Video Killed The...

[TransMonk]

Yuck.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10305223/mlb-owners-ok-expanded-replay-2014 Owners approve expanded replay By Jayson Stark | ESPN.com PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz. -- Baseball's replay age has finally dawned, thanks to Thursday's unanimous approval by owners of what commissioner Bud Selig called a "historic" expansion of replay to correct missed calls. The new system, which will go into effect this season, will give managers most of the power to trigger reviews, by providing them with one challenge per game, along with a second potential challenge if their first is upheld. Only after a manager has used up all of his challenges, and only from the seventh inning on, would umpires be authorized to initiate a review on their own. ... In addition to home runs, expanded replay was unanimously approved by MLB owners for the following plays: � Ground-rule double � Fan interference � Stadium boundary calls � Force play* � Tag play � Fair/foul in outfield only � Trap play in outfield only � Batter hit by pitch � Timing play � Touching a base (requires appeal) � Passing runners � Record keeping *Except fielder's touching of second on double play

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Considering how high-profile mistakes are caught/dissected these days AND the "talent" MLB is running out there to call these things, well, more replay is the only sane solution, innit?

[TransMonk]

My opinion is that they should (for both football and baseball) have an official in a booth watching via a screen who can signal to the head ump that a mistake has been made.

The challenge parade is a gimmick. If they are truly for making the game more fair through technology, then they should just admit it every time the umps goof rather than making it have to be called out.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I agree on the ideal-world thing (see: NHL centralized review model). But between this good-grief and nothing, I'll take this.

[Edgy MD]

TransMonk wrote: My opinion is that they should (for both football and baseball) have an official in a booth watching via a screen who can signal to the head ump that a mistake has been made.

Is your name "Solomon"?

How do you like them going out of their way to protect the neighborhood play at second. What do you suppose that's about?

[Ceetar]

I'm not sure I could've chosen a more sensible solution honestly. The challenge bit could be reworked a little, sure, but it gives a manager a guaranteed appeal look early on, and still allows them to come out and bitch and yell and throw bases to try to convince the umps to look on their own.

It's being done in a control room, which means the second the umps huddle or the manager comes on the field they should start looking at it if they haven't already, minimizing any real delay.

the neighborhood play bit is sort of annoying. I wonder how that'll work. It says double play..if the runner is ultimately safe at first can/will shrewd managers challenge the touching of second anyway?

[ashie62]

Baseball has done just fine for over 100 years without these changes. If it ain't broke...

[Edgy MD]

Baseball is constantly being changed. Why, one year, they even let this black man play.

Protecting the secondbase relay play just seems to be tacitly acknowledging the fear that a just review might demonstrate that 80% of the these out calls have been bogus all along.

Be interesting if they go after the phantom tag though. Secondbasemen can't be protected from everything.

[Benjamin Grimm]

What do they mean by "Timing Play" and "Record Keeping"?

[bmfc1]

A flaw in an otherwise good idea is that current umpires will be reviewing the work of current umpires. Per mlb.com: "Two additional four-man umpiring crews will be hired and umpires will be rotated through New York to review video feeds." This means that eight new umpires (meaning last season's minor leaguers) will now become MLB umpires. The quality of the umpiring is arguable but it won't be improved by having eight newbies. Also, MLB could have used retired umpires or really anyone else (you and I can see the call on TV, too). Will a current umpire want to overrule his colleagues or perhaps a friend? At least the umpires, who already get two weeks off during the season, will get a period of time to enjoy New York and get paid without having to actually go to a ballpark. Another flaw is that there should a crew solely dedicated to games umpired by Angel Hernandez.

[ashie62]

Edgy MD wrote: Baseball is constantly being changed. Why, one year, they even let this black man play. Protecting the secondbase relay play just seems to be tacitly acknowledging the fear that a just review might demonstrate that 80% of the these out calls have been bogus all along. Be interesting if they go after the phantom tag though. Secondbasemen can't be protected from everything.

Cmon...The color barrier and replay are not even remotely related...

Certainly baseball changes and I embrance much of it. However, replay feels cumbersome and I just don't think it is needed...

[seawolf17]

Ashie62 wrote: Certainly baseball changes and I embrance much of it. However, replay feels cumbersome and I just don't think it is needed...

I agree that it's cumbersome, but I do think it's needed. I don't think baseball is savvy enough to pull it off without it being cumbersome, though.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ashie62 wrote: Baseball has done just fine for over 100 years without these changes. If it ain't broke...

That kind of argument never makes sense to me.

