Keeping track of replay

uncannymanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
6,571
Boston --> NYC --> LA --> NYC
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.
 
It seems to have done a lot for hyperbole though.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Good article on what I'm talking about... http://www.nbcsports.com/joe-posnanski/upon-further-review-instant-replay-takes-away-immediacy-sport


"Every now and again, I watch an old game on one of the various networks that play old games. You probably do that, too. Do you notice how different it was then? We used to cheer when someone extraordinary happened. Someone scored a fantastic touchdown in the corner of the end zone, someone hit a home run the umpire ruled fair, someone made a shot at the buzzer and the referee called it good, and we went crazy because it was done. There was a finality to the cheers and a finality to the boos too.

That finality is foreign to us now. Almost nothing that happens on the field is real anymore. We can cheer when the double play is complete, but only halfheartedly. Its not done yet. The manager can challenge. The umpire will review. Everything is upon further review

And, yeah, I guess I do feel nostalgic for that feeling of finality. The NCAA tournament this year was encumbered by long reviews. It was hard to watch. Imagine how long it would have taken officials to review the Christian Laettner shot in Duke against Kentucky.

Verne Lundquists famous call: Theres the pass to Laettner. Puts it up. YESSSSSSS!!!

Verne Lundquists call today: Theres the pass to Laettner. Puts it up. Yes. Now lets see if it counts.

I do wonder if this is part of the reason why more and more Americans are turning to soccer. Theres no doubt international soccer has countless quirks that can seem off to our American minds - the timekeeping is bizarre, the one referee running around on the pitch seems overmatched, the diving makes it hard to determine what is a foul and what is not.

But the games are brisk, and they last less than two hours in real time, nobody stops for commercials and the referees calls are final. Maybe we miss some of that stuff. The officials do seem to miss plenty of offside and penalty calls, and non-calls seem suspect at best. But in exchange for a few disputed calls we get a game that beats and breathes in real time.

Ive asked a lot of real soccer fans if they would want replay to look at these offsides and penalty calls - you know, get more of them right. I havent yet heard one who would make the trade."
 

Ananti

little debbie downer
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2002
2,101
Los Angeles
More and more Americans are turning to soccer?  Where is the evidence of this? Maybe the influx of Hispanics who are already soccer fans, I've seen no evidence that Americans are giving up on Football and baseball and turning to soccer.
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
8,732
Land formerly of Sowheag
As far as I know, I am not Hispanic. I watch more soccer than any other sport. The games last about 2 hours and are not full of commercials. I still watch the Sox but this season start is a little rugged. I am sure soccer has a ways to go but it is growing.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
It's absolutely mind boggling to me that anyone could possibly prefer a wrong call standing if it means they get to cheer sooner.  Seriously?  Yes, replay changes the way we get to react to plays on the field, but at the end of the day how can getting calls wrong be of any benefit to the sport?
 
The current system has been a mess since the start of the season, but that's heavily on the human beings using that system.  I wouldn't be so quick to change the way it works.  Most of these missed replay calls are so obvious that incompetence or hubris are the only explanations I can see  being likely.
 
There is no way the offices in New York don't have access to the same technology we have in our own living rooms.  I refuse to accept the possibility that they aren't seeing enough angles of a play.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
So why do you think they're getting it wrong then Snod? There's at least one clear angle on the play last night and they admitted that was the reason they missed the Anna play. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
MakMan44 said:
So why do you think they're getting it wrong then Snod? There's at least one clear angle on the play last night and they admitted that was the reason they missed the Anna play. 
 
 
Snodgrass'Muff said:
The current system has been a mess since the start of the season, but that's heavily on the human beings using that system.  I wouldn't be so quick to change the way it works.  Most of these missed replay calls are so obvious that incompetence or hubris are the only explanations I can see  being likely.
 
There is no way the offices in New York don't have access to the same technology we have in our own living rooms.  I refuse to accept the possibility that they aren't seeing enough angles of a play.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
I'm not really sure what you meant by that second part though. That reads to me along the lines of Andrew's conspiracy theory and I know that's not how you mean it. The umpires in NY aren't coming out of this looking rosy, if anything you'd figure they'd be much more careful about doing their job correctly in an effort to prove that only umpires can actually handle the job. 
 
