http://davidmarcus.sportsblognet.com/2010/08/05/mlb-replay-expansion/

 

Shameless self-promotion.

I don't mind replay for balls in play, but I'm not a fan of reviewing strikes and balls. It may slow down the game a bit, but in the end it will be worth it.

What I believe is someday, instant replay will be used for home run calls and fair or foul calls on close plays down the line. I don't think MLB should rush right into that. I think they should start out with fair/foul calls down the line being decided in the 7th inning or later to get used to things. I think in time it will eventually be used throughout an entire game.

 

However, I feel safe or out and ball or strike calls should forever be left up to the umpires discretion. Their job is to make those calls, I think instant replay should be left out of those. Close fair or foul calls will eventually be decided by instant replay imo.

 

To slow down the time for umpires to go in and decide, there should then be an umpire designated in an area with instant replay available to make the call on those fair or foul calls if asked upon.

 

That's honestly where I see instant replay is gonna go.

How long did it take MLB to allow instant replays of home runs? MLB is so old fashion and stubborn..I don't know if we'd see instant replays on other calls

I don't know... I like the way things go now. The human factor in baseball is refreshing - terrible at times, but refreshing most of the time. I think more has to be done to penalize stupid calls by umpires though. People don't seem to ever center an argument around how protected these umpires are. There'd be no need to even get to replays if we upheld a rule of accountability.

 

I just feel like expanding instant replays will open up a can of worms.

 

 

 

EDIT: There's a sun sentinel article floating around about Bob Davidson, even after watching the replay, not admitting his mistake. This is what needs to stop and what's wrong with this game. These men are virtually untouchable - they can ruin games with no repercussions past some media scorn.

It was first instituted officially in 2008.

How would instant replay exactly work in the situation of say, what happened tonight again the Phillies. You hit a ball that was fair but the umpire calls it foul. So they have to stop the game at this point and go review it, but the whole point is for the outfielder to get the ball and for the runners to advance as much as possible. You lose that ability if you stop the game at this point. You'd literally have to say "Hey everyone, put the game on pause".. Or perhaps they'd just give it a ground rule double if it was a bad foul call. Not sure how you'd work it

It was first instituted officially in 2008.

 

 

Ok but subtract from that now when instant replay was a known concept but MLB refused to use it [whenever that date was]. It took them that long to actually introduce instant replay in baseball then. Whether they would want to expand it or not, not sure but it could take perhaps half that long for them to do that. There are other calls, I'm sure, where instant replay would be nice. Not just with disputable home runs.

How would instant replay exactly work in the situation of say, what happened tonight again the Phillies. You hit a ball that was fair but the umpire calls it foul. So they have to stop the game at this point and go review it, but the whole point is for the outfielder to get the ball and for the runners to advance as much as possible. You lose that ability if you stop the game at this point. You'd literally have to say "Hey everyone, put the game on pause".. Or perhaps they'd just give it a ground rule double if it was a bad foul call. Not sure how you'd work it

 

 

It would be basically the same thing as home run calls. If it's a double that was called foul, just stop and review it, call it a double and if anybody was on base move them up 2 bases.

 

If it's called fair and it was really foul (and somebody argues), they let the play go on as it would, then when the play finishes check the replay and call it foul and restart the AB from where it was before + the foul ball (however that would work in the count).

How would instant replay exactly work in the situation of say, what happened tonight again the Phillies. You hit a ball that was fair but the umpire calls it foul. So they have to stop the game at this point and go review it, but the whole point is for the outfielder to get the ball and for the runners to advance as much as possible. You lose that ability if you stop the game at this point. You'd literally have to say "Hey everyone, put the game on pause".. Or perhaps they'd just give it a ground rule double if it was a bad foul call. Not sure how you'd work it

 

 

It would be basically the same thing as home run calls. If it's a double that was called foul, just stop and review it, call it a double and if anybody was on base move them up 2 bases.

 

If it's called fair and it was really foul (and somebody argues), they let the play go on as it would, then when the play finishes check the replay and call it foul and restart the AB from where it was before + the foul ball (however that would work in the count).

 

Ok, I get ya. I say then that there should only be a limited number of replay calls per game then. Perhaps only three times per team.

It was first instituted officially in 2008.

 

 

Ok but subtract from that now when instant replay was a known concept but MLB refused to use it [whenever that date was]. It took them that long to actually introduce instant replay in baseball then. Whether they would want to expand it or not, not sure but it could take perhaps half that long for them to do that. There are other calls, I'm sure, where instant replay would be nice. Not just with disputable home runs.

 

That's exactly the point I make in my post (1st post in this thread). Baseball has forever been stubborn in changing anything. There's a reason it took over 30 years for them just to remove the asterisk from Roger Maris' home run record. Replay is something that the baseball purists have always been apprehensive to add because it would ruin "America's Pastime". I honestly think the baseball heads need a change in mentality and expansion in instant replay is without a doubt needed.

