I was absolutely gutted for Galarraga when I saw it happening live however I am in the side of those who believe the right decision has been made in not overturning the call. Even if they had, it won't feel like a true perfect game since there would always be that controversy attached to it. The jubilation Galarraga and his teammates would of felt last night had the right call been made could not of been matched if they changed the ruling earlier today.

 

It is a shame and at the time I was furious with Joyce, but mistakes do happen, even at the highest level of professional sports.

]

 

You're absolutely correct about St Louis... then again, they had 9 innings in game 7 to try and overcome the bad call. Galarraga's perfection was taken from him and he had ZERO opportunity to overcome it, period. Its not like Joyce can say, "hey I blew that call but if you get the next guy you get the perfect game." Joyce stole the feat from him and thats it, and thats not right.

 

And i understand and appreciate how MLB respects umpire's decisions... but this is just beyond that, when everyone knows the call was wrong, I dont get how MLB can sit back, cross their arms and somehow support that call.

 

 

 

It's not that they support the call. They will show support for Joyce because they have to, otherwise he would feel isolated.

 

If the MLB suddenly stepped in, then would you want them to step in every time a bad call was made? You can't just say that this was a special exception.

 

Part of the game of baseball is human error.

 

It disturbs me that people think this way. No it's not part of the game (to the extent where it wasn't thought out that way), they just had absolutely no choice in the matter. However, now they do, and they can make the right accurate calls. Why do you think they keep adding umpires anyway? Seriously, this is unacceptable this day in age.

 

 

Yes, it is part of the game, and if the fans really wanted a change then instant replay would have been implemented by now to be able to determine calls such as these. Mainly, the only people who are be in favor of bringing in expanded replay are the young fans who have grown up with instant replay in every single sport except for baseball, so they find it unusual that only one sport isn't adjusting to the generation.

 

I wasn't even in favor of the ruling Selig put in play last year when he decided to use replay on home run calls. His decision basically made it inevitable that it would expand, meaning that instant replay would (and will in the future) ultimately be used to determine calls safe/out calls, and I wouldn't be surprised the day that they start using it to call balls and strikes.

 

Think about it. Not only do you have to take the delay in time into account, but if we used instant replay for everything, there would be no more arguing with the umpire, no more managers getting ejected, etc. Nobody would even know who any of the umpires are anymore because it wouldn't matter, as the game would be solely dependent on computers. Would the game even be the same anymore? Baseball would definitely lose many fans if this were to happen, myself included.

bah why would anyone have expected Selig to do something the fans would actually, you know, be IN FAVOR of.

 

 

 

Becuse he's not (and doesn't have to be) a politician.

I was absolutely gutted for Galarraga when I saw it happening live however I am in the side of those who believe the right decision has been made in not overturning the call. Even if they had, it won't feel like a true perfect game since there would always be that controversy attached to it. The jubilation Galarraga and his teammates would of felt last night had the right call been made could not of been matched if they changed the ruling earlier today.

 

It is a shame and at the time I was furious with Joyce, but mistakes do happen, even at the highest level of professional sports.

 

 

I agree, although I wouldnt so much as call it controversey. It's the fact that the moment has been ruined. Galarraga will always remember it as the "exception" the MLB had made, I'm sure. It's not so much controversial (we all know he was out).

 

Honestly, again, I'm all in favor of the MLB doing SOMETHING about it. But not overturning the call.

They need to put more technology into baseball. I want to see bases being able to light up green or red to tell us if its an out or not. RFID chips in the baseballs, gloves, shoes, gloves, and bases. When the ball hits the glove before the runners RFID hits the base, then the base lights up red. Other way around, lights up green. If the lights are too much for u guys, then have it just tell the umps in an earpiece out or safe. And they can just relay the call. There really shouldnt be any margin for error. Its 2010 FFS.

 

I'd say that's impossible, or at the very least, far beyond our current technology. I'm not even convinced that Fox Trax is that accurate.