Incompetence I can buy but it still doesn't factor in the two blown calls I mentioned when missed angles, rather than a screw up on the ump's part was the problem. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Hubris covers a lot more than intentionally and willfully making the wrong call because you and your union don't like the new system.  An assumption that the ump on the field had a better view of the play or that the call on the field should be assumed correct until presented with an abundance of irrefutable and completely clear evidence to the contrary is an example of hubris.  Umps are biased to think that umps are correct and managers are incorrect in these instances, and getting calls wrong even after a replay that clearly shows the original call was not correct can only be explained by a ridiculous amount of incompetence or umpires allowing their bias to override what they are seeing on a screen in that New York office.
 
I simply refuse to accept that they lack camera angles.  If that happened even once at any point in the testing phase or earlier this season, the simple solution is to run a bunch of laptops with MLB.TV feeds of each broadcast and simply refer to them when necessary.
 
If we, as fans, can see that a call is wrong within seconds, without any effort, from our couches, there is zero excuse for MLB to not be providing their review teams with the information they need to make the correct call.  Any statements about not having all of the angles is pure BS on the part of MLB, the umpires or both.
 

Hyde Park Factor

token lebanese
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
1,457
Manchvegas
Ananti said:
More and more Americans are turning to soccer?  Where is the evidence of this? Maybe the influx of Hispanics who are already soccer fans, I've seen no evidence that Americans are giving up on Football and baseball and turning to soccer.
Wibi's wife says so.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,397
The wrong side of the bridge....
Snodgrass'Muff said:
If we, as fans, can see that a call is wrong within seconds, without any effort, from our couches, there is zero excuse for MLB to not be providing their review teams with the information they need to make the correct call.
 
This is it, in a nutshell. There's no excuse for implementing this in a technologically half-assed way. I understand the umpires being conservative about overturning on-field calls when it's very close on the video. This is not necessarily a matter of hubris, more a matter of professional solidarity--every time a call is overturned on replay, that is one member of a brotherhood saying to a large public audience that one of his brothers fucked up. They're going to want to be very sure they're right about that. It's a little like police review boards, albeit with lower stakes--which is why I think that the weak link in the process is the fact that the guys in the replay room are umpires. They should ideally be retired players or coaches, people with an expert perspective on what they're seeing but without any psychological need to defend the initial result.
 
But that ain't gonna happen.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
The problem with the above is there's very little transparency concerning some of the rules. If the umpires are having trouble following them, how can you expect someone else to do a better job? I mean, you make a major change to the rules this offseason and barely let it be known. That, to me, is insane. MLB, as a whole, has been poorly managed this season and I am very glad to see the end of the Selig era. 
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
I agree with Bone Chips. Trying to get every call absolutely perfect is not worth slowing the game down. If a runner is safe by any inch and called out, so what. Missed calls will even out over time. The only time that I remember a champioship being won or lost because of a bad call, was the 1985 WS
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,401
wolfe_boston said:
I agree with Bone Chips. Trying to get every call absolutely perfect is not worth slowing the game down. If a runner is safe by any inch and called out, so what. Missed calls will even out over time. The only time that I remember a champioship being won or lost because of a bad call, was the 1985 WS
Well a bad call put the winning run in Game 3 in 1975 on third with nobody out instead of being out, not that we can say who would have won the game or the Series if the call had been made correctly.
 
And we have had calls properly overturned on the field for the Red Sox (Game 1 of the WS last year, two in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS) and against the Red Sox (1999 Division Series Game 5) but having replay back then would have aided and assured the process in each case.  Don't forget there was a lot of controversy about a couple of those calls being overturned. EDIT: And the phantom tag that was not overturned in the 1999 ALCS.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,516
Seattle, WA
Well
wolfe_boston said:
I agree with Bone Chips. Trying to get every call absolutely perfect is not worth slowing the game down. If a runner is safe by any inch and called out, so what. Missed calls will even out over time. The only time that I remember a champioship being won or lost because of a bad call, was the 1985 WS
Well you, bone chips and the person that wrote the article are the kings of exaggeration.

"Almost nothing on the field is real anymore..." What?!

What is the ratio of plays made to challenged plays? About a billion to one? How many home runs end up being challenged?

Who is trying to get "every call absolute perfect"?

