Video Killed The...

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ashie62 wrote: 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.

Good call. This system cries out for a guy like Bobby V.

[Frayed Knot]

MLB names Justin Klemm 'Director of Instant Replay'

"Klemm* has been executive director of Minor League Baseball's Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation since 2008. He will be based in New York and report to MLB senior vice president of baseball operations Peter Woodfork. Klemm will be responsible for managing the umpires at the Replay Command Center, handling supervisor staffing at the facility and, along with the technology director at MLBAM, helping to coordinate the procedural configuration with all 30 teams."




* wasn't there an old umpire Bill Klem?

[Frayed Knot]

So based on the idea that you never know in advance which plays are going to be reviewed and what the outcome of such review might be, TB manager Joe Madden is reportedly instructing his players on the concept of playing 'until the 4th out' this season. The idea being that if your runners keep running or your fielders make sure to get the ball back into the infield even though the apparent third out has been made, where your (or their) runners are placed following a reversal might be to your benefit.

[Zvon]

Watching bits of todays game. I especially want to see how Colon pitched (I liked what I saw).

In the second inn the first base ump blew 3 calls in succession inside maybe 2 minutes.

Colon picked the runner off first twice and both times he was called safe. Then Wright made an amazin' diving catch (ball already was by him) on a grounder, popped up and threw the guy out bya few inches, and the first base ump called the guy safe.

Great play by Wright today.
I'm telling you, they don't need this replay BS. They need better umps. Umps need to be vetted better. Hold them accountable. If they are bad umps get rid of them.

I think at least 50% of the umps today suck. And you're going to make these easier for them? So they don't have to get it right.

As far as the time situation, lengths of games and allAdat, sure, there are some time wasters that can be addressed and cut down on, when the ball isnt in play. Other than that the game is fine. It's people that need to slow down, and eventually they will.

[MFS62]

When I read words like "blew the play" or "umps suck" I immediately think of Angel Hernandez. Was he at first today?

Later

[Guest themetfairy]

Vic Black and Anthony Recker waiting for the results of last Friday's replay. Because you guys can never get enough pictures of Anthony Recker -

[fimg=450:2g2qxesh]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3822/13083761494_8887b8b46e_b.jpg[/fimg:2g2qxesh]

[Frayed Knot]

Replay command center at the Chelsea Market Building




http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/major-league-baseball-unveils-state-of-the-art-replay-center?ymd=20140326&content_id=70188846&vkey=news_mlb

[Edgy MD]

I get the idea that having replay as a recourse is going to cut managerial ejections by like 80%.

[ashie62]

Now... if Earl Weaver were still managing...

[Edgy MD]

... the Orioles dugout would really smell bad.

[Frayed Knot]

Apparently you CAN get thrown out even after a replay review.
Boston mgr John Farrell does the trick.

[Frayed Knot]

Umps in the Twins/Rays game last night lost track of the count during an AB after six pitches were thrown. At that point the batter should have either been walked or K'd since, whatever the mix-up was, there were no 2-strike foul balls to extend the AB.
So off they went to the headphones to get things straightened out, but somehow came out of their little pow-wow declaring that the count was still 3-2 (it should have been a walk).
The batter, TB's Yunel Escobar, struck out on the next pitch. I hate it when guys go down looking at a borderline 4-2 pitch.

The weird part is that Escobar appeared to ask for confirmation of the count from the home plate ump after the 4th pitch, the only possible pitch in the AB which could have been in dispute. But then, with the only possible options being either 2-2 or 3-1 not one person acted as if the AB was over when pitch #5 was clearly called a strike and #6 just as clearly a ball -- one of them should have ended the AB!


It never works as well in practice as it does in theory, does it?

[Zvon]

That fits my theory that umps feel there's really no need to pay attention any more.

[Frayed Knot]

Gary brought up another thing that I worry about with the new replay rules; the whole wondering if the ball was moving inside d'Arnaud's glove thing. That drives me nuts in football and, when people think about what they want replay to do, I guarantee you that none of them were thinking about the type of microscopic evidence like whether the ball was slightly jiggling while in the receiver's arms as he was falling out of bounds or whatever.

Now I haven't yet seen or heard about an equivalent call being made so far in MLB, but like everything else in replay, once you open that box it's real tough to limit what you won't consider.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Gary brought up another thing that I worry about with the new replay rules; the whole wondering if the ball was moving inside d'Arnaud's glove thing. That drives me nuts in football and, when people think about what they want replay to do, I guarantee you that none of them were thinking about the type of microscopic evidence like whether the ball was slightly jiggling while in the receiver's arms as he was falling out of bounds or whatever. Now I haven't yet seen or heard about an equivalent call being made so far in MLB, but like everything else in replay, once you open that box it's real tough to limit what you won't consider.

You've got the "clean transfer" thing as well. I agree that that stuff is too much. Sometimes I flip on a football game and it feels like I'm watching lawyers argue over a turn of phrase.

