The "age" of diva umpires

[_Sir_Charles_]

Perfection should never be the enemy of the good.

Replay of course won't make it perfect, nothing will. But it definitley will make the situation better. It already has.

There have been hundreds of reviewed plays already, and many have resulted in the overturning of bad calls. This one was missed, but without replay, so would all of the others that have been correctly overturned.

Even this flawed method has been extremely beneficial to MLB, resulting in the correct call being made numerous time in cases where, without replay, it wouldn't have.

I agree. I like having replay, I just don't think expanding it is the answer. I'm all for having that extra replay official...but when people start spouting off that this will fix everything it just stupefies me.

[jojo]

They should do what the NHL does and phone up to people specifically trained to replay analysts that have access to every imginable angle.

If replay is going to be continued to be instituted, can't have farces like the Rosales play last night by the umpires.

Take the guy calling balls and strikes and put him in a booth somewhere monitoring the computer that replaces him and he could also be in charge of replays.

[Wonderful Monds]

I agree. I like having replay, I just don't think expanding it is the answer. I'm all for having that extra replay official...but when people start spouting off that this will fix everything it just stupefies me.

With the extra official, there's no slow down, because they are in essence already reviewing everything anyway.

Also I think we're overreacting in the direction of saying replay isn't a very helpful tool. Yeah, they blew this one, but its a big story for a reason, the reason being they've never really blown it this bad like that before.

[Bumstead]

Is your own personal god an umpire? Do you kneel at the alter of the umpire every night before you lay yourself to bed?

Posts like this are uncalled for and weak.

[_Sir_Charles_]

I am not totally opposed to replay being used but it needs to be done very minimally. You know as well as I do the flow of the game is important and the last thing we need is play stoppage every other inning to have someone review a play that more often than not is right anyway. Maybe something along the lines of one challenge by a manager a game.

Hey, now THAT'S an idea I could get behind. Open replay up to any kind of play but limit the number of times it can be used. Nice.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Take the guy calling balls and strikes and put him in a booth somewhere monitoring the computer that replaces him and he could also be in charge of replays.

I really don't care for the idea of letting a computer call the balls/strikes. I know many are for it....but something about it just rubs me the wrong way. Not everything needs to be computerized these days.

[George Anderson]

Hey, now THAT'S an idea I could get behind. Open replay up to any kind of play but limit the number of times it can be used. Nice.

Similar to the NFL though you aren't penalized in anyway if the call is not reversed.

Those who think someone in a booth can make a split second reversal of an umpires judgement via replay without holding up the game are just flat out wrong. In order to correctly review a play from several angles you will need to hold up the game. It is a no brainer.

[_Sir_Charles_]

With the extra official, there's no slow down, because they are in essence already reviewing everything anyway.

Also I think we're overreacting in the direction of saying replay isn't a very helpful tool. Yeah, they blew this one, but its a big story for a reason, the reason being they've never really blown it this bad like that before.

I don't think anybody is saying it's not a helpful tool.

And extra replay ump...yes that will speed up the replay ruling. No doubt. If that's the only change to replay, I'm all for it. If they expand it to cover any play...no thanks. Unless we limit the number of times a play can be reviewed in a game. There are tons of close calls in a game, allowing anything to be reviewed and that time savings we just spoke of....it's gone. And the result is a more fractured game with multiple slowdowns (albeit shorter slow downs).

[RedsManRick]

I really don't care for the idea of letting a computer call the balls/strikes. I know many are for it....but something about it just rubs me the wrong way. Not everything needs to be computerized these days.

You say it like computerization is the point. Calling balls & strikes doesn't "need" to be computerized, but it could benefit from it. Computerization, in theory, would allow for a more accurate and consistently called zone. The technology is beside the point; accuracy is what we're all going for. Consistent application of the rules is what we're going for.

If you prefer humans over computers even if it means more errors, that's a legitimate perspective I suppose. Some people like the limitations of human umpires having a real effect on the outcome of the games. But let's not pretend like people want computerization simply because it's the cool thing to do these days.

[RedsManRick]

I don't think anybody is saying it's not a helpful tool.

And extra replay ump...yes that will speed up the replay ruling. No doubt. If that's the only change to replay, I'm all for it. If they expand it to cover any play...no thanks. Unless we limit the number of times a play can be reviewed in a game. There are tons of close calls in a game, allowing anything to be reviewed and that time savings we just spoke of....it's gone. And the result is a more fractured game with multiple slowdowns (albeit shorter slow downs).

This has been studied and found not to be true. Here's one such article that describes it. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/n...ory?id=5464015

When we're talking truly close, disputable calls, they just aren't all that frequent -- maybe 1 per game. They stick out in our memories and so it feels like there is a lot; but it just isn't the case.

And if we're talking about an ump in the booth making a call instead of all the umps hudling up on the field, or worse going of the field to review a tiny tv, we're probably saving time on net compared to where we are today.

[westofyou]

"There are one-hundred fifty-four games in a season and you can find one-hundred fifty-four reasons why your team should have won every one of them."

Bill Klem

[DocRed]

Good lord how in the world do those 4 umps miss that HR replay in the A's game....I seriously question how those guys can be employable because they simply aren't doing the job they are being paid for.

[Johnny Footstool]

I am not totally opposed to replay being used but it needs to be done very minimally. You know as well as I do the flow of the game is important and the last thing we need is play stoppage every other inning to have someone review a play that more often than not is right anyway. Maybe something along the lines of one challenge by a manager a game.

Honestly, the flow of the game starts and stops so many times, I don't think having an automatic review of every call would be a problem. It might actually speed things up if the review ump in the booth had to buzz in before the next pitch. Then the ump could force the batter or pitcher to actually get moving in a timely manner.

[George Anderson]

Honestly, the flow of the game starts and stops so many times, I don't think having an automatic review of every call would be a problem. It might actually speed things up if the review ump in the booth had to buzz in before the next pitch. Then the ump could force the batter or pitcher to actually get moving in a timely manner.

Oh your asking for problems there.

If the call went against the offense then the batter will all of a sudden need to tie his shoe or readjust his arm brace or helmet etc... so as to allow time for the reviewer to review.

[BCubb2003]

Most ballparks could improve the wall and space above it to make it more obvious that the ball has gone over. I'd start there.