There are problems and issues with replay, but neither of these posts address them.
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
geoduck no quahog said:
Well

Well you, bone chips and the person that wrote the article are the kings of exaggeration.
"Almost nothing on the field is real anymore..." What?!
What is the ratio of plays made to challenged plays? About a billion to one? How many home runs end up being challenged?
Who is trying to get "every call absolute perfect"?
There are problems and issues with replay, but neither of these posts address them.
Well, the game is still real for me and I'm not going to start watching soccer. My point is that it isn't necessary to use replay as an occasional bad call does not offend me in the least. And so far, the new system has only managed to piss off more people then before.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
wolfe_boston said:
Well, the game is still real for me and I'm not going to start watching soccer. My point is that it isn't necessary to use replay as an occasional bad call does not offend me in the least. And so far, the new system has only managed to piss off more people then before.
Because the people running the system suck, not at the system itself. I can't believe look at things like the fair/foul call from the other day and blame replay OR were okay with calls like that without replay. It's obvious, it's bullshit and it had a impact on that game. 
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
8,206
a basement on the hill
Score one in favor of the Sox tonight--where O's got screwed on what was clearly an out at second--the ball was dropped on the transfer--after the catch; but runner ruled safe and no replay (7th inning and umps decided not to review.)
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
geoduck no quahog said:
Well

Well you, bone chips and the person that wrote the article are the kings of exaggeration.
"Almost nothing on the field is real anymore..." What?!
What is the ratio of plays made to challenged plays? About a billion to one? How many home runs end up being challenged?
Tonight's ninth inning, from start to finish.... Or is it officially finished yet? Still waiting...
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
Bone Chips said:
Tonight's ninth inning, from start to finish.... Or is it officially finished yet? Still waiting...
 
The ninth inning featured one replay on an incredibly close call where the replay clearly showed the umps called it right the first time.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
61,829
Oregon
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
The ruling from NY was "inconclusive." The replay didn't clearly show anything.
 
I thought it did. To my untrained eye, it hit below the line they said was the home run line
 

deconstruction

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
3,203
Hanover NH
teddywingman said:
Score one in favor of the Sox tonight--where O's got screwed on what was clearly an out at second--the ball was dropped on the transfer--after the catch; but runner ruled safe and no replay (7th inning and umps decided not to review.)
 
With the new rules, the right call was made--there was no secure transfer to the throwing hand. Reviewing would not have changed the call.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,976
Alexandria, VA
teddywingman said:
Score one in favor of the Sox tonight--where O's got screwed on what was clearly an out at second--the ball was dropped on the transfer--after the catch; but runner ruled safe and no replay (7th inning and umps decided not to review.)
This has already been addressed in this thread. The transfer rule was changed this year; if you drop the ball during the transfer, it's not an out (unlike past years).
“An example of a catch that would not count is if a fielder loses possession of the ball during the transfer before the ball was secured by his throwing hand.”
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2014/04/18/nationals-player-confused-upset-about-the-transfer-rule/
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
61,829
Oregon
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
I guess my point is that the reviewers didn't confirm the call.  They didn't overturn it because they claimed the review was inconclusive.
 
Now I got it. And you're right
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Chronology of events in tonight's "dramatic" 9th inning win:
 
10:30:00 - Pedroia hits the double/walkoff HR.
10:32:48 - Ump rules "inconclusive" and the double call stands.
10:42:32 - Pedroia scores winning run.  Or was it?  We don't know because the umps are talking with Showalter.
10:44:43 - Umps leave field and Kruk finally announces "game over".
 
So yes, "nothing on the field is real anymore".  It's not real until the replay situation gets sorted out - two minutes after the climactic play.
 
I had two chances to cheer wildly tonight.  Both times I sat on my couch thinking and hoping my team just won, but not quite sure.
 
Instant replay - sucking the drama out of sports one frame at a time.  
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,401
Showalter would have had the same conversation with the umpires last year. With the same result.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
snowmanny said:
Showalter would have had the same conversation with the umpires last year. With the same result.
Yes, but last year the umps would have instantly made a ruling of "out" if Pedroia had left early.  But in the era of replay, when nobody knows what's reviewable and what is not, we have to wait two minutes after the play to know for sure.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Bone Chips said:
Yes, and the umps would have instantly made a ruling of "out" if Pedroia had left early.  But in the era of replay, when nobody knows what's reviewable and what is not, we have to wait two minutes after the play to know for sure.
Play isn't reviewable. How many damn times did that have to mention that before you understand that replay had LITERALLY no impact on the final play of the game?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
27,466
AZ
Bone Chips said:
Yes, but last year the umps would have instantly made a ruling of "out" if Pedroia had left early.  But in the era of replay, when nobody knows what's reviewable and what is not, we have to wait two minutes after the play to know for sure.
I have seen this said now a few times, but what's the basis for it? Leaving early does not make you out. The defense still needs to complete the double play by tagging you or touching the base you just left. Is the proper umpire mechanic really to signal out? The runner is free to try to get back to the base before he is doubled up, right? So why would it be an automatic out?

