What's the rush????

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

This drivel is from AP, with my comments below...

Instant replay expected to slow pace of baseball games
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- As if major league games aren't long enough already, now there will be replay delays.

Sometime before the end of the regular season, Major League Baseball will start allowing umpires to review video to determine boundary calls on home runs, such as whether they cleared fences or went by the foul pole in fair territory.

"Major League Baseball and the media, they want instant replay, and we're going to have instant replay, so if it delays the game, then there's nothing we can do about it," World Umpires Association president John Hirschbeck said.


...... OK, first, it's not like this is going to happen every inning, or even every game or even every week for that matter.

But more importantly, the only people who beef about the length of ballgames are whining sportwriters.

Seriously, I'f I'm plunking down $40 for a seat at a ballgame, I don't want to get pushed out the door.

When I was at Shea in June, there was an hour-long rain delay and I didn't complain because I had all kinds of time to enjoy being at Shea.

If you want to gripe about something long and drawn out, go to an NFL game with a million TV-time outs or the last 2 minutes of an NBA game.

We had a columnist at my former newspaper who was forever griping about the length of the MLB schedule. He didn't get it. We LIKE it to be long because it's a part of a daily lives for the best part of the year.


(jumps off soapbox)

[metirish]

I tend to agree with Gary Cohen who said last week that he didn't like the idea of introducing this during the season.

[Guest Kong76]

I like a quick ballgame, on tv or in person.

I don't think it's appropriate to introduce it during a season. It gives some
games better umpiring than other games and the Mets got dicked a couple
of times this year so I don't want to see a Phillly home run result from some
booth in NYC with a bunch of monitors affecting games that might matter.

I'm fine with them introducing it this post season but not blown call sooner.

[Theoldmole]

I'm with michguy -- I don't want to be rushed through a game either. I used to love to go to doubleheaders when I was a kid.

[nymr83]

i wouldnt introduce it in the postseason either. use it in the AFL and then start using it next march for spring training games.

[Guest AG/DC]

I'm offended by that report, which dances between news and opinion.

Moreover, the premise is based on as shortsighted a conclusion as the "reporting" that Randolph got sacked in the middle of the night because a press release had a 3:15 time stamp.

A ball hits the pole, or doesn't hit the pole.

The guy circles the bases.

The leftfielder jumps up and down.

The defensive manager comes out to argue.

He argues and argues.

The umpires converge and confer. Four guys with their hands in thier pocket saying, "I didn't get a good look. Did you get a good look? Jeezus, I hope we didn't blow it. Teams in both clubhouses are watching the play on TV. Millions of Americans have an advantage on us and we have to make the call. OK, none of us got a good look. Put your potatoes in. Inka-binka, Bottle of inka..."

They make a call. One of the managers feels screwed. He'll argue until he's blue, and maybe get tossed. Certainly if the replay backs him up. Maybe a player or coach gets tossed too. Maybe they argue after they're toossed.

And if they blow it, the game looks bad, and a series with everything on the line is swung in the wrong direction.

Replays are going to slow that down?

[smg58]

Nymr83 wrote: i wouldnt introduce it in the postseason either. use it in the AFL and then start using it next march for spring training games.

But that would make sense.

[Guest AG/DC]

Why doesn't it make sense for this season?

[Guest Kong76]

What's nonsensical about using it in the 2008 playoffs?

There aren't nearly as many cameras in place for AFL and ST games to
even have that idea make any sense unless you cover these games like
real games and that ain't happening anytime $oon.

[batmagadanleadoff]

KC wrote: I don't think it's appropriate to introduce it during a season. It gives some games better umpiring than other games and the Mets got dicked a couple of times this year....

But then again, the Mets could keep on getting dicked again without instant replay. Maybe even more so than any other team, from here on out.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Why doesn't it make sense for this season?

I'm bookmarking this post. We agree.

[Guest Kong76]

bml: But then again, the Mets could keep on getting dicked again without instant replay. Maybe even more so than any other team, from here on out<<<

That got old around here about five years ago.

[Guest Kong76]

AG: Why doesn't it make sense for this season?<<<

Because you play a full season with one set of rules. I guess it's me, but
I see it the same as playing with three or five umpires the rest of the way.
Hell, four fouls 'n yer out. The chalk is foul and the so are the poles.

And actually, I don't want it for the 2008 post-season. I've talked myself
out of that too.

[nymr83]

]Because you play a full season with one set of rules. I guess it's me, but I see it the same as playing with three or five umpires the rest of the way. Hell, four fouls 'n yer out. The chalk is foul and the so are the poles.

i agree that you should play a season (and i'd say that includes that season's playoffs) with one set of rules.

[Guest AG/DC]

I don't see it as a new set of rules. I see it as one more cop on the beat enforcing the same rules.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="KC"]bml: But then again, the Mets could keep on getting dicked again without instant replay. Maybe even more so than any other team, from here on out<<< That got old around here about five years ago.

