Selig against instant replay

[PlayingWithFire]

If they are going to include it in the playoffs, they have to include it in the season as well.

I don't think they have shoot-out in the playoff of NHL.

[Walden warriors]

Instant replay in baseball:

Part of the element of baseball is it's human error.

Why is that a good thing?

Players should determine the outcome of games, not umps.

As to the argument against the length of games, Bill James has some very creative ideas that wouldn't change the dynamic of the game and would speed it up...

1.) A Pitcher is allowed two unsuccessful throws to pickoff a runner. Thereafter, an unsuccessful throw counts as a ball against the batter.
2.) A manager is allowed to switch pitchers within an inning once during a game. Thereafter, the pitcher must first give up a run before he can be replaced.
3.) Shorten the gap between innings to 90 seconds, instead of 120 seconds (thus decreasing the supply and increasing the price of the advertising in between).

All three of those ideas would account for more than enough time to not lengthen a game in our effort to make it fair, that is, to have instant replay

[Amazinz]

How many times can recall the umps making a game-deciding call than was in error?

[Walden warriors]

How many times can recall the umps making a game-deciding call than was in error?

Um, did you watch the playoffs this year?

*Home Run for the Astros in the WS *Dropped 3rd strike on Pierzynski *Double play on the Cardinals in the NLCS

There doesn't need to be a history of it to warrant correction. If it can happen, it's a problem.

[Amazinz]

How many times can recall the umps making a game-deciding call than was in error?

Um, did you watch the playoffs this year?

Yes, I did. I know the two calls in the post-season are fueling this fire but what I think is important is whether or not there is a history of game-changing bad calls and proof that the umps aren't rectifying the problem. In my opionion there is not. I watched 150+ Mets games this past season and I can recall one game-changing blown call. The Mets lost the game because of it. That's still not enough for me to want games bogged down further by instant replay.

There doesn't need to be a history of it to warrant correction. If it can happen, it's a problem.

Of course there needs to be a history. We can't safeguard against every possible mistake and we shouldn't alter the game on an overreaction to a handful of calls.

[baseball6791]

Instant replay in baseball:

Part of the element of baseball is it's human error.

Why is that a good thing?

Players should determine the outcome of games, not umps.

As to the argument against the length of games, Bill James has some very creative ideas that wouldn't change the dynamic of the game and would speed it up...

1.) A Pitcher is allowed two unsuccessful throws to pickoff a runner. Thereafter, an unsuccessful throw counts as a ball against the batter.
2.) A manager is allowed to switch pitchers within an inning once during a game. Thereafter, the pitcher must first give up a run before he can be replaced.
3.) Shorten the gap between innings to 90 seconds, instead of 120 seconds (thus decreasing the supply and increasing the price of the advertising in between).

All three of those ideas would account for more than enough time to not lengthen a game in our effort to make it fair, that is, to have instant replay

I don't have a problem with #'s 2 and 3, but #1 is a horrible idea proposed by a guy who probably doesn't understand what he is talking about since he probably never played high level baseball anyways (not sure if he actually did but its irrelevant). The pickoff throw is a very important part of the game and is actually a useful device, not to mention the fact that there are pickoff plays that use more than 2 pickoff throws. Also, if you limited the number of pick-off throws to 2, what would stop the runners from running wild after the 2nd throw?

Just to clarify my stance on instant replay, I think that it would be useful in certain instances, but for safe/out, fair/foul calls, you would encounter a large number of problems, for example, let's say that there is a runner on first with one out in the 7th game of the world series, and the team at bat is down by one run in the 9th inning. The batter hits a line shot down the line that is called foul, so both the runner already on first and the batter stop running. The manager "challenges" the call, and it turns out that the ball was actually fair. How in the world would you decide whether the runner on first would've scored, or which base the batter ends up at. You would here just as much complaining from both sides about that call as you did on the dropped 3rd strike call.

[warrick95]

I think it is a moot point whether or not the calls blown were right or not. It sort of is a matter of principle here. What should've been called should've been called...whether or not it had a huge impact on the game.

Do the costs outweigh the benefits? No way.

[Amazinz]

Even with instant replay blown calls would still be part of the game.

[warrick95]

But to a lesser degree.

[Amazinz]

OK but a lesser degree just isn't enough to justify the change to me and luckily Bud too.