  
MakMan44 said:
Play isn't reviewable. How many damn times did that have to mention that before you understand that replay had LITERALLY no impact on the final play of the game?
This seems right, though there is an ambiguity in the rule. Leaving early on a tag up is not reviewable, but an appeal on whether the runner touched a base is reviewable (if appealed). So, imagine Pedrioa never had made it back to third base. That is, the pitcher comes set, Pedrioa takes a lead, a line drive is hit, he starts toward home, then turns back, but sees the ball is thrown poorly and so he runs home without tagging up. That is actually what I thought happened tonight before the replay.

If that had happened, and if the Orioles had grabbed the ball, and touched third base, it is unclear whether this is reviewable. I think perhaps it is.

Edit: or "Pedroia". Screw it. Going to bed. I don't care any more.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,976
Alexandria, VA
The umps can't call Pedroia out for leaving early until the Orioles throw to third and appeal. This is the same as in past years and unrelated to replay.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
MakMan44 said:
Play isn't reviewable. How many damn times did that have to mention that before you understand that replay had LITERALLY no impact on the final play of the game?
Not sure why you are being so argumentative on this issue, but that is not what occurred at all.  I've watched it three times on DVR.  There was total confusion after Pedroia scored.  The announcer only postulated once that the play wasn't reviewable, a full minute and a half after the run scored, and couched it in these words, "My understanding is, and we're all learning here at the same time, my understanding is, you cannot challenge whether a runner left early."  Once again, that was the first time it was said and it was at 10:44:05 - a minute and 33 seconds after the run scored.
 
The play wasn't reviewable, but the fact is - the presence of the replay system puts almost every play in doubt and is really screwing with the flow of the game.  I don't know why you are trying to argue against this.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,976
Alexandria, VA
The appeal stuff always makes the last play questionable. See the crazy play from last year's playoffs that took forever to resolve (the runner leaving the path/obstruction/etc cluster)
 

KenTremendous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
525
Partridge, KS
There are quite literally thousands of blown calls every year in baseball, some of them through incompetence, some of them because things happen too quickly to judge correctly. Thousands upon thousands. The idea that the league should not try to reduce those thousands to hundreds, or tens, or none, using every available method, because it sometimes takes longer before you know the actual truth of the event that occurred is criminally strange, to me.
 
The system is kinky right now. It'll get better. I believe that in three years they'll just have an iPad on the field, every play will get fed right to it, it'll take 20 seconds, and everything will be fine. It'll be like the Hawkeye thing or whatever it's called in tennis -- challenge, review, ruling, done.
 
Baseball should not go backwards. It should go forwards, towards accuracy and enlightenment. The sport will survive. Tennis survived, soccer will survive, baseball will survive, and they will all be better for it.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
8,206
a basement on the hill
SumnerH said:
This has already been addressed in this thread. The transfer rule was changed this year; if you drop the ball during the transfer, it's not an out (unlike past years).

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2014/04/18/nationals-player-confused-upset-about-the-transfer-rule/
 
I read it differently then. To me it was clear that the catch had been made. His glove closed around the ball and then reopened intentionally to make the transfer.
 
the rule states: If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
24,836
Bone Chips said:
Chronology of events in tonight's "dramatic" 9th inning win:
 
10:30:00 - Pedroia hits the double/walkoff HR.
10:32:48 - Ump rules "inconclusive" and the double call stands.
10:42:32 - Pedroia scores winning run.  Or was it?  We don't know because the umps are talking with Showalter.
10:44:43 - Umps leave field and Kruk finally announces "game over".
 
So yes, "nothing on the field is real anymore".  It's not real until the replay situation gets sorted out - two minutes after the climactic play.
 
I had two chances to cheer wildly tonight.  Both times I sat on my couch thinking and hoping my team just won, but not quite sure.
 
Instant replay - sucking the drama out of sports one frame at a time.  
 
This summarizes my thoughts pretty well.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
brandonchristensen said:
 
This summarizes my thoughts pretty well.
I mean, the exact same scenario would have played out last season too. Replay on HRs isn't exactly new nor is appealing the final play of the game. 
 