 

Furthermore, I don't understand why we need an automated umpiring system making the calls. That's pretty superfluous in the context of the current problem. I would suggest something like simply having a fiftth umpire in a both looking at video monitors and relaying what he sees. Since virtually all of the most egregious blown calls can be spotted rather quickly on a video instant replay, I don't see why anything more than that would be necessary. However, I think balls and strikes should be exempt from replays (at least for the time being).

 

This is actually old technology. Really old. RFID chips can be printed for pennies. Its how sunpass works. The reason I would prefer something like this is because of how instant and reliable it would be. Baseball is trying to speed the game up, and having to wait for an ump to make the call in a video booth for close plays would slow the game down and be annoying. And you know the manager will come out and whine etc etc. Slowing it down even further. And how many bang bang plays are there in a game? Lots. This would be a system that would leave the game unchanged. It simply takes the decision of safe or out away from the umps. Watching baseball wouldn't change at all. It would actually speed the game up, but only slightly, because all safe or out decisions would be 100% accurate. No overturns. Right the first time. No players or managers complaining. I'm sure there are many solutions to provide a 100% accurate way to determine if a player is safe or out at any base. I just feel the fear of change is what is going to keep it behind current tech.

I know what RFID is. I'm saying it can't be used in the fashion you describe. It can probably be used to track the accurate distance of home runs, and maybe balls and strikes, but not for accurate readings of bang-bang plays, such as the incident last night. They won't be able to accurately gauge contact under the circumstances of gameplay.

bah why would anyone have expected Selig to do something the fans would actually, you know, be IN FAVOR of.

 

Not to be the wet blanket, but I still am fully against this call being overturned by the commissionoer's office, despite how upset I was when it went down. However, as the hours pass I am becoming increasingly confident that it will indeed be overturned.

 

I think the motivation for overturning it will be Joyce's emotional state. He seems to be virtually inconsolable throughout all of this.

The Tigers should have played the last out under protest. Then the Commish has no other option then to address it.

 

overturned call? Game over, same result- 3-0 win.

 

Don't over turn it. Game over, same result 3-0 win.

 

No harm, no foul. Just precedent that can be corrected with expanded replay.

 

I don't believe games can be protested on account of judgment calls. If Selig does this, he will be bending the rules, I think.

They need to put more technology into baseball. I want to see bases being able to light up green or red to tell us if its an out or not. RFID chips in the baseballs, gloves, shoes, gloves, and bases. When the ball hits the glove before the runners RFID hits the base, then the base lights up red. Other way around, lights up green. If the lights are too much for u guys, then have it just tell the umps in an earpiece out or safe. And they can just relay the call. There really shouldnt be any margin for error. Its 2010 FFS.

 

I'd say that's impossible, or at the very least, far beyond our current technology. I'm not even convinced that Fox Trax is that accurate.

 

Furthermore, I don't understand why we need an automated umpiring system making the calls. That's pretty superfluous in the context of the current problem. I would suggest something like simply having a fiftth umpire in a both looking at video monitors and relaying what he sees. Since virtually all of the most egregious blown calls can be spotted rather quickly on a video instant replay, I don't see why anything more than that would be necessary. However, I think balls and strikes should be exempt from replays (at least for the time being).

 

This is actually old technology. Really old. RFID chips can be printed for pennies. Its how sunpass works. The reason I would prefer something like this is because of how instant and reliable it would be. Baseball is trying to speed the game up, and having to wait for an ump to make the call in a video booth for close plays would slow the game down and be annoying. And you know the manager will come out and whine etc etc. Slowing it down even further. And how many bang bang plays are there in a game? Lots. This would be a system that would leave the game unchanged. It simply takes the decision of safe or out away from the umps. Watching baseball wouldn't change at all. It would actually speed the game up, but only slightly, because all safe or out decisions would be 100% accurate. No overturns. Right the first time. No players or managers complaining. I'm sure there are many solutions to provide a 100% accurate way to determine if a player is safe or out at any base. I just feel the fear of change is what is going to keep it behind current tech.

