Thinking about instant replay
ByI had a ticket to spot 7 of the standing room section behind Section 229. The view was fine, the crowd was electric and the game was, simply put, one of the best games — if not the best — I’ve seen live. I missed but one play, and apparently it was a controversial one.
Leading off the 11th inning, Joe Mauer lofty a Damaso Marte offering down the left field. From where I was standing, the ball kept slicing and slicing and then…it and Melky Cabrera disappeared from view. Phil Cuzzi called it a foul ball, and I breathed a sigh of relief. That no one came out to argue was telling. The ball, I assumed, was foul, and it was not until after the game, when my dad said, “Joe Mauer’s ball was fair,” that I had any idea the call was in doubt.
As we all know now, that ball hit fair territory by a good six inches, and Phil Cuzzi, the left field ump whose sole job it was to make that call, blew it. After the game, the umpires were verklempt. “We just feel horribly when that happens,” Crew Cheif Tim Tschida said to reporters after the game. “There’s a guy sitting over there in the umpire’s dressing room right now that feels horrible.”
The Twins bemoaned the call. Noting how a lead-off double could have changed the entire complexion of the 11th inning, Minnesota manager Ron Gardenhire was incredulous. “We had six umpires out there, I think. I think, right, six? Six umpires,” he sputtered.
Since Cuzzi’s call and the subsequent shut-down relief work of David Robertson, nearly everyone baseball news outlet has called for expanded instant replay. We have, for example,Anthony Rieber and Brian Costa calling for just that, and Buster Olney thinks more instant replay would be a good fit for baseball. Even an NFL VP mocked baseball’s officiating.
The Yankees, meanwhile, think otherwise. As Marc Carig reported, Girardi is a-OK with the current state of replay in baseball. “I think it would break the rhythm of the game. Where would you stop?” he asked earlier today.
Girardi asks a good question: Where would you stop? With balls that go out of play, the answer is easy. Had instant replay review been used last night, Joe Mauer would have been awarded a ground rule double. But what if the ball had hit the side wall and stayed in play? If the foul call is overturned, where does Mauer end up — on second base or back in the batter’s box?
I’ve been a long-time proponent of instant replay review in baseball. If we have the technology to make the right call, we should use it. But although Buster Olney calls for the “immediate” expansion of instant replay, it isn’t that easy. The Commissioner’s Office will have to figure just how to deal with overturned calls. Unlike in football when the review is after the play, in baseball, plays unfold differently if a ball is fair. How baseball addresses that problem will determine whether or not the sport can effectively employ instant replay review. There is a very real chance it cannot.
Although this is tagged an open thread, I’d love to see a discussion about instant replay. Still, anything goes. Please use this game thread for Cardinals/Dodgers chatter. And play nice.
I used to be against instant replay, but now I’m pretty much all for it. If the umpires are going to do such a shitty job, might as well have a backup system to make sure they get it right.
Exactly what happned to me, +27.
Yea, yo quiero instant replay.
However, for all the people (mostly Sox and Twins fans) complaining about that call costing them the game. I disagree. The fallacy of the predetermined outcome comes into play. Who knows if Kubel singles afterward or not? And if you think he still does, then you can say we at least tied the game in the bottom of the 11th. They still had bases loaded and no outs but didn’t score. That’s their fault. Also, you could say that if Mauer doubled we would have IBB’d Kubel to set up a double play, leading to the same bases loaded scenario if everything else stays the same. That loss is on the Twins not the umpires, no matter how many excuses one can make.
100% Agree
It doesn’t matter what may have happened after. A bad call is a bad call. Maybe Mauer would have scored, maybe not. But he still should have been on second base.
When they built domed stadiums, they had to create new ground rules for balls that hit the structure. In Tampa Bay, there are different rules depending on where the ball hits.
It’s ain’t rocket science. We walked on the Moon 40 years ago. We have split the atom. It is really that hard to create new rules to deal with video replay?
And there doesn’t have to be additional delays. How long did it take the announcers and the millions of TV watchers to know that ball was fair? Unfortunately, the way they review HRs is slow and does interrupt the flow of the game. There are ways to incorporate video replay without slowing the game down and without eliminating the Umps.
Some of the things that define sports are fairness and the victory going to who earned it. Video replay will only help facilitate these things.
Salty, enough with the Predetermined outcome. No one is saying the call cost the Twins the game. What people are saying is that the call cost them a better opportunity to score – which is true.
The twins manager brought up a great point today. He said that in the 1 game playoff replay showed Inge get hit by a pitch that would have scored a run. Instead the call wasnt made and they got out of the inning.
