157 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

Also, I don't like how managers aren't really even going out to argue anymore, they're going out simply to buy time for the replay guy to check the play...Baseball is slow enough at times, we don't need more delays..

 

It's a shame nobody saw this coming, too. Other than a small group known as EVERYBODY IN THE DAMN SPORT, of course.

[SBTarheel]

It's a shame nobody saw this coming, too. Other than a small group known as EVERYBODY IN THE DAMN SPORT, of course.

Ha. Yeah, but what's the solution..

 

I do like the idea that the goal is to get the call right, obviously. But when a play that ends up costing a team a ballgame like last night, it makes you wonder what's the point....Have replay, fine, but let's use it when it matters most. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

There have been some very critical over turned calls so far. I think this is working. But yes the delay will be annoying at times.

[SBTarheel]

There have been some very critical over turned calls so far. I think this is working. But yes the delay will be annoying at times.

People always tell me Baseball is boring.

 

this doesn't me in defending it. 

[mweb08]

But are the delays really longer than if the manager had just gone out to argue?

[SBTarheel]

But are the delays really longer than if the manager had just gone out to argue?

I can't explain how blatant it is that they're just buying time...I mean, they might as well be crawling out there instead of an angry sprint...they constantly look over their shoulder into the dugout for a signal..I don't know, it's just annoying. 

[mweb08]

I can't explain how blatant it is that they're just buying time...I mean, they might as well be crawling out there instead of an angry sprint...they constantly look over their shoulder into the dugout for a signal..I don't know, it's just annoying. 

 

Well maybe there should be a time limit to challenge?

[SBTarheel]

Well maybe there should be a time limit to challenge?

Yea, that's not a bad idea....I realize it's a learning process for everyone, but with the delays, and already a terribly blown call that cost a team a ballgame, it's clear to me that the system needs tweaking. 

 

But again, it's early and is to be expected. 

[DJ MC]

Ha. Yeah, but what's the solution..

 

I do like the idea that the goal is to get the call right, obviously. But when a play that ends up costing a team a ballgame like last night, it makes you wonder what's the point....Have replay, fine, but let's use it when it matters most. 

 

Right. Both this and the delay issue have a ridiculously easy solution: take it out of the managers' hands (or, to go back in time, don't put it in their hands in the first place).

 

Umpire. Room. TVs with every available camera angle. Not complicated, and pretty much the consensus (in a general form) of most people not directly associated with Major League Baseball.

 

All the challenge system does is act as an attempt to artificially add strategy to the game. And if you need to artificially add strategy to the game, you're probably already doing something wrong.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I haven't seen any real lengthy delays. For instance, on a very close call last night in the Rangers game with a pick off at second, the whole process from Wash going out asking for the challenge, to the over turn of the call, took about 120 seconds. That is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

I'd much rather see there be a time limit between pitches/batters taking their sweet time between pitches, etc., than not getting calls right. The umpiring is atrocious and this is a great step in the right direction.

[SBTarheel]

Something just isn't sitting right with me with the way the managers are treating this...I'll get over it. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

Something just isn't sitting right with me with the way the managers are treating this...I'll get over it. 

They probably need to tweak it a bit.

[SBTarheel]

They probably need to tweak it a bit.

They do, but it's only the 3rd day of the season, I could certainly lighten up a bit as well.

[mweb08]

Right. Both this and the delay issue have a ridiculously easy solution: take it out of the managers' hands (or, to go back in time, don't put it in their hands in the first place).

 

Umpire. Room. TVs with every available camera angle. Not complicated, and pretty much the consensus (in a general form) of most people not directly associated with Major League Baseball.

 

All the challenge system does is act as an attempt to artificially add strategy to the game. And if you need to artificially add strategy to the game, you're probably already doing something wrong.

 

Agreed. That would be ideal.

[DJ MC]

They had another one last night.

 

Bud Black’s attempted replay challenge deemed “untimely” — which is kind of absurd

 

Black waited in the dugout until he received notice that he should ask for a review. But the umpires decided he waited too long.

 

[A]s we’ve seen in the first few games of the season, however, managers have taken to popping out of the dugout pretty immediately on challenge plays, yet take their sweet time in actually saying they want to challenge. They do this so that their replay assistants can review the play and let them know whether it’s worth using the challenge. Someone flashes the manager a thumbs-up or thumbs-down or something as he’s killing time. That’s why the batter isn’t in the batter’s box and the pitcher hasn’t taken the rubber in so-called “timely” challenges. A manager is on the field. It’s just as much of a delay in that situation as Black’s delay here. One is allowed, one is not.

 

So basically, this is going to encourage managers going out and wasting time just in case they need to ask for a replay.

[Mackus]

They had another one last night.

 

Bud Black’s attempted replay challenge deemed “untimely” — which is kind of absurd

 

Black waited in the dugout until he received notice that he should ask for a review. But the umpires decided he waited too long.

