MLB considering instant replay for everything (except balls & strikes)

[dougdirt]

Yeah, you're probably right. They do a lot of propeller-head things very well. This incident made me wonder though. It struck me as curious. Probably unnecessary concern on my part.

It was rather strange in general how it was handled since it isn't remotely close to how it will be handled in the regular season.

[mattfeet]

Another missed call in the Phillies/Twins game yesterday as well. The additional cameras during the regular season will make a world of difference.I think they're more concerned in getting the process correct rather than the calls themselves.

-matt

[Chip R]

Given the replays that went against the Reds on Sunday night, the one that went against DET tonight and others, does replay need more accountability?

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney...accountability

[757690]

In tonight's game, a ball hit to the wall by Coughlin was touched by a fan. It was originally called a triple. Price came out to argue that it might have been a ground rule double, and asked for a review. The review changed the call to a home run. Here is the official statement from MLB:

"After viewing all relevant angles, the Replay Official definitively determined that the ball would have left the playing field in flight."

They said there was definitive evidence that the ball would have left the park, but we have seen time and time again, that one ump's definition of "defintive evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" is not the same as another's. There has been extreme inconsistancy in how this term is interpreted by various umps. The TV replay's showed zero defintive evidence that the ball would have left the yard. Maybe the umps have different views. If that is the case, they need to provide that to both managers, or else how can they be trusted when they are so inconsistent?

I would propose a rule change that I think would make the review process much better.

If the call is overturned or upheld because of clear and convincing evidence, the reviewing ump has to provide to the managers and the TV crews, that clear and convincing evidence. They have been so inconsistent with how this phrase is interpreted, that they can't be trusted.

[Chip R]

I believe replay was put in there to reverse the obvious mistakes such as when the umpire called that guy safe at 1st a few years ago ruining a perfect game. But it seems to have got out of control. Like in that PIT series, the Reds benefited on a couple of challenges where Phillips tagged Marte out when he was off the bag for a split second. While I'm glad the calls benefited the Reds, it wasn't obvious that he was out. The problem is defining what is obvious. Perhaps a shorter time limit of a minute would help. If it's obvious, you can tell in 60 seconds. If you can't, the call stands.

[alwaysawarrior]

Agree with the time limit. I'm not sure logistically how easy it would be, but I am confused how a review can take so long some times and still be determined to be clear.

[bucksfan2]

Agree with the time limit. I'm not sure logistically how easy it would be, but I am confused how a review can take so long some times and still be determined to be clear.

I am always amazed that some plays you see on replay just don't look that clear. I guess that is what happens when you have a ball traveling fast and the camera's far away. There are several times where they show a replay of a challenged HR ball that it is difficult to pick up if it hits the stands or not.

I would propose a rule limiting the actual review to no longer than 90 seconds. If you can not determine the call within that time limit the play stands. Its annoying to see all the camera angles on TV that conclude on thing, have the review take 5 minutes, and then conclude something else.