Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

[Ceetar]

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity.

But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity.

But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

[dinosaur jesus]

It can get complicated, I'll give you that. Ultimately I'd just hope we're not not stuck with the kind of arbitrary legalistic pulled from someone's ass nonsense the NFL seems to prefer. I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: It can get complicated, I'll give you that. Ultimately I'd just hope we're not not stuck with the kind of arbitrary legalistic pulled from someone's ass nonsense the NFL seems to prefer. I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified.

Sure. But that sliding play, like last night's Villar and deGrom plays, could, just the same, occur in the ninth inning of a late season tie game with a playoff spot on the line. That would, potentially, be a bigger call than a fair/foul home run call in a June game. Context, besides the play itself, also determines the magnitude of the call.

[Frayed Knot]

dinosaur jesus wrote: ... I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified.

Which is how replay is always sold, that only the egregious mistakes will get examined. But once you open that box there's no way to keep it to only certain levels of errors.

The only thing that, IMO, will keep it towards that end would be to not allow teams to micro-examine the replay before deciding whether or not they want the off-site umps to micro-examine it further,

AND for those same off-site umps to overturn only those calls where there really is 'clear and convincing' evidence rather than what I call the 'coin flip' calls where they seem to indicate that a given

call was probably incorrect and therefore we're flipping it.

Eliminate those two conditions and the percentage of challenges that involve this kind of ticky-tack call will disappear almost completely.

[Ceetar]

I don't know who's selling it like that.



it's about getting the calls right. we have the capability, get the calls right. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this isn't how stolen bases are supposed to happen, that it's about touch the base before the ball can get to you, and worrying about coming a bit off is not super important, but then change the rule. It certainly makes more sense than 3-batter minimums, designating players as "pitchers" or "hitters", auto IBB, zombie runners, banning the shift, or hell even the DH.

[nymr83]

You can overrun first base legally. It seems like the solution to the issue you seem to have here would be to allow the same at other bases. This is a less drastic change, I think, than any of the things Ceetar mentions which have already been changed, except the automatic ball 4 which while dumb has almost no effect on anything

[duan]

Of all the 'sports with replay' that I've seen

I think Cricket has the best use of it - and it's the most similar to baseball in terms of flow.



Basically the team on the field has 1 'review' that they can call for at any point in time. If it's successful they keep the review if it's unsuccessful they lose it and they have to appeal any decision within 15 seconds and the people on the field do it. It's got nothing to do with the what people see on a monitor.

So in other words if you think something is really wrong you know straight away - that stops the howler - and then if there's a judgment call (and cricket has a very unique thing called LBW which has a lot of judgement) you have to really think "he's out" to use it.





https://www.icc-cricket.com/video/312199https://www.icc-cricket.com/video/312199



it's a very quick way to stop this interminable 'standing at the top of the steps' thing that goes on. That's my biggest issue with it. Other thing is that when the '3rd umpire' is reviewing a decision you see the process he's going through in real time so you can see what he's looking at.

[Frayed Knot]

I don't know who's selling it like that.

Every time replay was introduced, and in each sport where it was introduced, it was done so with the promise that it won't be an added intrusion on the game because standards are going to be in place

to keep it limited, decisive, and quick. But it's never any of the above because, once "getting it right" is set as the ultimate goal, it never can be. My stance here isn't to do away with it it's to point out

that those who enthusiastically embraced expanded replay (beyond the initial HR/not-HR calls) were naive if they thought that these sort of 'micro-corrections' were somehow going to be exempt. Nor

am I trying to un-reverse the calls from the other night but rather am suggesting that the best way to limit reviews of such minor misses would be the elimination of the delayed request and a phasing

out of reversals where the review is clearly less than conclusive, aka: 'coin-flip' calls.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate. Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball. No it's not. I'm saying leave it to the umpire to determine whether an infintessimal and momentary separation of body and base ought to be reviewable when a guy clearly beats a tag/throw to 2nd or 3rd base and signals no intention to progress further than that bag in the moment. Now if some palooka tries to nick a corner of the bag with his pinky and his entire body slides into the baseline, maybe you can review. Or when a dumbass times his slide poorly and passes the base entirely, yeah review that. But this bullshit we saw last night--beat the throw, only intended to stop his motion and remain in place-- that's the kind of shit that makes every play some theoretical result and reflects poorly on everyone.