[metsmarathon]

the thing is, that's the same type of thing that the umpires and football refs are trying to suss out with their unassisted eyeballs.

now, however, they need to figure out how much movement is too much, as in any situation where two objects collide, there is always movement. it's not so readily discernable to the naked eye, but slow it down and zoom in, and there's all kinds of shaking, rattling, and rolling going on.

you wouldn't believe how much a baseball bat flexes when it hits a ball, but you can see it in the super slow-mo.

i think that even though there are definitely some bumps in the road, these are all problems attributable to the early implementation of instant replay, and they are all fixable to certain extents, really up to hte limit that baseball is willing to fix it. there's nothing wrong with replay that should cause them to scrap the whole system, merely refine its implementation and usage..

standardizing camera angles to an extent, and adding even more, better cameras if coverage gaps are found, would be a first step.

having dedicated replay officials for each game, also, whose job it is to begin reviewing a play AS SOON as a questionable call is made. with a dozen or so monitors of synchronized game footage, this should be a fast-response kind of thing. there's no need for it to take five minutes of serially inching through tape, camera by camera. watch it from all angles at the same time. and put a good camera feed up on the scoreboard for hte fans to play along.

limiting the managers to two challenges is dumb. allowing htem to come out, stand around while waiting for their replay consultant to give them a thimbs up or thumbs down is also dumb. if they come out, the challenge is initiated. since the response is intant, there should be no extra delay. let the manager challenge as much as he wants. if he gets two (or three) wrong, he's out of hte game.

[Ceetar]

yeah, the challenge bit was dumb. I wasn't aware umpires couldn't review it on their own before the 7th. It should be like that the whole time. Umpires can call for the review themselves after the 6th inning, otherwise the managers can come out and ask them. none of this challenge stuff. And look, this preserves the 'managers yelling at things' angle. Let them come out and yell for a replay.

Sure, some managers might try to abuse it by calling for replays on every play, or on simple plays when their player needs a breather, but that's why the umpires can say no. (THERE's an angle. 5th inning, your pitcher is struggling, gives up a liner to left field. Go out and argue it was a actually caught or something. You get the one challenge anyway, even if it's blatantly stupid. At the very least you get a minute for your pitcher to catch his breath and regroup without having to use a mound visit.)

[Edgy MD]

I have to believe the benefits have outweighed the bumps overwhelmingly so far.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think so too.

[metsmarathon]

Ceetar wrote: yeah, the challenge bit was dumb. I wasn't aware umpires couldn't review it on their own before the 7th. It should be like that the whole time. Umpires can call for the review themselves after the 6th inning, otherwise the managers can come out and ask them. none of this challenge stuff. And look, this preserves the 'managers yelling at things' angle. Let them come out and yell for a replay. Sure, some managers might try to abuse it by calling for replays on every play, or on simple plays when their player needs a breather, but that's why the umpires can say no. (THERE's an angle. 5th inning, your pitcher is struggling, gives up a liner to left field. Go out and argue it was a actually caught or something. You get the one challenge anyway, even if it's blatantly stupid. At the very least you get a minute for your pitcher to catch his breath and regroup without having to use a mound visit.)

I wrote: let the manager challenge as much as he wants. if he gets two (or three) wrong, he's out of hte game.

i like my solution. clamps down on cantankerousness for cantankerousness's sake, while still allowing for the maximum amount of correct calls. and with a more instant review as i also proposed above, the delays would be minimized to the point where the stategery of inserting a game delay is minimized.

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: i like my solution. clamps down on cantankerousness for cantankerousness's sake, while still allowing for the maximum amount of correct calls. and with a more instant review as i also proposed above, the delays would be minimized to the point where the stategery of inserting a game delay is minimized.

You probably don't even need dedicated replay officials even. Even just a crappy intern who pushes a button that says 'questionable call' that loads up the call and info for the guys in NY to get a headstart on the guys on the field. Like last night on the play at home. it was probably 30-45 seconds between the play and the umpires putting on the headphones. In that time, they could've seen a replay or two and simply said "yup, he's out" and you're done.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm not suggesting killing the replay idea, only that:

- these things are never as clean as their proponents like to claim, and there's an element of trying to stay only slightly pregnant in it all.

- we can talk all we want about how a replay shouldn't take more than X amount of time but, more than a quarter century into the NFL's experiment with this and with numerous fixes and revisions along the way, they're still taking as long as ever (if not longer) and often raise as many questions as they answer.

- there's a version of 'mission creep' to these things. Just as foreign interventions often have a limited role (deliver food, humanitarian aid, etc) when they start out, they rarely stay confined to just those mandates. And just as no one envisioned a game being interrupted for five minutes while the ref sit camped 'under the hood' to determine whether it should be 4th down and just over one yard or 4th and just under one yard, no baseball fan was advocating for replay so we could minutely examine whether the ball was jiggling within Travis d'Arnaud's glove as he was making a tag. But once you open up the idea to review plays it's hard to NOT consider such things even though it adds a ton of ambiguity to it all and was never the intention to begin with.

