Skip to main content

Instant Replay

The Associated Press is reporting that Major League Baseball will begin allowing instant replay to be used by umpires. It says:
For now, video will be used only on so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence or whether potential home runs were fair or foul. Video will be collected at the office of Major League Baseball Advanced Media in New York. If the crew chief at a game decides replay needs to be checked, umpires will leave the field, technicians at MLBAM will show umpires the video and the crew chief will make the call.
This is a good thing. There is no benefit to the sport, its fans, or players to not having a call made correctly. Given how few "boundary calls" are close, this will be an exceedingly rare occurrence. People who don't like baseball already think it's slow. Those who love it, want the calls to be made correctly.


Smitch said…
Two random thoughts:

First, I think there's an argument to be made that replay will help speed up the game, since it will avoid those long on-field discussions/arguments between umpires themselves and between managers and umps. The television audience already has the benefit of replay, and I think we'd agree the right call can often be made more quickly with replay that it takes them to discuss/argue it on the field, only to make the wrong call half the time.

Second, while I wholeheartedly agree that replay should be instituted -- particularly for "boundary calls" -- I think your assertion that "there is no benefit... to not having a call made correctly" raises an interesting question. If that's true, why not have a computer (like questec) call balls and strikes? Or, more hypothetically, if I told you I had a computer that would call balls and strikes accurately 100% of the time, would you be in favor of using it instead of umps for that purpose alone?
mgdistrict said…
"People who don't like baseball already think it's slow. Those who love it, want the calls to be made correctly."

That's an astute observation, and I agree wholeheartedly, Wally.

Smitch, I think you raise an interesting question, but it may just be a tad too far over the line to be considered a real analogue to boundary calls. Pitches are the central element to the game, the one necessary condition for there to be a 'play.' I think the sentimental elements associated with the umpire's call of each pitch are far too embedded in the game's heart and soul to be traded out for a hypothetical computer call any time soon. Not to sound too melodramatic about it, but there's simply no way that games would have the same cadence or character without an ump calling each pitch.

That being said, it's potentially the same effect if an ump calls a bad strike to end a 9th inning rally as a bad call deciding whether or not a ball went out of the park in a similar situation. Considered from this perspective, I don't think you can logically differentiate between the two calls, and were you to extend that logic then umps should be replaced by a hypothetical technology for calling pitches. I just think that these sorts of decisions are made while balancing the logical with the sentimental and the political... and those are the elements that would realistically prevent it from ever happening.
Wally said…
That's a great hypothetical question about robot umpires posited by Smitchy. My answer is that I don't ever want to see the end of umpires - though I do which they'd stop approaching the way they call a game as if they are entitled to a style of strike zone. The zone is defined, no one gets to go all Jackson Pollack with the zone.

I love MGD's point about the cadence and feel of games, and umpires' connection to that. Striiiiike is part of the soundtrack of baseball.

Also, while there are obvious exceptions (Livan Hernandez in the W.S, Tom Glavine's career), how balls and strikes are called do not generally distort a game's outcome as clearly and dramatically as a bad homer call. Good umpires might make bad calls, but they should be rare and they should not clearly benefit either team consistently. I think that in almost every case that is the way it works out. Yourrrrrrr out!

Popular posts from this blog

JD Martinez and Red Sox Depth

The Sox have signed JD Martinez; so, that's good.  His track record, personal reports on work ethic and attitude (aka lessons learns from Panda mania), and the fact that he's seen most of his success in the American League point to this being as sure a success as you can have in free agency.  He is getting a hefty pay check while the Sox aren't locked down for 6, 7 or Hosmer years.

Taking as a given that Martinez will be an outstanding hitter in the middle of the lineup, this signing - along with the signing of Eduardo Nunez earlier in the weekend - gives this Red Sox offense the most depth they have had since the 2013 champions.  That team taught us that it makes good baseball sense to go a few players deep at each position if you can, and to not obsess with how you'll find at bats for everyone.  Here we go again with that approach.

The 2018 Red Sox are remarkably deep and flexible.  When someone gets hurt, the likelihood is that that player will be replaced in the l…

The 2018 Red Sox Biggest Liability: Infield Defense

This Red Sox team is stacked.  At the moment, the biggest concerns seems to be the Mookie Betts hasn't been hitting and the fifth starter is likely going to be the perfectly capable Brian Johnson or Hector Vazquez for the first month or so.  But this team does have one real problem with it - and another possible one I'll write about later.  The infield defense has the potential to be pretty bad.  Given that I'm usually the one seeing hope in dark Sox times, I figured I'd try to dampen everyone's spirits now that we're cloaked in the warm glow of J.D. Martinez in a Red Sox uniform.

Based on what new manager Alex Cora has said so far, the Red Sox most likely Opening Day infield will be Hanley Ramirez at first, Eduardo Nunez at second, Bogaerts at short, and Devers at third.  That's a group that has the potential to really hit, but they also all have big defensive question marks.  It's not great when Bogaerts is your best defensive infield starter.  For the…

The Red Sox Wildcard Liability: the Bullpen (of course)

While we already talked about the infield defense as the one real glaring weakness on the Red Sox, the bullpen is the biggest wild card.

Last year's Red Sox bullpen was outstanding but there is reason to believe it over-performed.  In addition, it seems like John Farrell had a little magic with the 'pen, but hopefully it was really Dana LeVangie who had the magic touch since he is making the odd move from bullpen couch under one manager, to pitching couch under a new one (within the same organization) - and he's the rare pitching couch who never pitched professionally.

Last year's Red Sox won the division in large part because they were a ridiculous 15-3 in extra inning games.  It feels like once a week they'd go to extras and someone like Heath Hembree or Hector Vazquez would put up a couple zeros on the board until Sandy Leon blooped a single that scored JBJ.  Now, those guys aren't bad pitchers but that was not normal.

This year, the Sox will rely on mostly t…