I give him credit for not making a big deal out of it today. he said that he’s also against expanding replay. I think most old time baseball people would feel the same way.
Ilm not sure i want it expanded either. Football is always pointed to as the gold standard. The problem is that they still get many calls wrong after replay.
Rather than people simply argue for against greater use of instant replay, I suggest a few areas of research. For one, read As They See ‘Em, the book released this Spring which gives good insight into how umpires perform their responsibilities and give a sense of how difficult their work often is.
Secondly, have a look at MLB’s actions. For one, MLB does not completely oversee the umpire training and development processes. On top of that, the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the umpires’ union stipulates playoff assignments which are not based on a meritocracy.
In contrast, the NFL uses each game to evaluate referees, and this information is used to determine who officiates playoff games. baseball has no such system in place. The MLB regular season is used to select the best teams for the playoffs, but no such system is in place for umpire evaluation and playoff selection.
To simply approach the matters at hand by proposing greater use of instant replay would be a gross failure to evaluate the circumstances and areas for improvement within the current systems. For an on-field baseball analogy, simply adding more use of replay without further investigation would be like Kenny Williams’ poorly thought-out trade of Nick Swisher following his off year in 2008.
On top of all that, note what Commissioner Selig has said. When asked last year about adding replay to fair/foul, out/safe, and ball/strike calls, the response was, “Not as long as I’m the commissioner.”
I should add, if the result of thorough anlaysis is somehow that further use of replay should be instituted, there are other considerations that need to be determined. Certainly, last night’s missed call by Cuzzi would have been straightforward to rectify, but in plenty of other scenarios there has to be systems and rules in place to reconstruct plays and decide what would have happened if the call were made correctly.
Between the underlying shortcomings in the current MLB and umpire structure, along with the intricacies of implementing greater use of replay, there are many, many factors to consider. Any such change or maintenance of the current replay/umpiring setup is not as simple as a decision to “get the calls right” or “leave things as they are.”
Or… We could just get umpires that don’t suck.
That ump had one job, see if the ball was foul or fair. He was in perfect position, what, 20 feet from where the ball bounced? Not only did he miss my boy Melky’s glove graze that ball, he missed the ball bouncing about a foot inside the line. I have no idea what he was looking at. At this point, we could give the umpires superzoom computerized glasses and their faults would still be evident.
But seriously, tennis has “Shot Spots” or something like that. It can tell you if the tennis ball, often traveling at a much higher rate of speed than a baseball, stays within the line. How hard would it be to get that in major league parks?
How were the standing room only tickets? I saw the clump standing out there? You were free to wander around the stadium weren’t you? I would have just stood on a concourse behind homeplate or something, maybe wander around the stadium…
keep instant replay to fair/foul
baseball needs to concentrate on improving home plate umpiring. heretical thought: maybe crouching behind the catcher is not the best place from which to judge balls and strikes?
I know it’s crazy to use technology to improve a product and all but… We have the pitch f/x stuff, why is it so insane to have a computerized strike zone. I know I’m living in the future and all and there’s no way there is a better option than a method that has been used since the 1800’s(wait, what?), but one day I hope to see the umpires lose so much control over a game.
Yeah. It’s astonishing to have a conversation about with radical baseball fundamentalists. Much like talking to a religious one.
Sombunall of them will actually admit that getting the calls wrong from time to time are “a part of the game”, as if the umpire was supposed to be part of the game.
The only reason I don’t want a totally automated system is the lack of any type of conference. You’ve got one & only one perspective on the zone. Any programming snafus leave this just as much up to error as people alone.
Umps should be encouraged to get help on a call, working together as a unit, with accuracy as their ultimate priority. I feel like umpires do need to be graded more strictly, as ol’ Sodium Hydroxide so eloquently put it above.
I’m not sure who runs the Pitch F/X, or what technology it uses, or who’s responsible for its accuracy, but if it’s standardized I think it’s as good as anything for establishing MLB umpiring as a meritocracy.
I’m for instant replay for fair/foul, home runs and close calls on the bases, but only with a football-style challenge system.
I’d say three challenges, with a failed challenge costing an out (a team on offense would lose an out, ie, 2 outs in the inning, and a team on defense would have to get an extra out).
Yes, I know it’s radical.
That said, what business does MLB have letting dudes like CB Bucknor umpire postseason games, anyway?
Cant give away outs as a punishment for a challenge. Now your changing one of the basic rules of the game.
The thing about baseball, though, is that it is forever changing.
