Instant Replay in MLB?

[PirateLover]

Major League Baseball is the only major sport left that doesn't use instant replay in any way shape or form. There is a huge debate on whether they should allow it or not. I think last year the owners overwhelmingly voted in favor of it, but Bud shot it down.

The people against it feel that the human error is what can make a game interesting, and that games are too long as it is.

The debate has come up again in Philly because yesterday a home run given to the Cubs was actually foul, but all the umps said it was fair. This resulted in Pat Burrell, who clearly saw the ball chasing down the umps, the umps gathering together to discuss, manager Charlie Manuel coming out to fight with them, and then proceeding to follow one of the umps around the field and eventually get ejected. However a 5 second look at the replay would've clearly showed that the ball was foul, so the game was actually lengthened by NOT having instant replay.

My personal opinion is that it should only be instituted for fair vs foul home runs and game changing outs at home plate. I really don't think I'd want to go beyond that because otherwise where do you stop?

What do you think?

[JPL]

I voted yes providing it is used with discretion and they have clear cut rules on a decision making process.
Unlike the mess of instant replay that the NHL has created. While I understand you need undisputable proof to overturn a call some common sense still needs to be part of the equation. I mean take the NHL they need to see the entire puck accross the line to overturn a ruling and call it a goal but what happens when you can't see the puck because it's the Goalie's glove or equipment that is clearly over the goal line. They say it's inconclusive one time and a goal the next.
I also feel that the last thing MLB needs is another way to slow down the game. So I think they would really need certain criteria to follow to ensure that it is done not only quickly but correctly as well. A few situation I think it can be helpful.

1. Close plays at the plate
2. The fair or Foul Ball as mentioned
3. Possibly other close base running plays(providing it's not used every time)

They might have to go with a NFL type plan where they review at the discretion of the manager and only a limited number of times per game.

[Hammer]

As someone who was at the Phillies game yesterday, (Pat Burrell was livid and Jayson Werth had to hold him back and Pat is not known as a hothead), I definitely wish they had instant replay. As Maryanne pointed out, in the case of yesterday's game, the game was actually lengthened by the bad call. The game would have ended in 9 innings (with a Phillies sweep).

Times when instant replay should be employed:

1. If a ball is fair or foul
2. Plays at home plate
3. If a home run is in dispute (the Jeffery Mayer scenario)

[PirateLover]

As someone who was at the Phillies game yesterday, (Pat Burrell was livid and Jayson Werth had to hold him back and Pat is not known as a hothead), I definitely wish they had instant replay. As Maryanne pointed out, in the case of yesterday's game, the game was actually lengthened by the bad call. The game would have ended in 9 innings (with a Phillies sweep).

Times when instant replay should be employed:

1. If a ball is fair or foul
2. Plays at home plate
3. If a home run is in dispute (the Jeffery Mayer scenario)

Just an aside, Were you at the game? I think you said something in the past about having a Sunday plan. We have a 6 pack + some additional games and we were there. From our seats we could only see where it landed, which looked fair, but as soon as I saw Burrell start pointing I switched my headset to the baseball broadcast (I was listening to Flyers) since they don't show controversial calls on the jumbotron in the stadium like they do at other places. I wish it did end in 9 innings, it was getting pretty cold out there.

[Mickey91]

I think it would be a good thing to use instant replay. This is just another example why Bud needs to step down and let a real commissioner take over.

[Hammer]

Just an aside, Were you at the game? I think you said something in the past about having a Sunday plan. We have a 6 pack + some additional games and we were there. From our seats we could only see where it landed, which looked fair, but as soon as I saw Burrell start pointing I switched my headset to the baseball broadcast (I was listening to Flyers) since they don't show controversial calls on the jumbotron in the stadium like they do at other places. I wish it did end in 9 innings, it was getting pretty cold out there.

Yes, I was at the game (my sister and I do have the Sunday plan). Actually, we had just moved to McFadden's from our seats in right field to thaw out with margaritas so we had the TV replay. They stopped showing replays in the park a couple of years ago when a replay showed a Lieberthal hit that was called a double was actually a home run.