I didn't think I was responding to your post. But if I was, or did, I'd say that I don't have a problem with this kind of play being reviewable. In fact, I'm for more reviewability. I also disagree with DJ where he opines that events that the umpire can barely see with his human eye shouldn't be reviewable either. That's gonna change for sure in due time, when balls and strikes calls are eventually automated as soon as the technology is solid enough. That should eliminate entirely the catcher's ability to "pitch frame" some balls into incorrectly called strikes. There's an example of replay rightfully fixing something that the umpire on the field can't possibly see correctly -- the pitch that's infinitesimally close to the edge of home plate - but not quite over home plate itself.



So I'm all for replay. The more the better. I do agree with FK, though, that a team should have a set number of challenges -- a firm number. And that the team should have a reasonable amount of time to declare a replay challenge, but not enough to conduct its own internal replay review before deciding whether or not to call for a replay challenge. And the standard for overturning the call made on the field should be clear and convincing indisputable evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. The field umpires should be given the benefit of the doubt on a replay challenge and absent indisputable evidence of a wrong call, the replay umps should defer to the field umps.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity.

But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

[roger_that]

This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no?

[Centerfield]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction

This is the answer.

[Willets Point]

Obviously the only answer is a fleet of drones hovering over the field at all times with cameras, radar, heat-sensing technology, and the aforementioned electron microscopes to observe and analyze base contact with scientific precision. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY! Also, all records back to 1876 should be erased because those fuckers were cheating left and right and the numbers they put up can't be trusted. It's a real disgrace that MLB has allowed this to go on for so long.

[Ceetar]

that sounds like a more fun game than just letting stupid faulty human umpires subjectively decide.

[dinosaur jesus]

This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no?

I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right.



We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played.

[LWFS]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction This is the answer.

That could work.



Those of you who like a little human-judgement-uncertainty mixed into your replay might prefer a FIFA-ish system, whereby you let the umps call the game, and when something needs to be looked at (any close scoring-related play; any egregious/obviously visible error, as determined by a replay official), replay umps signal the umps. No challenges.



(Of course, if y'all like this petifogging fun... wait'll you see what the Premier League has done with offsides calls this season!)

[Edgy MD]

I've always found offsides in any goal-based sport to be kind of silly.



"The object of the game is to score, while pretending to be humble enough to pretend that you don't want to."

[Ceetar]

This is an out. it should always be an out. The only times it's not an out is when an umpire misses the call, which should be almost never.




[attachment=0]villar.jpg[/attachment]

[MFS62]

This discussion brings to mind the story about the famous umpire Bill Klem. The ball and the runner arrived at second base in a cloud of dust.

The fielder applied the tag, then jumped up and said to Clem, "Is he safe or is he out?" and Clem replied, "He ain't nuthin' 'till I call it."



Whether we use electronics to ensure the call is right is now moot. What if the umpire got the call wrong? What recourse is there for the "injured party"?

Well, the umps can conference and maybe put a runner back on the base.

But some calls are not reviewable (by rule).

What then?



Remember, there is no more "playing the game under protest" with hope a higher authority will do something (has a game ever been replayed because of such a situation? I'd guess never.). Protests have been eliminated - one of the rules they slid in under the smoke screen when other rules were implemented this year (e.g.- seven inning games in doubleheaders and runner on second base to start extra innings).



It should go back to the umpires getting the call right, and if there's a question about an interpretation of the rules (e.g.- ball hit a wall over or under the home run line, fair or foul), deciding it with a meeting of the umpires. Other plays, where a rule interpretation is not involved (e.g- tag plays), should not be reviewable.