I mean, in 1950 a DH was unheard of.
That said, I understand your point.
Hate it. No punishment for losing challenges. 3 challenges a team, no need for punishment.
also, limit of five minutes of replay poer challenge, maybe even three.
poer is per.
By hate it, I don’t mean I hate the challenge idea. I like that. But I hate the idea of losing outs.
Radical…crazy.
Baseball is not football. It is a game without a clock, etc. I’m not so conservative that I would object to subtle tweaks here and there (the HR replay is a good thing, I believe) but to suggest something like outs being assessed for things that fall outside of the realm of batter vs. pitcher…it just creeps me out.
Wow, since joining the NL(27 innings), George Sherrill’s ERA+ is 639.
The point should be to get the call right, not to embrace human error
Torre has really taken the Dodgers to another level … nevermind the blossoming of Kershaw and Kemp.
I really hope we’re on a collision course with Torre’s boys.
can’t forget loney and ethier. those 4 + martin will be a solid core for the dodgers for years to come.
Loney might not be a finished product, but the Dodgers are probably wondering how much power he’ll ever develop. However, the addition of Casey Blake has paid dividends so not all the offensive punch is tied to the OF.
Dodgers win.
Martin sucks
I mean…Kemp, Ethier and Kershaw are all really good, Kuroda and Broxton and that korean lefty are good, Manny is Manny, Hudson had a good year…and they played in a real weak division. And then they came in and beat up Franklin, who sucks, and Piniero, who’s plenty hittable.
They’re a good team and played pretty weak competition. I don’t know that I see Torre taking them to “another level”.
Agreed.
Dodgers don’t impress me. When Holliday drops balls sweeps happen.
How about: One challenge per game, except it is not lost if the call is overturned. In the 9th inning and extras all calls are reviewed from a booth.
I don’t like the idea of challenges in baseball. It’s not like football where you need to view a replay for 2 minutes and try and guess where a knee hit the ground or if a ball hit the ground before a receiver has possession.
It’s either foul or fair. A tag was either applied or it wasn’t. A ball is either trapped or caught on the fly. I think if there is a close play, a replay umpire should review the play immediately and report to the on field crew chief.
Oh and when I say “replay umpire,” I think there should be an ump up in the press box area just watching the game on a screen, I don’t think all 4 umpires should run down under the stadium and huddle around a tv, that’s just crazy and inefficient.
Replay ump makes the most sense.
Playoff games last 3.5 hours anyway. And that’s not counting when the Yankees and Red Sox play in the ALCS.
What’s everyone in a rush for if umpires can take 5 minutes to get a crucial call correct?
MLB has the technology to help prevent umpires from incorrectly changing the course of a game. Do it.
It doesn’t take 5 minutes. EVERYONE watching TV knew the ball was fair within a minute. Imagine if there were 3 techies who did nothing but review videos of plays from all the camera angles and showed the most telling ones to the replay ump. It would NEVER take more then 2 minutes, and would often be faster then a manager’s arguing with the ump.
I know i posted this link in an earlier thread, but you should check out this article and A-Rod in the postseason
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....52544.html
I’ll repeat what I wrote to LoHud:
October 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Last night you had two teams with a total payroll of $270m (not counting coaches, managers, etc) fighting for a chance to go to the ALCS. There were 50,000 paying customers there to see which team could win that battle. Millions more watched at home. At stake are millions of dollars in revenue for the winning team and its home town.
And it may have been decided by a mistake made by a guy pulling down $100k. A guy no one in the world knew at the time the game started, a guy no one was tuning in to watch, a guy who is not paid to decide the game. And the tragedy is that the mistake could have easily been avoided with the push of a button. We not only have the technology to fix these problems, but we have it installed and operating. The only reason it is not used is because some people are stubborn luddites.
Yes, the human element is part of the game. That’s the players. The umpires are there because when the game was invented 150 years ago, there was no better choice. But they were there only as a tool to facilitate the game between the players. Since then we’ve improved the bats, the gloves, the uniforms, the shoes, the helmets, the stadiums, the training, the medicine… everything there that is meant to assist the players do what they do has been improved, but we stubbornly refuse to use any technology that might help an umpire do their damn job.
Forget about the teams – why the hell can’t a manager simply admit “I couldn’t see what happened – can we get the replay?” The umpires don’t want to be in this position. They don’t want to cost a team a game, let alone a series, because they goofed.
We have replay. It works. Why is it only for balls that fly into the stands, and not balls that bounce on the line, or tags at the plate, or to see if a ball was trapped or caught?