HriniakPosterChild

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
10,671
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
SumnerH said:
The appeal stuff always makes the last play questionable. See the crazy play from last year's playoffs that took forever to resolve (the runner leaving the path/obstruction/etc cluster)
 
Huh? JF ran onto the field, the umps said "Obstruction! Obstruction!", and JF trotted off in under 60 seconds.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
E5 Yaz said:
 
Now I got it. And you're right
No he isn't. The replay clearly showed the ball hitting the red line. The only thing that is remotely ambiguous is whether the second fan touched it but if he did, it didn't change the trajectory of the ball.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
brandonchristensen said:
 
This summarizes my thoughts pretty well.
Once ESPN got around to showing the replay of the whole play where it was clear that Pedroia got back to tag up there was no reason to be concerned.

The fact that ESPN took a long time and the announcers don't know the rule isn't the fault of the replay rule. They've had the rule for a long time now and if they haven't taken the time to learn it, that's on them.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
teddywingman said:
 
I read it differently then. To me it was clear that the catch had been made. His glove closed around the ball and then reopened intentionally to make the transfer.
 
the rule states: If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.
And the new interpretation of the rule is that the transfer has to be successful for the release to be voluntary and international.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
8,206
a basement on the hill
Rasputin said:
And the new interpretation of the rule is that the transfer has to be successful for the release to be voluntary and international.
I guess it is being called that way now, but I think it's silly. What was wrong with the way a drop on the transfer didn't cancel the out, the way it has been every season until now?
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,516
Seattle, WA
It's too bad some people have to make shit up as reasons for disliking replay when there are plenty of good examples of problems...all of which can be fixed.

As for the person who thinks "nothing is real anymore", I suggest you stick to minor league or high school ball where "EVERYTHING IS REAL"

You would probably feel better.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,156
Not here
teddywingman said:
I guess it is being called that way now, but I think it's silly. What was wrong with the way a drop on the transfer didn't cancel the out, the way it has been every season until now?
Nothing was wrong with it. It's been suggested that changing the interpretation would make it easier to determine by replay. I think they should have either kept the interpretation and dealt with the replay issues or made those plays unreviewable.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Nothing saps my enjoyment of a sport (the appeal of which, in general, is that it can't be "faked", it's all honest performance) like blown calls.  They take away your belief in the players' agency - that the players can determine who wins or loses by their actions alone within the context of the rules.  That the game is honest.
 
Look at the NBA and all the officiating problems there - I'm more sympathetic than most, since I don't believe any human can call that game with consistency, but it has reduced many fans' perceptions of it to "the refs are crooked.  the superstars are treated differently.  David Stern Adam Silver determines who's going to win or lose in advance, to support whatever narrative helps him sell coverage."  That cynical mistrust of the basic honesty of a sporting contest is one of the most corrosive things possible to a sport's future.  It killed the popularity of pro boxing.  Pro wrestling was stillborn as a legitimate, competitive sport, rather than the farcical-but-entertaining format it's reduced to today.  There but for the grace of Bill Klem goes baseball.
 
That cynical mistrust is what we're combating with replay.  Combating it has value, and it's worth going through growing pains and even the occasional ambiguous situation, because it reinforces that the game is honest and that only the players' actions - their real actions, which we can all see in super slow-mo - are what determine the outcome.  Officiating blunders, much like gambling and the Black Sox and Pete Rose in decades before, are risks to the fundamental premise of why everyone watches sports: an uncertain outcome, with surprises every night.  I'll take combating that over a little impact to someone else's definition of "drama", any day of the week.
 

pk1627

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2003
1,733
Cambridge
geoduck no quahog said:
It's too bad some people have to make shit up as reasons for disliking replay when there are plenty of good examples of problems...all of which can be fixed.

As for the person who thinks "nothing is real anymore", I suggest you stick to minor league or high school ball where "EVERYTHING IS REAL"

You would probably feel better.
Overreaction. It's ok to take some time to get used to the change replay brings. I also do not like the lag to cheer a result. I'll probably get used to it. We'll see.

I also agree with Kruk that you can't play 20 games under one set of rules and 140 under another. The stuff that can be fixed really should be done off-season. We'll have a lot if games impacted by the transfer rule (like last night's)
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
Bone Chips said:
Yes, but last year the umps would have instantly made a ruling of "out" if Pedroia had left early.  But in the era of replay, when nobody knows what's reviewable and what is not, we have to wait two minutes after the play to know for sure.
 
No they wouldn't - it's an appeal play, they'd have discussed it the same way: by getting the specific appeal, asking the base ump from that base, huddling, and answering.