Delgado Robbed - It's time for instant replay

[Maris09]

I haven't heard a worthy argument against taking away the guess work either, that's why this entire thing keeps going around in circles for 20+ pages.

You need a worthy argument against an umpire guessing on a call because he simply cannot see something that far and that fast?
It isn't like a regular judgement call where an umpire will see a player safe or out at 2nd base. Why do you need an argument made for having an umpire not guess at something he has no clue on? Again, seems more of the Devil's Advocate reasoning.

[Tavish]

I haven't heard a worthy argument against taking away the guess work either, that's why this entire thing keeps going around in circles for 20+ pages.

You need a worthy argument against an umpire guessing on a call because he simply cannot see something that far and that fast?

No I don't. I need a worthy argument on why instant replay is the end all and be all salvation to solving this major crisis baseball is having.

[Maris09]

I haven't heard a worthy argument against taking away the guess work either, that's why this entire thing keeps going around in circles for 20+ pages.

You need a worthy argument against an umpire guessing on a call because he simply cannot see something that far and that fast?

No I don't. I need a worthy argument on why instant replay is the end all and be all salvation to solving this major crisis baseball is having.

Just my point.
No one said it was the end all and be all salvation.

That’s what the anti replay group keeps doing, because honestly it seems they cannot come up with real reasons as to why it should not be used.

They blow up an argument that no one is making but themselves.
-“It’s the end all salvation”
-“Why not have no umpires at all”.

No one is making it that, including MLB.
The only people over dramatizing it like that is the anti-crowd.

If it helps get a couple of calls correct where none of the umpire can venture an educated guess, then it’s done it’s job. End of story, and we are about to see it in action.

[Tavish]

Just my point.
No one said it was the end all and be all salvation.

That’s what the anti replay group keeps doing, because honestly it seems they cannot come up with real reasons as to why it should not be used.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! My head asplode. Really, really simply put (for possibly the 5th or 6th time, definitely the last time for this thread):
Instant replay should not be used because there are other options that will have the same if not more of an impact.
Instant replay should not be used because there just as many ways to get it wrong as there ways are to get it right.
Instant replay should not be used because those other options don't have that same type of downside.
I really hope they get it right, but the MLB's track record is less than stellar at implementing changes.

Instead of looking at the other options the pro-replay crowd continues to do the exact same thing you are doing. You are making it out to be the end all and be all by completely ignoring any other solutions.

No one ever claimed instant replay would never be instituted, it was exactly the opposite. Everyone knew it was going to happen at some point. Simply because it is going to happen doesn't automatically make it the best choice.

[Maris09]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! My head asplode.

Relax guy, just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right.

Instant replay should not be used because there are other options that will have the same if not more of an impact.

Yeah get rid of yellow lines, I heard that. Not really the fix I was looking for.

Instant replay should not be used because there just as many ways to get it wrong as there ways are to get it right.

Complete opinion.

If I say using instant replay will solve 100% of the problems, does that make it so?
No.
As long as it's better than what's going on now, it's a good thing in my opinion. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but why not get it as perfect as you can?

Instant replay should not be used because those other options don't have that same type of downside.

The downside you just made up by saying there are just as many ways to get it wrong?
Your alleged downside is opinion on the future, not fact.

I really hope they get it right, but the MLB's track record is less than stellar at implementing changes.

This I understand and agree with you on.

Instead of looking at the other options the pro-replay crowd continues to do the exact same thing you are doing. You are making it out to be the end all and be all by completely ignoring any other solutions.

Again, no one is saying it's the end all solution but you.
It's a quick and simple fix that can be accessed on the rare occasion that it's needed.


Neither of us is going to convince the other, so I’ll leave it at this.

I love baseball more than anything in the world, and am all in favor of it maintaining it’s old-timey feel. However, this is one area in which I feel like it’s too easy to not make the improvement.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Get rid of the ridiculous yellow lines. If a ball is hit and goes out of the ball park and stays out of the ball park it is a homerun. If it hit it doesn't then it is in play.

