Ump ejects player (from a game that's already over)

[_Sir_Charles_]

With technology today, the beep would occur before the ump even processes what he sees himself. We are at the nano-second level in terms of speed of a computer processing info and transmitting it. Think of how fast Google can guess what you're trying to type, as you type it.

I do agree that umpiring overall is excellent. But that doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't be improved.

But I'm worried that the umps would start to second guess themselves or just lean on the technology too much. They'd start to make a strike call, hear the beep and then the re-thinking and hesitation comes in. I don't think it'll matter how quickly the beep comes. Balls & strike determination is almost immediate as it is now. There might be a slight delay in making the signal, but the determination is almost instinctual and automatic. I certainly don't want umps out there who are continually questioning their own eyes.

[757690]

But I'm worried that the umps would start to second guess themselves or just lean on the technology too much. They'd start to make a strike call, hear the beep and then the re-thinking and hesitation comes in. I don't think it'll matter how quickly the beep comes. Balls & strike determination is almost immediate as it is now. There might be a slight delay in making the signal, but the determination is almost instinctual and automatic. I certainly don't want umps out there who are continually questioning their own eyes.

I've made this suggestion before, and it think it makes sense.

The computer only determines if the ball crossed the plate. The ump determines if the pitch is the right height. Still wont get it 100% all the time, but it should improve ball and strike calls.

[coachpipe]

everyone that complains about umpires, let me ask you this......would you rather see robots out there making calls and getting everything 100% correct? .

yes

[George Anderson]

With technology today, the beep would occur before the ump even processes what he sees himself. We are at the nano-second level in terms of speed of a computer processing info and transmitting it. Think of how fast Google can guess what you're trying to type, as you type it.

.

It simply wont work if you want to use it as an aid for an umpire to use when judging balls and strikes. The proper mechanic in calling balls and strikes is following the ball from the pitchers hand to the catchers mitt. Any beeping along the way or waiting for beeping along the way will really serve as nothing but a distraction to the umpire.

[Bumstead]

It simply wont work if you want to use it as an aid for an umpire to use when judging balls and strikes. The proper mechanic in calling balls and strikes is following the ball from the pitchers hand to the catchers mitt. Any beeping along the way or waiting for beeping along the way will really serve as nothing but a distraction to the umpire.

How fast will umpires find the volume control on that thing!!!

[757690]

It simply wont work if you want to use it as an aid for an umpire to use when judging balls and strikes. The proper mechanic in calling balls and strikes is following the ball from the pitchers hand to the catchers mitt. Any beeping along the way or waiting for beeping along the way will really serve as nothing but a distraction to the umpire.

The ump doesn't need to follow the ball into the glove. He simply needs to watch its height as it crosses the plate. The ump would likely place himself more to the side, instead of behind the catcher.

He waits for the beep, which would probably be heard right after the catcher catches the pitch. If there's a beep, and the ball is the right height, it's a strike. Otherwise, it's a ball.

[George Anderson]

The ump doesn't need to follow the ball into the glove. He simply needs to watch its height as it crosses the plate. The ump would likely place himself more to the side, instead of behind the catcher.

He waits for the beep, which would probably be heard right after the catcher catches the pitch. If there's a beep, and the ball is the right height, it's a strike. Otherwise, it's a ball.

Without getting technical and boring everyone, you need to follow the ball to the mitt. Unless I am misunderstanding you and you want a total computerized system where a human makes no decisions. However if a human is to call balls and strikes then he needs to follow the ball to the mitt.

[Wonderful Monds]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why does the foul ball even actually matter? It doesn't look like Aviles comes close to checking his swing in the first place.

[redsrule2500]

Announcer called him a clown. Didn't Marty and Joe get called to MLB for complaining like that about umps? Whether its a bad call or not, there is no place for announcers to editorialize about it that way. It does no good.

Does no good for who exactly? The MLB Monopoly?