[Edgy MD]

Ashie62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Baseball is constantly being changed. Why, one year, they even let this black man play. Protecting the secondbase relay play just seems to be tacitly acknowledging the fear that a just review might demonstrate that 80% of the these out calls have been bogus all along. Be interesting if they go after the phantom tag though. Secondbasemen can't be protected from everything. Cmon...The color barrier and replay are not even remotely related... Certainly baseball changes and I embrance much of it. However, replay feels cumbersome and I just don't think it is needed...

I understand. But it just begs for a better argument than "Baseball has done just fine for over 100 years without these changes. If it ain't broke..."

For some people, at some times, it has been very broke. Ask Armando Benitez. Ask Armando Galarraga. (Man, lack of replay review has been really hard on guys named Armando.)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ashie62 wrote: replay feels cumbersome and I just don't think it is needed...

I'd also ban the batting helmet. It emboldens the batter, thus giving him an unfair advantage over the pitcher. And teams should have to use Amtrak to travel from city to city.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: What do they mean by "Timing Play" and "Record Keeping"?

To me,
1) "timing play" is about whether a runner leaves a base too early after a catch.
2) "record keeping"? I dunno. But it could mean taking another look at official scorers' decisions(hit/error). If so, I doubt any manager would waste his one appeal on this one unless it meant a no-hitter or hitting streak for one of his players.

Later

[Ceetar]

wonder if 'record keeping' is more an entry to just allow MLB/scorekeepers/umpires to have a rule in place to adjust things. They change hits to errors or whatever anyway occasionally, so this is just confirming they can do that?

[Edgy MD]

"Timing play" is a strange description meaning replay can be used to reveal whether a runner scores before the third out.

"Record keeping" means replay can be used to clarify the rare time discrepancies come up as to how many balls/strikes/outs/runs there are or whether a substitution was announced.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I believe that replay should be carried out by an official whose job is to be the replay official. They would be stationed in a room in the stadium (or a van outside the stadium) watching multiple screens showing replays throughout the game so that they already have a finger on what's happening before a challenge. I would do this for baseball, football, and any other sport that needs replay. Managers/coaches, officials on the field, and the replay official may all make challenges. Once a challenge is issued, a clock starts and the replay official has 30 seconds to make a decision (and since s/he has already been watching the game s/he may not need that long). If one cannot get enough evidence from watching 30-seconds of replay, the call on the field stands. This would reduce the time wasted for umpires/referrees to walk off the field to watch a replay, or the time wasted watching it over and over again to get it perfect. In the majority of cases, those of us watching at home can tell if there was a flagrant miscall in 30 seconds or less and that should be enough time for the replay official.

[TransMonk]

Agreed with Willets. Those outside the Bronx don't need the games to be any longer than they already are.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: Agreed with Willets. Those outside the Bronx don't need the games to be any longer than they already are.

You think this system will actually make the games any longer?

If it does, it'll only be marginally, and that time will not be the normal "what's going on? check twitter, what are people saying?" stuff, because they'll be able to put up the replay on the big screen and be involved.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I expect the length of games will not be affected much, but it will make for less of an interruption to the flow of play.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Adam Rubin wrote: Johan Santana's no-hitter -- the only one in Mets history -- arguably has an asterisk. But it would have stood as a no-hitter, even if the new instant-replay rules had been in effect on June 1, 2012, according to Major League Baseball. To backtrack, Carlos Beltran hit a sixth-inning line drive down the third-base line, which was ruled foul by third-base ump Adrian Johnson. In actuality, the ball struck the chalk line and should have been ruled a fair ball. Under the new replay rules, only outfield fair/foul calls are able to be reviewed -- not those in the infield. And by infield, MLB means those in front of the umpire, according to a league official. So even though Beltran's liner first touched the ground beyond the third-base bag, it was not a play that would have been reviewed. MLB may adjust the rule in future seasons to make that type of play reviewable. But, for now, the league doesn't want to be involved with having to place runners on the correct bases if it can help it.

I'm not sure I understand. Did Beltran's drive hit the foul line in front of the umpire? I seem to remember it happening in short left field; I would have thought it would have been beyond where the umpire was standing.

And anyway, even if the ball is behind the umpire, you still could have to figure out where to place runners. If a fair ball is changed to foul, of course, it's easy. But if a ball hits the foul line just short of the warning track, and there are runners on base, and the ball is called foul and then overruled, you will have to figure out where to place the runners. It's unavoidable. I guess players could complete the play, like they do in football when a flag is thrown. But that would be quite a cultural change; both teams would have to learn to ignore the foul call by the umpire whenever it's close.

[nymr83]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ashie62 wrote: replay feels cumbersome and I just don't think it is needed... I'd also ban the batting helmet. It emboldens the batter, thus giving him an unfair advantage over the pitcher. And teams should have to use Amtrak to travel from city to city.

