Originally Posted by RedsManRick
So what exactly is the case for not using the technology? I don't think anybody advocates the forced retirement of all umps. They do advocate utilizing technology to replace a specific function which umps perform. When you can use the technology to do something better, you do. Where you can't, or when the side effect is undesirable, you don't.
We don't use artificial insemination instead of sex, because sex is enjoyable. However, insemination is available to those who wish to become pregnant and cannot otherwise.
We don't replace police officers with cameras because cameras cannot perform all of the functions of police officers, such as putting handcuffs on people, making decisions, and interviewing people. However, cameras have freed up to focus on things other than watching people run red lights.
We use pocket pc's because we cannot carry around a giant wall calendar in our wallet for reference and the squares on the paper aren't big enough for all our information. However, that doesn't mean we cannot also use a wall/desk calendar for other functions.
The game has gotten along fine is quite possibly the lamest argument I've heard. People got along fine before penicillin, cars, email, or dishwashers. They get along better now. I'm not going to not use a dishwasher simply because I'm capable of washing dishes by hand. Maybe you just consider washing the dishes by hand an irreplaceable part of the cooking & eating experience. I, for one, don't.
The "a lot bigger issues" argument also makes no sense. We now have to choose which things we'd like to improve? Better strike zone enforcement or get rid of steroids? Is that our choice? We can only do one or the other? Says who? Absolutely ridiculous. It's a completely irrational reactionary position.
If you want to make the case that human determination of balls & strikes is a fundamental defining aspect of the game and that you are against changing the nature of the game in that manner, then fine. I'd disagree with you, but you'd have a reasonable case. However, the argument above is laughable. We haven't completely replaced police officers, sex, or paper calendars. However, we have developed better ways to accomplish the thing which they accomplish. Police officers and paper calendars in particular have very little intrinsic value beyond the purpose for which they were created. If you can find a better way to achieve said purpose, then why not do it?
If you want to make the argument that a computer strike zone management system would be inferior at calling balls & strikes or would adversely affect the game in some other manner, well then you have an argument. Nothing personal at all Ltlabner, I just don't understand the logic of your position.