I understand not wanting to completely remove the human element (though honestly, if the umpires were replaced by cameras and sensors tomorrow, how many would really notice or care?), and not wanting to slow the game down. So give each team one replay that they can request per game. They’d be saved for key moments, so they wouldn’t slow down the game, and they’d sure stop a lot of on the field arguing.
Instant replay works in football because the play is allowed to run its course before there’s a review. You know what the outcome is, and you either uphold it or overturn it.
It just wouldn’t work in baseball for fair/foul situations. As Ben pointed out, it would’ve worked perfectly for Mauer’s hit yesterday because it was a guaranteed ground rule double. But if it caroms off the wall and back into the field, and the ump incorrectly rules it foul, where do you send Mauer after the review? There’s no guarantee he would have made it to second – maybe he gets thrown out, maybe he trips on his way, maybe he only gets to first, or all the way to third, etc. There’s just too much uncertainty about the outcome of the play.
I agree, and am elaborating on your point below.
It would be imperfect, but even awarding him one base is better than saying he didn’t get a hit (or just the opposite – letting him run to second on a foul ball).
There are certainly details that need to be worked out, but at the very least we can institute replay for the calls at the end of plays (such as home runs, foul balls, hit by pitch, stolen bases, etc).
What concerns me about expanding replay to fair / foul down the line is the aftermath of a fair ball that is ruled foul. Are we now going to arbitrarily award bases to runners because of what umpires “anticipated” would happen had the play continued?
Example: With a runner at first, a ball is laced down the third base line. The ball is fair but is ruled foul, and the play is dead; in the meantime, the ball kicks off of the wall and, instead of rolling to the corner, heads out toward the left fielder. Once replay determines the ball to be fair, what’s the call on the bases? Is the batter awarded a double? Had the play been allowed to continue, he might have been held to a single. What about the runner at first? Is he awarded second, third…home?
My point is, expanding replay could end up a Pandora’s Box and leave games to be determined by hypothetical “coulda, shoulda, and woulda’s.”
Exactly, with the issue of scoring runners on a reviewed play being particularly troubling. Review for fair/foul would create more problems than it solves. So what’s the solution? Get better umpires, I suppose, or have a more rigorous system of reviewing umpire performance and weeding out repeat offenders, like CB Bucknor and Cuzzi.
As far as the existing review system for home runs, even that can create problems. In some cases, it works fine – overruling a call of fan interference, for example, and awarding a home run. But for overturned home runs, the whole issue of where you send the batter, who amongst the runners on base scores, etc., reemerges.
Bottom line, I’m only for reviews of plays in which the outcome is unquestionable – so only issues of hit batsmen and stolen bases.
You make it sound as if the games are not already haunted by “coulda, woulda, shoulda”. That’s something that happens with every pitching change, and certainly every blown call.
I think the idea of challenges works well in the situation you describe. MLB would clearly need to work out the details of probable scenarios, and how the should be handled. So let’s say MLB (in conjuction with the player and umpire’s union) decides that a mis-called fair ball should give one base to the batter. Now, if this happens in last night’s game, Gardenhire has a chance to challenge the call, knowing mauer will get first, or decide not to use the challenge in the hopes that Mauer will get a double or HR.
No matter what the result is unlikely to be satisfying to the losing team, but just because we can achieve a perfect system its no excuse for not fixing what we can.
I was at the game, front row right field, couldn’t tell, but it sounded as though the crowd gave a dull sigh as if it were fair.
But i do not believe Replay should be used on those calls, they’re pretty plain to see, but with an OF umpire added in the playoffs and still missing the call, should disappoint twins fans.
Since the ball was fair by a wide margin… i would have to say the umpire was just dead wrong and that yeah, fans should be upset, but hey, it’s baseball.
“but hey, it’s baseball.”
————————–
So why punish Bernie Madoff. I mean
hey, it’s just business.
60 years or so ago, 95% of baseball was against integration.
It was a radical change. It broke tradition.
It would ruin the game. It would cause all kinds of havoc.
Not everything old is tradition. Some things are just old.
Why not have replay, and instead of having pitchers on the mound lets have machines that shoot out balls, and robots swinging the bats?
How would you handle it if Mauer’s ball had hit the wall and bounced back in? Award a HR? A triple? A double? Mauer had a chance to score with the single hit, yet only went from second to third. What if he looked to stretch it? Couldn’t he have been thrown out?
The real point is replay would have to lead to a whole new set of rules being made up. It also doesn’t help with the strike zone calls. Expanding reviews to strike calls then to make it fair?