And what about when the equipment is damaged? The light in the base glitches or doesn't light up at all on a play. This would do nothing but take human error out of baseball and turn it in to mechanical error and they'd have to change dozens of rules which have been around forever. It also sets a big precedent for the future when a strike is called a ball mistakenly during a perfect game and the next guy singles to break it up. What then? Do we construct robots to call balls and strikes?

 

What you're talking about won't and shouldn't happen.

How can RFID reliably prevent the 27th out incident? How can it be reliably used to determine contact between ball and glove, fielder's foot on bag, and runner's foot on base RFID is mostly used as an identifier, a tag, if you will. It's not really used to map out the succession of various close impact points over time.

 

It's used in running because that represents the "Sun Pass" configuration. That's not the same scenario as I outlined above. What you are describing could probably be only accomplished through some sort of nanomaterial not invented yet and all surfaces would need to be coated with it. That's not very practical.

 

Instant replay is sufficient in attaining 100% accuracy. If you limit it's usage to only challanged calls, I doubt it would slow down the game to a hault. What seems to slow down the game more than anything is the tendency of pitchers to take too long between pitches.

What I'm talking about will happen. You can't get around it. Do you really think baseball will completely ignore tech that can guarantee 100% accuracy? I am all for preserving the game, but there comes a point where you are hurting progress by ignoring improvements. And RFID tech CAN be used in this scenario.

 

Its already happening and I'm glad. Home run reviews are the first baby step.

 

Baseball is too much a sport of tradition, I just can't ever see them taking umpires out of the equation and replaced by PitchFX or RFID bags. People don't actually want to see that. And people ESPECIALLY don't want to see bags that light up when the player is safe. Not to mention how players aren't going to want RFID baseballs (think about how NHL players reacted to FoxTrax or NBA players to the synthetic ball) and probably not into their cleats and gloves either.

 

Plus, that not your only problem, Your theory about RFID and its insertion into baseball is flawed. What about barehanded catches on force plays? How are you going to know with "100% accuracy" that the computers have the right call? Can't have an RFID chip in the players hands. And how about tag plays? How is the RFID chip going to know when the player was tagged on an area that doesn't have a chip? There's a lot wrong with your assertions here.

I wouldn't mind overturning the call for this specific play because it was simply a horrible call, preventing history from happening.

 

With that said, I'd rather not have instant replay. If you're going to put in replay for bang-bang plays at 1B, the game will be verrrryyyyy looonnnggg. As Tommy Hutton was saying tonight in the first inning, how far do you go? The Marlins were, arguably, screwed out of a run when that ball went into the dugout tonight with Gaby already standing at 3B. Do those plays get reviewed too? The strike zone? It wouldn't seem like baseball, imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixKidAhVtW4

I wouldn't mind overturning the call for this specific play because it was simply a horrible call, preventing history from happening.

 

With that said, I'd rather not have instant replay. If you're going to put in replay for bang-bang plays at 1B, the game will be verrrryyyyy looonnnggg. As Tommy Hutton was saying tonight in the first inning, how far do you go? The Marlins were, arguably, screwed out of a run when that ball went into the dugout tonight with Gaby already standing at 3B. Do those plays get reviewed too? The strike zone? It wouldn't seem like baseball, imo.

 

how would it make the game any longer? they show replay of close plays between pitches on tv, it would take SO MUCH TIME for some guy in a booth to watch a replay between balls in play? no.

Again. Lengthening the game is why they dont do it in the NBA. Except in the final 2 minutes. Simple way to solve it. Game ending plays should be reviewable.

Again. Lengthening the game is why they dont do it in the NBA. Except in the final 2 minutes. Simple way to solve it. Game ending plays should be reviewable.