I realize you are being facetious, but I WOULD look into banning those giant armor-like sleeves that some batters wear... or at least make a rule that if you get hit on one of those things it is a 'ball' (or strike in the zone which is already the rule) and you don't get to go to first base on a 'hit by pitch' unless it was ball 4 anyway.

*Except fielder's touching of second on double play

stupid. if you dont want force-plays to be reviewable it should apply everywhere.


Overall, the rules may help with accuracy in officiating but i'm not sure they are worth the increase in game times.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Adam Rubin wrote: Johan Santana's no-hitter -- the only one in Mets history -- arguably has an asterisk. But it would have stood as a no-hitter, even if the new instant-replay rules had been in effect on June 1, 2012, according to Major League Baseball. To backtrack, Carlos Beltran hit a sixth-inning line drive down the third-base line, which was ruled foul by third-base ump Adrian Johnson. In actuality, the ball struck the chalk line and should have been ruled a fair ball. Under the new replay rules, only outfield fair/foul calls are able to be reviewed -- not those in the infield. And by infield, MLB means those in front of the umpire, according to a league official. So even though Beltran's liner first touched the ground beyond the third-base bag, it was not a play that would have been reviewed. MLB may adjust the rule in future seasons to make that type of play reviewable. But, for now, the league doesn't want to be involved with having to place runners on the correct bases if it can help it. I'm not sure I understand. Did Beltran's drive hit the foul line in front of the umpire? I seem to remember it happening in short left field; I would have thought it would have been beyond where the umpire was standing. And anyway, even if the ball is behind the umpire, you still could have to figure out where to place runners. If a fair ball is changed to foul, of course, it's easy. But if a ball hits the foul line just short of the warning track, and there are runners on base, and the ball is called foul and then overruled, you will have to figure out where to place the runners. It's unavoidable. I guess players could complete the play, like they do in football when a flag is thrown. But that would be quite a cultural change; both teams would have to learn to ignore the foul call by the umpire whenever it's close.

I'm like 95% sure Beltran's ball would be classified as OF, and I'm also pretty sure you could still argue to have it reviewed based on OF/IF. How many infield foul/fair balls are there? It's really just those choppers that may or may not cross foul before the bag. And those ARE difficult. did it hit something and ricochet? would the OFer have read that correctly? Would the runner on first go first to third because of it? the foul/fair in the outfielder is a little smoother. But you're still going to have to place runners. Say Duda was halfway to second and picking up steam when the ball is call foul and later overturned. does he get third?

but trapped OF catches are going to result in the same mess. Perhaps umpires will be trained to err on the side of hit? But hell, Lagares makes a diving catch that is called a hit but ultimately was caught. it's 9-9 in the bottom of the ninth at Citizen's Bank Ballpark and there is one out. Ryan Howard is on third, tagging up. How can you possibly reasonably reconstruct that play? Do you award Howard home, and the Phillies the game, because you don't think Juan gets up to throw him out in time? Do you hold him because you don't think it's fair to end a game on a reversed call without it playing out, despite it Lagares taking 3 seconds to get up after the dive and it seems pretty conclusive in real time that Howard would've scored?

But I guess those are the pitfalls of trying to up the accuracy of calls.

[Edgy MD]

Jeter doesn't get the fake homerun. The Yankees don't win the 1996 World Series. And all the LIVING SHIT that flows from that NEVER HAPPENS.

I'd give up the no-hitter for that six days in seven.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Does Armando Galarraga get a perfect game under these replay rules?

[Edgy MD]

That was a force play, yeah.

[ashie62]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Baseball is constantly being changed. Why, one year, they even let this black man play. Protecting the secondbase relay play just seems to be tacitly acknowledging the fear that a just review might demonstrate that 80% of the these out calls have been bogus all along. Be interesting if they go after the phantom tag though. Secondbasemen can't be protected from everything. Cmon...The color barrier and replay are not even remotely related... Certainly baseball changes and I embrance much of it. However, replay feels cumbersome and I just don't think it is needed... I understand. But it just begs for a better argument than "Baseball has done just fine for over 100 years without these changes. If it ain't broke..." For some people, at some times, it has been very broke. Ask Armando Benitez. Ask Armando Galarraga. (Man, lack of replay review has been really hard on guys named Armando.)

lol..true...I'd like to see Bobby V back with a review system in place that allows challenges until you lose one and watch Bobby go to town.

The game starts to feel long to me as it is...I tire of a pitching changes in the 6th inning, 7th..8th..9th etc and picture a clusterfuck longass baseball experience with challenges thrown in...

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ideally, this will help get the calls right, which is important, and they'd find other ways to shave 20 minutes or so off the average game time, which is unlikely.