- the standardized camera angles and so on sounds nice but this isn't football with it's identical fields and network run production.

- speaking of the local productions, I've still yet to hear how you guard against the local station (often co-owned by the home team) manipulating replays in order to tilt the evidence for or against a call. If YES (or SNY for that matter) has an angle which hurts the home team they have a definite incentive not to run it until after the decision has been considered, an angle that maybe the other side doesn't have, or maybe the other team isn't even televising that game (we're spoiled here in NY, not all teams show all their games).

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: I - speaking of the local productions, I've still yet to hear how you guard against the local station (often co-owned by the home team) manipulating replays in order to tilt the evidence for or against a call. If YES (or SNY for that matter) has an angle which hurts the home team they have a definite incentive not to run it until after the decision has been considered, an angle that maybe the other side doesn't have, or maybe the other team isn't even televising that game (we're spoiled here in NY, not all teams show all their games).

That's an interesting one. I'd hope they're all in agreement or that MLB has access to those feeds regardless of if SNY airs them, but who really knows?


On the uniform camera angle thing, while all parks are different, the diamonds are all identical. It'd be nice to at least have some uniformity in regards to that, though geography might make placing said cameras difficult. Also quality of camera too, and maintenance.

[metsmarathon]

football doesnt do it because hte replay is done under hte hood, onsite.

mlb doesnt need to have that limitation, as they should be offsite. if they can't hire another official for at most 16 games a day, whose job it is to look at a game, with an eye for close calls, and proactively investigate them, then shame on them. they have more htan enough money.

how does hockey do it?

as far as the camera angles, you're right.. there are limitations. but it should be possible to get almost hte same angles at almost every stadium. even if it means installing fixed cameras for fixed views. like the camera over home plate at citi field. this also would solve hte limitation of home field television converage, if there are standardized fixed views of the plate and the bases. again, baseball should have the money to employ camera operators if the games aren't broadcast, and also to maintain the cameras or mandate a minimum camera spec. they're paying players millions of dollars. . they can afford to run some more cameras.

by having all live game fed run into mlb replay headquarters, you eliminate the possibility of a sneaky broadcast outfit holding back on a exonerating reel that would go against the home team.

footballs' probalem, too, is that they've gotten to omuch wiggle room on "control of the ball" especially in such a fashion as to virtually ignore what happens when a ball and a body contact the ground and/or another body. it's going to move. duh. in football, too, there's a lot more stuff in the way, and its hard to get the right camera angles set up. the play could happen anywhere on the field. in baseball, you know where the bases are. you know where the ball is coming from, and have a general idea of where hte players are likely to be.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

metsmarathon wrote: how does hockey do it? ... by having all live game fed run into mlb replay headquarters...

There you are. (With an official at league HQ making the call.)

[Frayed Knot]

Hockey's system is probably the best specifically because it's the simplest and most limited. They review only goals, goals are fairly rare in today's NHL (5-6 per/game), and the schedule usually has an average of about 5-6 games per night.

I've heard similar suggestions that baseball should also only review "scoring plays", but there's not a logical equivalent here.
If a leadoff hit into the gap results in a catch/no-catch call then that call essentially IS a scoring play even though it technically is not. Again, the concept of trying to stay just a little bit pregnant applies here.

[Frayed Knot]

I like how BB-Ref is including overturned plays as part of the p-b-p descriptions.
From Saturday's 9th inning:

Bunt Groundout: 1B-2B/Sacrifice
Force Play Challenged by NYM manager (Terry Collins): Original call (S3/BG.1-2) overturned as shown.

[Frayed Knot]

We had the first (to my knowledge anyway) game-ending video reversal tonight.

Tie game/9th inning in Pittsburgh when Sterling Marte hits a leadoff triple. When the throw to 3rd gets away he breaks for home but is called out.
Clint Hurdle challenges the play, the call is reversed, and the game is OV-AH


Probably not the way the fans want to celebrate a win - but it's better than no celebration at all.

[Edgy MD]

So, here's a way to cut 10 seconds or so off the replay rule. Designate a defensive captain (official title only for this purpose) as the guy who can approach the chief ump and stall the game so we don't have to wait on the manager to trotsky out there. If the offensive team wants to consider filing a challenge, one of the base coaches can take the case up while the manager and dugout staff considers whether they have a case.

[Frayed Knot]

Here's what I say has to happen.
The "umps" in NYC have to take the tact that if it's a type of call involving whether the pinkie is still touching or if it came off the base for a split second; or whether the ball has actually "settled" into the 1B's glove of if it's still just within the glove but not yet in the pocket; or any such other kind of ticky-tacky call, then don't overturn it.
That will, at least after getting their challenges rejected a bunch of times, keep the managers in the dugout and cause them to save their challenges for only the more obvious wrongs.