 

i love the NBA but honestly most games come dow to final 5 minutes or so. baseball's a whole different thing.i read this article in ESPN mag the other week, i don't recall the context of the quote or anything, but a player said "we only play 10 seconds out of every minute." how is that not enough time to review any call in a booth?

That's not really the reason why people dont want replay.

 

You could make the same argument in football. At some points they could review almost everything. By limiting the reviews you keep the human element in the game and you make it less of a perfectionist game.

If they forbid balls/strikes from being reviewed, I don't think that it would extend the games too terribly long. I'm sure they'll compile more precise criteria too. I think it's wrong to dismiss instant replay over the possibility of it lengthening the game.

If they forbid balls/strikes from being reviewed, I don't think that it would extend the games too terribly long. I'm sure they'll compile more precise criteria too. I think it's wrong to dismiss instant replay over the possibility of it lengthening the game.

 

 

Certainly, but at the same time how would you feel if half of the calls in games are getting overturned? You must admit... umps are wrong a good portion of the time. So... close play at 1st! Safe! The runner thought me made it... and he's out. In every game that could happen at least once.

 

The biggest discrepency, which is why I believe this should only be allowed on game ending plays, is when a player catches a ball or not. If it is in fair territory and you cannot tell if the ball bounced, what if there are runners on base? What if they call it a catch and video review actually shows it to be a drop? What determines the amount of bases given and who scores? Not justifiable. Of course that doesnt make a difference if the game is ending or not, but I'd hate to see that happen too often... so review needs to be limited

Saying they are wrong 50% of the time is a pretty large exaggeration. There's maybe 1 or 2 calls a game that seem replay worthy. That's why I suggested that there should be some addtional criteria established to determine what is review worthy.

 

If you allow it for fair/foul and trapped catches, I feel that is a start. The only area that needs careful consideration is how to regulate safe/out.

Saying they are wrong 50% of the time is a pretty large exaggeration. There's maybe 1 or 2 calls a game that seem replay worthy. That's why I suggested that there should be some addtional criteria established to determine what is review worthy.

 

If you allow it for fair/foul and trapped catches, I feel that is a start. The only area that needs careful consideration is how to regulate safe/out.

 

 

It was a big exaggeration because coming up with an actual number would be too hard.

 

But you are missing the point.... when you review a call if originally the runner is called out and other runners are on base... what determines how many bases they get in the event that a call gets overturned as a dropped ball rather than a catch? The same concept as a ground rule double? I'd like to avoid awarding judged bases to runners as much as possible.

That's for MLB to decide and not a reason to say instant replay won't be feasible.

Just have the challenge system like the NFL has, minus a penalty for an unsuccessful challenge. And if the challenge is successful, you get to use it again. And having another umpire up in a booth reviewing every play(like college football) is a good idea. I don't know if that was suggested here or somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

Is there anyway baseball could use the system tennis uses for fair or foul plays? Definitely if its in the field of play. HR's that are close to the foul pole, I don't know if its possible with that system.

Just have the challenge system like the NFL has, minus a penalty for an unsuccessful challenge. And if the challenge is successful, you get to use it again. And having another umpire up in a booth reviewing every play(like college football) is a good idea. I don't know if that was suggested here or somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

Is there anyway baseball could use the system tennis uses for fair or foul plays? Definitely if its in the field of play. HR's that are close to the foul pole, I don't know if its possible with that system.

 

 

Call me crazy, but this was pretty much the same idea I had running through my mind. Why NOT give the coach a little bit of power here? Give the team one "red flag" (I don't think he would actually need a red flag, that would be silly). There is no conferring with the players or anything, the challenge must be made immediately (this way, a coach won't challenge unless he's absolutely sure, and there won't be an argument). As soon as the "flag" is thrown, the Umpires review the play. If they can determine through general consensus that the call was wrong, the call is corrected, and a determination is made on runner placement. If they determine that the call was correct, the coach loses his one "red flag", and can't challenge another call for the rest of the game. Furthermore, the team loses its red flag if someone is ejected. Also, just so even if the umpiring crew is particularly atrocious that day, even if the coach is correct in each instance, he only gets a maximum of three challenges in a game. I don't think it would completely take away the human element, but it should prevent the most obvious mistakes from occurring.