So you're saying if a ball hits off a railing (over the fence) and then comes back into play it should not be a homerun?

A lot of these tough calls are not a product of the yellow lines.

Sure, just like there are still going to be calls missed with instant replay.

Assumption. None of us know that yet.
This isn't like football. Homerun calls reviewed via replay should have a very high rate of accuracy. But like I said, none of us know yet, so we really can't be treating either of our assumptions like they are fact.

I'm going to agree that reviewed home runs should have a high rate of accuracy. Football's reviews always deal with weird phrases like "possession" or "football move", or involve the camera somehow seeing through a pile of 12 people to find the exact spot of the football. Calling HR calls in baseball via replay will be about as simple as the FG "replay" was during the Browns-Ravens? game (when the FG was actually good because it his the back piece of the goalpost but was initially ruled no good)

[Amazinz]

None of the alternatives have the appeal that IR does. IR certainly has the potential to disrupt the game but so does any other form of change. I can buy the "no change" argument since I'm on the fence myself but the alternatives argument just seems odd to me. Placing umpires at the foul poles would be the least disruptive method but also the least effective. Standardizing ground rules and simplifying the rules would be the most effective by far. Unfortunately it would also be the most disruptive, changing a unique aspect of this game that most of us love.

[Tavish]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! My head asplode.

Relax guy, just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right.

I am relaxed. I know its my opinion, I just get tired of restating it and then in the next post have someone completely misrepresent it.

Instant replay should not be used because there are other options that will have the same if not more of an impact.

Yeah get rid of yellow lines, I heard that. Not really the fix I was looking for.

Great, so you understand how I feel about instant replay. Any reasoning other than it isn't instant replay?

As long as it's better than what's going on now, it's a good thing in my opinion. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but why not get it as perfect as you can?

The downside you just made up by saying there are just as many ways to get it wrong?
Your alleged downside is opinion on the future, not fact.

Don't you see a problem here? When anyone has an opinion different from yours, it is either completely made up or you completely ignore it. When you have an opinion (replay is as perfect as it gets or that it is better than what is in place now) you seem utterly confused how anyone doesn't agree.

Not only that you are basing your opinion on the grand dream of what instant replay "should" be. We haven't seen much more than a rough outline of how it might possibly work and already it is as close to perfect as we can get?

[Tavish]

Standardizing ground rules and simplifying the rules would be the most effective by far. Unfortunately it would also be the most disruptive, changing a unique aspect of this game that most of us love.

I don't see it as being any different than the current design except for having fewer judgment rulings for the umpire to have to make. You put up a few nets here and there like the Yankees did in response to the A-Rod HR. You get rid of a few yellow lines here and there that get rid of the confusion over things like Soto's HR or the top of the fence calls. You don't have to redesign all the parks in to cookie cutters, you just have to stop painting the HR circle in the middle of the Green Monster.

There would definitely still be some instances where we would be relying on the umpires' judgment but I can live with that. It is those same situations that are going to come up with basically any design.

[Maris09]

Don't you see a problem here? When anyone has an opinion different from yours, it is either completely made up or you completely ignore it.

That's not true at all. I haven't ignored any of your opinions.
I merely pointed out that you were claiming things it has this downside, when there has been none yet. It hasn't even begun to be used, so how can there be any downside?

Therefore my belief was that your opinion on these problems is thus far, made up.
I still respect that this is your belief, and understand that it is no more correct or incorrect than mine.
Hope that clears it up.

When you have an opinion (replay is as perfect as it gets or that it is better than what is in place now) you seem utterly confused how anyone doesn't agree.

Would you like me to pretend like I'm not confused as to why it's not a good idea to have a system in place that lets you take a closer look at a call no one knows the answer too?

We haven't seen much more than a rough outline of how it might possibly work

Right, so how can we have this tremendous downside then?