BUT, there should be stricter enforcement of umpire evaluations, to make sure the most capable umpires are still there and bad ones culled out.

Right now, that is close to impossible, but it is a change that must be made by MLB.



Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

Whether we use electronics to ensure the call is right is now moot.

???????????????

What if the umpire got the call wrong? What recourse is there for the "injured party"?

I dunno. What about replay review? You know ... using electronics to ensure the call is right.

But some calls are not reviewable (by rule). What then?

I give up. I'm still trying to figure out why using electronics to ensure the call is right is supposed to be moot.

Remember, there is no more "playing the game under protest"

Yeah, I remember. No team ever won a protest on grounds that an ump made an incorrect judgment call anyways. That was never a basis for a successful protest. Protests were granted where an ump misinterpreted the rules and it was deemed that that rules misinterpretation was not a harmless error, but that the error materially impacted the outcome of the game -- like the Merkle boner game or the George Brett pine tar game.

It should go back to the umpires getting the call right, and if there's a question about an interpretation of the rules (e.g.- ball hit a wall over or under the home run line, fair or foul), deciding it with a meeting of the umpires. Other plays, where a rule interpretation is not involved (e.g- tag plays), should not be reviewable.

So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?



I have no idea what you're saying. You don't even distinguish between errors in judgment and errors in rules interpretation, lumping them all together to compound your confusing post.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

We're getting more granular without getting clearer.

[MFS62]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68]


So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

[Edgy MD]

=MFS62 post_id=65862 time=1622242330 user_id=60]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68]


So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

[MFS62]

I stand corrected.

Action was taken and the game replayed from the point of the incident.

But this was a protest of an umpire ruling.

Replay, which is the subject of this thread, was not a factor.



Later

[Edgy MD]

I didn't bring it up.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68]


So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

[roger_that]

dinosaur jesus wrote: This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no? I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right. We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played.

No, that was me calling all loss-of-contact-while-being-tagged "cheating." It plainly is cheating, pure and simple and indisputable. The only difference was that for 150 years there was no way on God's green earth to tell, and less way to confirm, that the runner had been tagged while he briefly lost contact with the base. So runners cheated and they got away with it.



Think about it for two seconds. If a runner STEPS off the base, so that everyone can see he's lost contact, and he gets tagged, he's ALWAYS been called out. His manager doesn't even come out on the field, and his teammates avoid him in the dugout like he stinks of rotten cheese. And if he's standing on the base with two feet firmly planted, and the fielder tags him, no one pays the slightest attention. He's plainly safe. The fielder is treated like a stupid douchebag for wasting our time tagging someone standing on the base. Them's the rules, simple rules. Contact = Safe, Loss of contact = out.



But now we have the technology to tell for sure whether contact has been lost. The old fogie position is "You can't call that because for years and years that used to be ump's judgment. I don't WANNA have him called out in that situation." Problem is, it doesn't matter if you WANNA. If he's out, he's out.



The solution is to retrain baserunners. "Now, when you slide into a base you have to be careful you don't overslide. They're calling you out now if you break contact, so DO NOT BREAK CONTACT." Very simple.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no? I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right. We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played. No, that was me calling all loss-of-contact-while-being-tagged "cheating." It plainly is cheating, pure and simple and indisputable.

It's not cheating and there's no indisputable evidence that a runner coming off the base for two seconds is cheating. Cheating requires intent. These runners are briefly coming off the base accidentally and without any intent -- they've generated an enormous amount of momentum in running to the base as quick as they can to arrive safely and then suddenly can't shut off that momentum on a dime even though they have to in order to remain in contact with the base. That's what 's happening. Nobody's cheating. What would be the runner's incentive to cheat -- to purposely come off the base for a fraction of a second? There's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost -- risking being called out and also losing possession of the base. There's no point in coming off the base for a fraction of a second on purpose.

[roger_that]

I'm sure that a guy who drops a pop fly had no intent to drop it either. Still an error, still a runner on base. This is a very silly argument. Play the game right.