 

 

 

So basically, this is going to encourage managers going out and wasting time just in case they need to ask for a replay.

 

Is there an official time limit, or just that "timely" qualifier?

 

It probably wasn't all that close, but Pedroia made a nice play to rob Hardy (I think) last night to end an inning.  I was wondering if Buck would then have the entire break to look at replays and decide if it was worth a challenge.  Could he wait until the other team is warming up then come out and cahllenge, or do the players all need to be on the field still?

 

The rule for things like appealing if a runner tagged up or missed a base or even batting out-of-order is you can only do it until the next play.  So the pitcher has to get on the rubber, step off, then throw over to the potentially mis-touched base.  He can't throw a pitch first or try to pick off another runner.  It has to be the next play.

[Oriole85]

Los Angeles Times: Joe Torre rejects calls for on-site replay officials

Quote
If the point is to get the call right -- rather than to impose a strategical dimension by forcing a manager to determine when to use his challenge -- then MLB could station a fifth umpire in a replay booth. The review of any questionable call would commence immediately, rather than wait for a staged slow-motion argument between a manager and an umpire.

Quote
"If you’re talking about somebody in the booth, you have to have one guy looking at every play," Torre said Friday at Dodger Stadium. "And it wouldn’t be any quicker. You’re still getting that information as quick as they do back in New York. In New York, you have other people in there, and you can get another set of eyes: 'Is what I am seeing right?'

"The one thing about it: those ones that are easy to overturn, we can all make those decisions. There are some other ones that are not as easy, and when you start slowing it down … it becomes a little blurrier, It’s not that easy to say, I can make every single call. And I would hate to leave somebody up there by himself and happen to have somebody come down with the flu one day and not have anybody in the booth that particular day."

[Mike in STL]

Ok. So to my understanding if the player drops the ball during the transfer from glove to hand, its a catch, right? In the Indians game, dude catches the ball and he hits the wall. Takes a step, and in the transfer of throwing the ball to the cut off man he dropped it. Clear as day "completed the process" in football terms of making the catch. Umps went and looked at the replay, and ruled no catch!

The sideline reporter later said that she talked to some umpires at spring training, and they discussed that anyone dropping the ball in the transfer would be ruled no catch, after the replay? I think the Os were a beneficiary of this the other day in Detriot.

So are umpires just rewriting rules as they see fit? That's not the rule and replay is for getting it right! To ensure, it was dropped in transfer, thus a catch, out. I mean, its not hard to tell what is a drop out of the glove and a drop out of the bare hand in transfer. So why are the umpires apparently making it a point to make the wrong ruling on these plays?

"Smokey, this is not Nam. This is Bowling. There are rules."

[Mackus]

On-site is a bad idea.  A few trained people in a central location is absolutely the best way to do it.  Less expensive than increasing all the umpire crews from 4-man to 5-man, plus you can have multiple trained review officials looking at each play.  They should get rid of the coaches challenge part, make it so the umpires at their discretion can review any play they want.

 

I think once they get replay right and it works well, that we'll see on-field arguments from managers start to get phased out.  You don't see NBA or NFL coaches running onto the field to argue calls.  MLB can get rid of that if they want to, and I think they will once the replay process becomes a reliable way of doing everything they can to get the calls right.

[Mackus]

Ok. So to my understanding if the player drops the ball during the transfer from glove to hand, its a catch, right? In the Indians game, dude catches the ball and he hits the wall. Takes a step, and in the transfer of throwing the ball to the cut off man he dropped it. Clear as day "completed the process" in football terms of making the catch. Umps went and looked at the replay, and ruled no catch!

The sideline reporter later said that she talked to some umpires at spring training, and they discussed that anyone dropping the ball in the transfer would be ruled no catch, after the replay? I think the Os were a beneficiary of this the other day in Detriot.

So are umpires just rewriting rules as they see fit? That's not the rule and replay is for getting it right! To ensure, it was dropped in transfer, thus a catch, out. I mean, its not hard to tell what is a drop out of the glove and a drop out of the bare hand in transfer. So why are the umpires apparently making it a point to make the wrong ruling on these plays?

"Smokey, this is not Nam. This is Bowling. There are rules."

 

I didn't see the play you are talking about, but the umpires absolutely got the call wrong (in the Orioles favor) in that game against the Tigers, and the replay officials did not reverse it.

 

I think the tricky part about the reviews is that it needs to be irrefutable to overturn the call on the field.  It's tough to say what's irrefutable when making judgment calls, so perhaps what we're just seeing is that it's difficult to overturn calls.  I think that if the call in the O's game was initially out at 2nd, that it would've remained out after the review.  Perhaps the review official is giving the umpires on the field too much benefit of the doubt on transfer type calls.

 

I don't buy what that sideline reporter is saying, though.  That's gotta be BS.