 

Oh...and the flag cannot be thrown for ball and strikes. Auto eject if he tries.

That's for MLB to decide and not a reason to say instant replay won't be feasible.

 

 

What? Everything is for the MLB to decide... that doesnt make it the right decision. Nobody enjoys awarding bases. It makes the game highly technical. I dont know about you, but if there is one thing that I dont like about football it's the fact that playing the rules has become a powerful tactic in football. First off, please, no challanges. I hate that idea, it's horrible for baseball.

 

I never said instant replay wont be feasible. I want instand replay. I just certainly see a flaw in it. If and when a runner is called out when he is actually safe, by whatever means (tag, catch, force, etc.) and.. say the inning ends on that play.. you cant have a re-do. You must award the players bases. Essentially you'd be giving runners the okay to walk home from 3rd to home, completely taking out what is called the "human element" in my opinion.

 

What about if the bases were loaded and a double play was readily available... and the throw is to second and the runner is called out. Only to realize that he was actually safe. But there were two outs... and the inning ended on a wrong call... who is to say the throw to 1st would not have been an out if the ump at 2nd made the right call? So everything runs in favor of the offense because the ump made a bad call? Everyone is safe when the inning could have ended if the 2nd baseman would've known to throw it?

 

There are just too many situations where instant replay will make things much more of a sticky situation rather than a nice fix. Those situations would probably be:

 

- bases empty

- runner called safe, upon review runner out

- ball called fair, actually lands foul

That's for MLB to decide and not a reason to say instant replay won't be feasible.

 

 

What? Everything is for the MLB to decide... that doesnt make it the right decision. Nobody enjoys awarding bases. It makes the game highly technical. I dont know about you, but if there is one thing that I dont like about football it's the fact that playing the rules has become a powerful tactic in football. First off, please, no challanges. I hate that idea, it's horrible for baseball.I honestly disagree. I think if done right, it would be better then instant replay. I hate seeing a coach go out to argue a play when he knows damn well he cant do a damn thing about it other then waste my time as a viewer. Give him just a smidgen of power in this. I think it could change things for the better, and take away some of that power that some umpires like to think (and rightfully so) they have over the game.I never said instant replay wont be feasible. I want instand replay. I just certainly see a flaw in it. If and when a runner is called out when he is actually safe, by whatever means (tag, catch, force, etc.) and.. say the inning ends on that play.. you cant have a re-do. You must award the players bases. Essentially you'd be giving runners the okay to walk home from 3rd to home, completely taking out what is called the "human element" in my opinion.

 

What about if the bases were loaded and a double play was readily available... and the throw is to second and the runner is called out. Only to realize that he was actually safe. But there were two outs... and the inning ended on a wrong call... who is to say the throw to 1st would not have been an out if the ump at 2nd made the right call? So everything runs in favor of the offense because the ump made a bad call? Everyone is safe when the inning could have ended if the 2nd baseman would've known to throw it?

Someone is getting screwed, either way. In this case, if I was the 2nd baseman, and I knew there was instant replay, I would throw to 2nd just to be sure if the play was that close. In such a case, the game changes a little bit. The players will adapt, I can assure you of that.There are just too many situations where instant replay will make things much more of a sticky situation rather than a nice fix. Those situations would probably be:

 

- bases empty

- runner called safe, upon review runner out

- ball called fair, actually lands foul

 

 

I think I'm misunderstanding you on this one. Those three you mentioned actually would seem to me to be the easiest uses of IR. Though I would like to mention that I would rather IR NOT be used for fair foul calls other then HR's. Honestly, I think that would cause more of a hassle then what it is worth.