Having the announcers actual opinions is refreshing and appreciated, I don't want sugar-coated crap. MLB already has a linch pin on their mouths, why are you supporting this be taken even further to the point that they are simply MLB-Corporate talking clones?

[RollyInRaleigh]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why does the foul ball even actually matter? It doesn't look like Aviles comes close to checking his swing in the first place.

And Aviles didn't do anything with the very hittable pitch that he flew out on. Shouldn't have been such a big deal. He just wanted to vent and be confrontational after he made an out.

[Bumstead]

And Aviles didn't do anything with the very hittable pitch that he flew out on. Shouldn't have been such a big deal. He just wanted to vent and be confrontational after he made an out.

And the umpire did what he is supposed to do. Throw the child out. Why this is even news boggles the mind.

Bum

[Brutus]

[QUOTE=Bumstead;2872907]

This is false. Computers do not get it right 100% of the time. Actually when compared to MLB umpires they were only right 2-3% more than the MLB umpires. No system is without its flaws.

Bum

Very true.

What people don't realize about the computerized system as it currently stands: it relies on a human to customize it before every at-bat. Sometimes the zone can be off by an inch or two up or down, left or right. Further, since it is only adjusted before the at-bat, if a player's stance is at a different height even by an inch or two on a given pitch, the zone could actually be off by an additional couple of inches.

[Big Klu]

Would we expect that players and managers would no longer have issue with computerized calls that don't go their way? Or would it be possible that one of the more hot-headed humans might go all "Office Space" on RoboUmp?

[scott91575]

everyone that complains about umpires, let me ask you this......would you rather see robots out there making calls and getting everything 100% correct? and you cant tell me that a MLB batter will not question a robots call, they will say that computers can be tampered with, they will say computers can be wrong too....

one of the reasons that sports are so fun to watch, at least according to me, is that humans play the game and humans moderate the game.....there will be mistakes on a nightly basis but the simple fact that these umpires get it right 90% of the time is amazing to me.....when a tv crew puts a play at the plate or at first base in slow motion and we see that the umpire truly got the call correct, I usually sit in amazement at how he got that right......umpires normally get the "bam-bam" calls right.......

I umpire kids games and slow pitch softball from time to time and I will admit to the teams before the game that I will give it 100% effort and they can get on my if I am not hustling to a play or not getting myself in correct postion to make the call but dont argue a close call that I make because I will not change my call.....and you will be correct from time to time, I will mess up a call....its not easy making a call at first when the difference in ball hitting glove and foot hitting bag is so minute that I dont even know if I am making the right call or not......

I agree that umpiring has been bad this year and I agree that maybe more teaching and more replays should occur.....but to argue a call such as the one in the video is meaningless, how can Mike Aviles argue that call thinking that he would have not called the exact same thing? the commentators on TV act as if that was the worse call they have seen in long time.....looked pretty close to me.

I was watchign the Miami Heat and Pacers the other night and the ball goes out of bounds off one of the players......I could have swore it hit a guy in the hand and the replay showed it hitting a guy in leg......there is almost no prefect way to call that in real time, thank god they have replay but in real time how can anyone expect those guys to be 100% on those calls?

Like I said, I am amazed at how many times i see a replay and admit that the umpire was in fact, correct when I sat in my recliner and would say that he missed that call by a mile.

I'd rather have robots. I'm not watching for the umpires. Of course the tech outside of calling balls or stikes is not there yet, so it's sort of a moot point. Although I would like balls and strikes done by computer with a human overseeing it like tennis.

As for your other point, I fully understand umpires won't get calls right all the time, and on this one I definitely thought that was a tough call. That one is far from the realm of a truly bad call.

[scott91575]

[QUOTE=Bumstead;2872907]

This is false. Computers do not get it right 100% of the time. Actually when compared to MLB umpires they were only right 2-3% more than the MLB umpires. No system is without its flaws.

Bum

There are about what, 300 pitches a game? So adding a computer would get 6-9 more calls right at the plate. Seems like a nice improvement to me.