[Ian]

As someone else already pointed out, MLB is the only league left that doesn't use instant replay.

I totally disagree that human error "makes a game interesting." I think it makes games annoying, irritating, and opens leagues up to questions in regards to the impartiality of their referees.

I also feel that it denegrates the integrity of the sport in general when you have games decided one way or another because someone made a bad call and then, out of pride or stubbornness or whatever, refuses to correct it. There's nothing than angers a fan more than feeling like their team was robbed of a win due to a bad call. Why would any commissioner be in favor of that?

Frankly, one of the reasons I'm not a bigger baseball fan is because I think their league is a mess. They're clinging to stuff from like 80 years ago and it just makes the people running things appear antiquated and anti-progress. How is that appealing?

Until they square that league away and join the 21st century, I'll stick to football and hockey.

[GrmGrninGost]

NO WAY! We've been getting by for well over a hundred years trusting to the skill and integrity of the men in blue! I see no reason to change now!

[Jeff G]

I am not a huge fan of instant replay in baseball. It's a game steeped in tradition and the element of human error has been a part of the game since it's inception. Overall I think the umpires do an amazing job and there are many more good calls made than bad.

Calling balls & strikes is the single most integral part of the game with questionable calls made all the time. Obviously these wont be reviewed. My point is that is we trust humans to call a strike or ball why not let them make all the call in the field? When there is a close play at a base/plate I love the reaction to the call good or bad. The players excitement & the crowd reaction is in part what makes baseball different from other sports. With review this would change and could easily squash a rally even if the call on the field was correct.

If a system similar to the NFL's were to be implemented I could picture a manager throwing a flag when a rally is happening on a play that is somewhat close just to slow down the game or take the crowd out of it.

There have been obvious bad calls made over the years that I do agree can be very aggravating when they happen against your favorite team. Many of these controversial calls have become legendary and make up baseball's great history. I enjoy the human element that the umpire bring to the game, mistakes will be made and I can live with that.





(All that said, if the Cubs end up beating the Brewers in the Central by one game then forget my stupid comments above and bring on instant replay).

[PirateLover]

The thing is, I'll trust the home plate ump on balls and strikes because he has a clear view. A 3rd base ump does not have a clear view of a white ball against a white sky that is far away from him. In the playoffs, don't they add extra umps because of that very fact? I guess it's just not cost efficient to have it season long. I would definitely not do it like football where the managers could challenge a call. You are right, they could use it to halt momentum, give their relief pitcher extra time to warm up etc. If implemented the parameters should be clear and there should be an impartial person in a booth who has access to all angles.

The thing that gets me is the umpires who can't admit when they are wrong. The ump who made the call in the Phil's game still maintains it was the right call, when there really is no uncertainty about it- it was clearly foul. I agree that it's exciting to boo an umpire, see your manager come out and start fighting-it really gets the crowd riled up. But at the end of the day I think I'd rather have the win.

[Ian]

Heck, when it comes to balls and strikes I think they should take the ump out of it completely and let radar and computers call the pitches.

Ever see those things they have online now? The Game Center where it shows you exactly where the pitch is going? I'd use that instead of having to deal with these erratic home plate umpires who call balls and strikes however they feel like it.

Maybe it's because I'm not that in to baseball, but I totally don't understand the whole "steeped in tradition" thing. You can be steeped in tradition and still evolve and embrace technology to make your game better.

To me, letting the players on the field decide the outcome of the game and not some zebra with questionable motivations ... that should be the ultimate goal in every game.

Look at the end of the Sixers game last night?? You're telling me that call didn't go against them because LeBron is now the NBA's "Chosen One"??? Of course it did ... remove the refs from that equation, though, and it never happens.

[joanna71985]

Definitely YES!!

