Instant Replay In Baseball...

[shilala]

There's been a lot of blah about it lately, I think the "blown call" thing has gained it's speed that it gets every now and then, this recent time it's probably been more motivated by basketball.
I'm in the "absolutely not" camp.
There are endless opportunities in a ballgame to succeed. If an ump takes away one or two plays, it does not make or break a game. It's a perfect opportunity for a player to look at him or herself and ask why they didn't hit when they could have pushed in a run, or why they booted that easy play at 3rd that allowed that rally, etc.
I've always believed baseball is a metaphor for life, and that's why people love it so much. It celebrates the human element. Hell, if you're batting .300, you're doing great. That's 3 hits out of 10 opportunities. In any other field of endeavor that'd get you fired.
I honestly think that video replay would be even worse than the DH rule, which is equally ridiculous.

It makes sense in other sports, especially football and hockey. The play is so fast and so congested that it makes things almost impossible for officials. I could even make an argument for basketball, but I don't care about basketball. They'd whine one way or another, so it's pointless.

What do you guys think?
Would it make sense in the playoffs or World Series? (I say no there, too.)
Is there any part of the game that should rely on computers, like balls and strikes?

[Subvet642]

Nope! I'm a traditionalist.

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by Subvet642

Nope! I'm a traditionalist.

My same answer!!

[chippewastud79]

Although I think there isn't really a need for it, and human error will happen regardless, because where does the video replay stop having authority, plays like the one that cost Galaraga a perfect game a few seasons ago makes part of me wish there was a 'specific situation' use of replay.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Although I think there isn't really a need for it, because where does the video replay stop having authority, plays like the one that cost Galaraga a perfect game a few seasons makes part of me wish there was a 'specific situation' use of replay.

I forgot about that one, and it hurt.
What I remember most is how Armando handled it. He was gracious, understanding, and forgave the official that missed the call. That guy was absolutely torn up over it.
In my eyes, that was a much better everything than another perfect game in the books, and Armando knows he did it. So does everyone else.
Look how he handled it the day after it happened. The Perfect Gentleman.
They even gave him a new Corvette for being so awesome.
Here's another excellent video tearjerker.

[mase]

No. The game time has ballooned since the 80s. With so few complete games and so many pitching changes, most games are 3 hours long or more. And the playoff games can get close to 4 hours.

[MedicCook]

The thing that is pushing the need for replay is the fact the umpires are getting worse and worse with getting it right. A lot of that has to do with the HD tv and slow motion closeups making it easier for fans to see the problems. The only way to do a full replay system in baseball is to have a replay official in the the booth reviewing plays as they happen. The replay official can figure it out before the next pitch is even thrown and can signal down to the umpire crew chief of the overruling. No umpires will need to leave the field of play and spend 5 minutes watching a replay. It would also be nice if MLB started publishing the punishment of umpires when they screw up. They have no problem letting the world know about a player's suspension or fine but umpires seem to skate by when they screw up on a regular basis. If they held umpires to a higher standard maybe the calls will start to become correct and the whole replay issues goes away.

No. MLB should start with hiring better umpires and replacing the bad ones. Don't get me wrong, the league has great umpires, but we all know the bad ones and can name them right now.

[mmblz]

Wouldn't this make a game even slower and take even longer than it already does?

(where's the "falling asleep" smiley?)

[elderboy02]

I would love to see instant replay as long as you can't review balls and strikes.

[BUC WHITE]

No. I enjoy the human element of all sports

[Blak Smyth]

I would like to see the review system in place, however it should be limited to maybe one or two reviews per team. I like the human element of sports too until the human makes game changing poor judgements.

[Islayphile]

Absolutely not

Bad calls that go your teams way and bad calls that go against your team seem to even themselves out over the course of a season.

[Jefft72]

No. And the DH always confused me as well. Perhaps when the Astros go to the AL next year [Grumble, Grumble] I will get to learn more about it.

[Dave128]

Absolutely not.

[The Poet]

I was talking the other night with a buddy about working the chains on the sidelines in football. So, the team on offense runs a play, a tackle is made, and the ref spots the ball . . . BY EYE. Then the ball is moved to the nearer hash mark and is respotted . . . BY EYE. Then the guys holding the down markers place the back end of the chain at the percieved spot of the ball from 15 yards away . . . BY EYE. But when the team drives for about another 10 yards, and a measurement is made to determine if they've gotten a first down or not, it is expected that the chains will be used to measure that precisely to within the nose of the ball, one way or the other.

Don't tell me instant replay would make baseball as "accurate" as are other sports. Besides, there's already no clock in baseball. Do you really want to watch a game where each inning takes an hour?

I vote "no" on replays. The ump's judgement is part of the game, and if you don't like it, don't watch. Or better yet, listen to it on the radio. Baseball works just fine that way, and you don't have to agonize over you seeing things differently than did the umpire.

[area51]

I vote no. It just wouldn't be the same.

[yourchoice]

My vote is against the grain...I think they should use it for more than just HRs.

And, if it were up to me there wouldn't be a DH, but the Players Association would never go for it. The DH takes a lot of intrigue and strategy out of the game, and allows someone to play the game while only truly playing half of it.

[Blak Smyth]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

My vote is against the grain...I think they should use it for more than just HRs.

And, if it were up to me there wouldn't be a DH, but the Players Association would never go for it. The DH takes a lot of intrigue and strategy out of the game, and allows someone to play the game while only truly playing half of it.

I agree about the DH, and always wondered why all teams in the same league don't play by the same rules?

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

My vote is against the grain...I think they should use it for more than just HRs.

And, if it were up to me there wouldn't be a DH, but the Players Association would never go for it. The DH takes a lot of intrigue and strategy out of the game, and allows someone to play the game while only truly playing half of it.

Originally Posted by Blak Smyth

I agree about the DH, and always wondered why all teams in the same league don't play by the same rules?

I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but am also of the opinion that said opinions should have some sort of internal logical consistency. To me, supporting an innovation like replay while objecting to the DH shows said inconsistency. Also, as for "all teams in the same league" playing by the same rules . . . well, unless I am mistaken, the National League is the ONLY place where there is no DH, and that counts high school, college, minor league, American Legion, whatever. So if anyone is to blame for this "discrepancy", it is the mossback old fogies in the Senior Circuit.

Just my , and worth every penny.