Well, I wasn't here five years ago, so I can't put my two cents into that one, one way or the other.

I don't see the introduction of replay in mid-season as being problematic, mainly because the policy has no effect on the way the game is played. If, for example, MLB decided in mid-season, that all runs scored on Home Runs would count twice as much, so that a solo Hr would be worth two runs and a Grand Slam eight runs, I could see the unfairness. Teams could justifiably complain that the new policy favors home run hitting teams, and that the policy is unfair to teams that were built primarily around speed or fielding. Teams can't reasonably adapt to the new rule change in midseason and on a few days or weeks notice.

But this instant replay has no effect on the actual play of the game; rather, it essentially affects the observation of the way the game is played, and nothing more. It would be as if MLB discovered a colony of Supermen with superhuman, infallible eye-vision to replace the regular old human umpires in midseason. Where's the unfairness to the game?

[nymr83]

AG/DC wrote: I don't see it as a new set of rules. I see it as one more cop on the beat enforcing the same rules.

oh theres no question that this wouldnt be on the same level as changing a more substantive rule but i still dont like this stuff in the middle of the season. i'm sure there will be a new set of problems and complaints (maybe even arguments over who has to decide what and who can demand replay and when) and i'd rather that starter in spring training than in the playoffs

[Theoldmole]

AFL like with Joe Namath?

[nymr83]

="batmagadanleadoff"] ="KC"]bml: But then again, the Mets could keep on getting dicked again without instant replay. Maybe even more so than any other team, from here on out<<< That got old around here about five years ago. Well, I wasn't here five years ago, so I can't put my two cents into that one, one way or the other. I don't see the introduction of replay in mid-season as being problematic, mainly because the policy has no effect on the way the game is played. If, for example, MLB decided in mid-season, that all runs scored on Home Runs would count twice as much, so that a solo Hr would be worth two runs and a Grand Slam eight runs, I could see the unfairness. Teams could justifiably complain that the new policy favors home run hitting teams, and that the policy is unfair to teams that were built primarily around speed or fielding. Teams can't reasonably adapt to the new rule change in midseason and on a few days or weeks notice. But this instant replay has no effect on the actual play of the game; rather, it essentially affects the observation of the way the game is played, and nothing more. It would be as if MLB discovered a colony of Supermen with superhuman, infallible eye-vision to replace the regular old human umpires in midseason. Where's the unfairness to the game?

one could argue that the teams knew the tendancies of the umpires and a mass replacement mid-season (or installing Questec midseason) is unfair to some teams as well (like, say, a braves team that relies on calls 6 inches off the plate that they know they have been getting.)

[nymr83]

TheOldMole wrote: AFL like with Joe Namath?

Arizona Fall League, sorry thought that was obvious

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: one could argue that the teams knew the tendancies of the umpires and a mass replacement mid-season (or installing Questec midseason) is unfair to some teams as well (like, say, a braves team that relies on calls 6 inches off the plate that they know they have been getting.)

That dog don't hunt. You think that some teams are skilled at purposely hitting balls within an inch of the foul pole just to fuck with the umpires?

[Guest Kong76]

AG: I don't see it as a new set of rules. I see it as one more cop on the beat enforcing the same rules<<<

Call it what you want, some games would be played one way and some
another. It's not completely fair if you change anything. To me.

I'm not going to go on chasing my tail over it.

[metirish]

We could have used it on the blown call at first base tonight with Delgado.

[metsmarathon]

i would look at it more akin to an umpire getting a better pair of glasses mid season. nothing changes but the ability to more accurately make a call.

[nymr83]

metirish wrote: We could have used it on the blown call at first base tonight with Delgado.

its not going to be used for those calls, but here we go down the slippery slope of 5 hour baseball games with a replay on anything conceivably disputable.

[metirish]

Nymr83 wrote: ="metirish"]We could have used it on the blown call at first base tonight with Delgado. its not going to be used for those calls, but here we go down the slippery slope of 5 hour baseball games with a replay on anything conceivably disputable.

I knew that but how long before some ask why not , a big blown call in the WS might do it.

[Guest AG/DC]

Nymr83 wrote: ="metirish"]We could have used it on the blown call at first base tonight with Delgado. its not going to be used for those calls, but here we go down the slippery slope of 5 hour baseball games with a replay on anything conceivably disputable.

Winning teams are losing baseball games unjustly. What are you afraid of. You really don't think excesses are predictable and preventable? You'd rather continue with a point of gross and un-necessary failure hanging over the game?

Are you a secret agent for the umpire's union? ARE YOU?!

[nymr83]

you think i'm an agent for any union? read the politics threads again.

i'm not against instant replay, but i want it started in the spring and only for disputed HRs

[Guest AG/DC]

Well it's only happening for disputed homers, so who are you arguing with?

[nymr83]

AG/DC wrote: Well it's only happening for disputed homers, so who are you arguing with?

i'm arguing with the idea of it spreading elsewhere, but mainly i'm against instituting it suddenly for the postseason