[Jeff G]

The thing is, I'll trust the home plate ump on balls and strikes because he has a clear view. A 3rd base ump does not have a clear view of a white ball against a white sky that is far away from him. In the playoffs, don't they add extra umps because of that very fact? I guess it's just not cost efficient to have it season long. I would definitely not do it like football where the managers could challenge a call. You are right, they could use it to halt momentum, give their relief pitcher extra time to warm up etc. If implemented the parameters should be clear and there should be an impartial person in a booth who has access to all angles.

The thing that gets me is the umpires who can't admit when they are wrong. The ump who made the call in the Phil's game still maintains it was the right call, when there really is no uncertainty about it- it was clearly foul. I agree that it's exciting to boo an umpire, see your manager come out and start fighting-it really gets the crowd riled up. But at the end of the day I think I'd rather have the win.

If there were a simple way just for the home runs I could give in to that. You are correct that they do run larger crews during the playoffs because it's hard for the standard crew to always see if a ball is fair or foul during the regular season.

As for the umpire not admitting he's wrong & the manager fighting with the him, a part of baseball I've always enjoyed . One of my better friends coaches HS baseball and I love to listen to the stories where he's arguing with the ump(and at times he know's he's wrong but he would never admit it to the ump, he's out there for his player/team). Again to me this is a part of the game that makes it what it is.

Heck, when it comes to balls and strikes I think they should take the ump out of it completely and let radar and computers call the pitches.

Ever see those things they have online now? The Game Center where it shows you exactly where the pitch is going? I'd use that instead of having to deal with these erratic home plate umpires who call balls and strikes however they feel like it..

I hope your kidding about the computer calling balls and strikes.I do like the grids that show where the pitch is is , its fun to watch a pitcher and how much control they have but I wouldn't want this calling a game.

Look at the end of the Sixers game last night?? You're telling me that call didn't go against them because LeBron is now the NBA's "Chosen One"??? Of course it did ... remove the refs from that equation, though, and it never happens.

Unless we create a robot to ref the BB games this won't be corrected with instant replay. DO you think the ref's have any league influence when it comes to superstar calls made.



Here is my thing. Supposedly the NFL is a better game because of instant replay yet calls are still missed and the flow of the game has forever been changed.

Last year when the Packers played against Dallas & Al Harris had an obvious interception on the sideline but because the way the call was made on the field it couldn't be reviewed. This scenario plays out often.

There are many other times when a ref holds off on whistling a play dead so it can be reviewed to avoid the above scenario. Some of these appear like they may be able to be overturned but because of indisputable evidence the call on the field stands. In this case the wrong call was made since it wasn't whistled by the ref the way they would have called it without replay. In a small way we've taken the officials off the hook with replay.


I've been to games where there was a momentum change because of the pause while waiting out a challenge. Supposedly the ref only has a few minutes in the viewer but I've been to games where it seems 10 minutes goes by before the call is made.

Plus as a fan I feel the NFL is different now. Whenever a big play happens you have the initial excitement but for me there is always that reserve that a challenge flag is coming. You don't have that in baseball. When a close play at the plate happens the crowd just errupts, no reserves.

I realize this is all intentionally for the betterment of the game but in a small way to me it's changed the game forever in a negative way. Even with replay there are missed calls & probelms. How many times have you sat with a group of people who all saw a questionable call a different way, replay doesn't always make the correct call. There is no perfect fix.

A stat I saw a while back was that MLB umpires are correct 99.9% of the time which is amazing. If the are wrong less than .1% of the time I'm willing to live without replay to keep the game in it's classic form.

[PirateLover]

A stat I saw a while back was that MLB umpires are correct 99.9% of the time which is amazing. If the are wrong less than .1% of the time I'm willing to live without replay to keep the game in it's classic form.

I'm not completely sure but I don't think that's an official unbiased statistic. I think it's just what the MLB claims. And I don't think it's correct. You definitely make some valid points though.

[Marker]

I say "No Way". Keep it real, keep it human.

[JPL]

DO you think the ref's have any league influence when it comes to superstar calls made.

This seems to be the Million Dollar question in all sports at the moment. Does the league have an agenda that is passed to the officials at times it certainly seems there is.