Replays can change a bad call to the correct call, but how do you effectively counter the reviewed call?
Managers come out to argue plays at times because it interrupts the rhythm of the game. This effect could be magnified and change a building momentum because a review means stopping play till it gets ruled on.
The permutations just become so absurd to have to deal with that it will bog down the game and no one will want to watch it.
Wouldn’t it be a far better method to work to improve the umpiring? Demotions for umpires who get a failing grade far too often would have them being more careful to make the right call.
Why not have replay, and instead of having pitchers on the mound lets have machines that shoot out balls, and robots swinging the bats?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
Even if they had better umpiring they are still going to have mistakes. There’s going to be a lot of mistakes. There’s going to be varying strike zones still, there’s still going to be botched calls oh if you’re out or not and there’s going to be botched calls on foul/fair.
I want the correct call to be made 100 percent of the time.
The stupid argument that it takes ht human aspect of the game is ridiculous. As fair as I know, the players are human and they are the ones playing the game, not the umpires. Their job is to get the correct call which they apparently can’t do.
I don’t blame the Twinkie fans for whining about that blown call. What I mind is them using it to whine that the Yankees are too rich and too big. NEVER EVER EVER talking about their own owner who could invest the way the Steins do or the way they take revenues from rich teams.
BTW, Tampa Bay fans are whining about both Sox and Yankees getting the calls and having the payrolls. I don’t even understand HOW THE HELL payroll figures into a discussion about blown calls.
Since this is an open thread…
As much as I want the Yankees to sweep tomorrow, what the hell are we all going to do until Friday????
Lots of open threads.
But let’s not count those ALCS chickens quite yet.
Damn, on subhub and ebay nobody’s even entertaining the idea of the Sox in ALCS. Or the Twins.
Sounds like they need a counting lesson in hatched chickens…
What’s the bigger game tomorrow for Yankee fans: an Angels sweep of the RS or a Yankees sweep of the twins?
- Who’s got a better shot at closing out the series if neither event happens tomorrow … that’s why i’m gonna go ahead and say that an Angels win is very very important.
people using this play to advocate replay are missing one critical point…lets say we had NFL style replay with coaches cahllenges..NO ONE ARGUED THE PLAY!!!!!!
By time Orlando Cabrera told the twins bench what had ahappened down the line, three pitches had been thrown, so replay would not have reversed the call
To Girardi’s point, where do we stop? Aren’t trapped balls vs catches even more critical then what we saw last night? What about close plays at the plate? Phantom tags? On and on…I can;t deny that was an awful call..but hw would replay have reversed something not argued until TBS came up with a replay after the next pitch?
Also, am I in the minority in thinking that did not effect the game? I really think Kubel may have walked if that was a double
Again, I am not a Yankee homer. the twins got robbed, but instant replay on a larged scale? We could have 6 hour games!
“people using this play to advocate replay are missing one critical point…NO ONE ARGUED THE PLAY!!!!!!”
“To Girardi’s point, where do we stop? I can’t deny that was an awful call…the twins got robbed”
+27
Being on the receiving end of a botched call can be quite a blow. But the Twins then caught a big break, which they failed to capitalize on, when they had the bases loaded with no outs. Yes, it’s hypothetical nonsense but here’s a question: would you rather have a lead-off double or the bases loaded w/no outs? Which is the better opportunity?
I want instant replay, but I agree that the point is moot, so to speak. Mauer on second and the remaining batters might have made outs. You just don’t know. The point is, they has bases loaded none out and couldn’t score. And there was MORE than one call that went the Twins’ way in those games against Detroit, not just Inge’s HBP. There was a punch out on some batter that was about 4 inches inside, clearly a terrible call. Balls and strikes are more subjective, I know, but no reasonable person with much experience watching baseball is going to make too much of the Mauer call.
The argument against instant replay is the delay of the game. Technology is so good, meaning so FAST and of high visual resolution, there is no excuse for them not coming up with a workable system for instant replay. Baseball people are slow to make changes in their game, which I think is a shame. They should take the lead from the NFL and be a little more creative and experimental with things. Wouldn’t hurt.
I think the hardest part of the game to do well is call balls and strikes. Umpires seem pretty good and consistent with the high/low aspect of the strike zone, but the inside/outside part is pretty screwed up. They should at least experiment with having the home plate umpire call balls and strikes off a video monitor, with the assistance of something graphic like those pitch track things or the strike zone boxes, etc. The technology is there; they should experiment and see if they could make the game better that way.