NY about craters. Last night's Markakis ball, one of the views showed dirt scattered across the chalkline. So, one of the reviewers probably says "look, ball must have hit the line (or it would be all pristine white)". In crater school, they would be taught that the meteorite that cause the Meteor Crater in Arizona was a very small fraction of the size of the crater itself. Hard objects that hit dirt scatter said dirt considerable distances. Another view I saw showed the ball hitting a good 4 - 6 inches left of the left side of the chalkline. If they get that one wrong, what a joke. I don't remember such "startup" problems in NFL challenges/replay.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Bone Chips said:
I agree 100%. Get rid of it. Yesterday's replay took 3:35 and they still got it wrong. It adds nothing to the game except time - the one thing we don't need more of.
This is ridiculous. Getting rid of it this quickly is a silly suggestion. Especially if time added is the reason you're suggesting it. If it was working correctly, we'd all be singing its praises. They need to work on the system, that's a completely legitimate argument and one I've made several times. But don't throw it away completely because it's not working, fix it. Especially since it's seems like a fairly simple one at that. 
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
8,495
I rewound, took the above screen grab, uploaded it to imgur and posted it in the game thread in under half the time they took to review the play.

There's no excuse for them not having access to all the angles.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
55,502
San Andreas Fault
uncannymanny said:
I rewound, took the above screen grab, uploaded it to imgur and posted it in the game thread in under half the time they took to review the play.

There's no excuse for them not having access to all the angles.
That's great. Do you still have it on DVR? If so, can you see a shot where dirt is shown scattered across the white lime like what I was talking about in post #44?
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
MakMan44 said:
This is ridiculous. Getting rid of it this quickly is a silly suggestion. Especially if time added is the reason you're suggesting it. If it was working correctly, we'd all be singing its praises. They need to work on the system, that's a completely legitimate argument and one I've made several times. But don't throw it away completely because it's not working, fix it. Especially since it's seems like a fairly simple one at that. 
No, I'd actually still hate it even if they could figure out a way to "fix it". Sports is entertainment, and there is nothing entertaining about stopping play for 4 minutes to dissect a slow motion video. It's killed football - you can't even cheer for a touchdown anymore until the reviews are over. It's taken the spontaneity and joy completely out of the game. And all this for what? To increase the percentage of correct calls from 98% to 99%? It's madness.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Bone Chips said:
No, I'd actually still hate it even if they could figure out a way to "fix it". Sports is entertainment, and there is nothing entertaining about stopping play for 4 minutes to dissect a slow motion video. It's killed football - you can't even cheer for a touchdown anymore until the reviews are over. It's taken the spontaneity and joy completely out of the game. And all this for what? To increase the percentage of correct calls from 98% to 99%? It's madness.
You really think they're getting 98% of the calls in MLB correct? Way too much credit given there. 
 
EDIT: Maybe it is though, can't find anything definitive one way or the other. 
 
Regardless, I don't really see much of a connection between the two sports. Baseball always has been, always will be, the slower sport of the two. And it's been pointed out several times that the replay times is taking about the same amount of time that managers arguing would have. You want to talk about managers stalling, that's a different argument and one that, while I don't have a problem with, might have some basis. 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
41,965
Bone Chips said:
No, I'd actually still hate it even if they could figure out a way to "fix it". Sports is entertainment, and there is nothing entertaining about stopping play for 4 minutes to dissect a slow motion video. It's killed football - you can't even cheer for a touchdown anymore until the reviews are over. It's taken the spontaneity and joy completely out of the game. And all this for what? To increase the percentage of correct calls from 98% to 99%? It's madness.
So you would be ok with something like this in the playoffs again?