How would instant replay exactly work in the situation of say, what happened tonight again the Phillies. You hit a ball that was fair but the umpire calls it foul. So they have to stop the game at this point and go review it, but the whole point is for the outfielder to get the ball and for the runners to advance as much as possible. You lose that ability if you stop the game at this point. You'd literally have to say "Hey everyone, put the game on pause".. Or perhaps they'd just give it a ground rule double if it was a bad foul call. Not sure how you'd work it

 

 

It would be basically the same thing as home run calls. If it's a double that was called foul, just stop and review it, call it a double and if anybody was on base move them up 2 bases.

 

If it's called fair and it was really foul (and somebody argues), they let the play go on as it would, then when the play finishes check the replay and call it foul and restart the AB from where it was before + the foul ball (however that would work in the count).

 

Ok, I get ya. I say then that there should only be a limited number of replay calls per game then. Perhaps only three times per team.

 

Well then if you want you can do what the NFL does. Give managers something like 1 or 2 challenges (like challenge flags) on calls (most likely just fair/foul calls). If they think a call is wrong, a manager could go out and challenge the call, umpires will review it and the right call would be made.

 

There a few ways as to how to implement expansion in replay, but the one fact that stands is expansion is sorely needed.

It was first instituted officially in 2008.

 

 

Ok but subtract from that now when instant replay was a known concept but MLB refused to use it [whenever that date was]. It took them that long to actually introduce instant replay in baseball then. Whether they would want to expand it or not, not sure but it could take perhaps half that long for them to do that. There are other calls, I'm sure, where instant replay would be nice. Not just with disputable home runs.

 

That's exactly the point I make in my post (1st post in this thread). Baseball has forever been stubborn in changing anything. There's a reason it took over 30 years for them just to remove the asterisk from Roger Maris' home run record. Replay is something that the baseball purists have always been apprehensive to add because it would ruin "America's Pastime". I honestly think the baseball heads need a change in mentality and expansion in instant replay is without a doubt needed.

 

 

Well, perhaps they are moving in the right direction with instant replay. Let's hope it doesn't take that long to see it expanded. I personally think they need to stop being so stubborn and oldfashion. But some people may disagree.

How would instant replay exactly work in the situation of say, what happened tonight again the Phillies. You hit a ball that was fair but the umpire calls it foul. So they have to stop the game at this point and go review it, but the whole point is for the outfielder to get the ball and for the runners to advance as much as possible. You lose that ability if you stop the game at this point. You'd literally have to say "Hey everyone, put the game on pause".. Or perhaps they'd just give it a ground rule double if it was a bad foul call. Not sure how you'd work it

 

 

It would be basically the same thing as home run calls. If it's a double that was called foul, just stop and review it, call it a double and if anybody was on base move them up 2 bases.

 

If it's called fair and it was really foul (and somebody argues), they let the play go on as it would, then when the play finishes check the replay and call it foul and restart the AB from where it was before + the foul ball (however that would work in the count).

 

Ok, I get ya. I say then that there should only be a limited number of replay calls per game then. Perhaps only three times per team.

 

Well then if you want you can do what the NFL does. Give managers something like 1 or 2 challenges (like challenge flags) on calls (most likely just fair/foul calls). If they think a call is wrong, a manager could go out and challenge the call, umpires will review it and the right call would be made.

 

There a few ways as to how to implement expansion in replay, but the one fact that stands is expansion is sorely needed.

 

Right, I was actually thinking about what the NFL does in those situations. First it would have to be crucial call; it'd have to matter. Then second you can't let a team constantly argue calls because that would delay the game a lot, so I think having a limited number of times would be good. Things to consider. I know Tommy keeps talking about how MLB wants to speed up games, and unfortunately if that's really the problem MLB is facing right now then replays would counter that.

You cant review a play like tonight's because it was ruled dead. A HR is still a dead ball, all base runners score once the ball is ruled out. If it's ruled in, they have to run. But if you rule a ball dead and it's not, tough luck, no instant replay can do anything about that.

 

Unless you're about to change rules. If you change rules, then it becomes stupid. It will become like football, throwing challanges and whatnot, and awarding players x amount of bases. Who was to say that ball was a single or a double? Or if it would be cut off down the line before it got to the wall? Or if the runner was thrown out at 2nd base (okay I know it would have been a walk-off, but that's not the point).

 

Instant replay doesnt work here. You just need a better f***ing umpire. One that doesnt literally look away when the ball comes his way.

You cant review a play like tonight's because it was ruled dead. A HR is still a dead ball, all base runners score once the ball is ruled out. If it's ruled in, they have to run. But if you rule a ball dead and it's not, tough luck, no instant replay can do anything about that.

 

Unless you're about to change rules. If you change rules, then it becomes stupid. It will become like football, throwing challanges and whatnot, and awarding players x amount of bases. Who was to say that ball was a single or a double? Or if it would be cut off down the line before it got to the wall? Or if the runner was thrown out at 2nd base (okay I know it would have been a walk-off, but that's not the point).

 

Instant replay doesnt work here. You just need a better f***ing umpire. One that doesnt literally look away when the ball comes his way.

 

I don't see that being a real problem.

 

Either the umpire can award bases based on judgment (similar to what they do in cases of fan interference) or they can simply award each runner (including the batter) one or two bases. The latter option (a standardized system) is probably better.

 

Whether you award one or two bases is up to debate, but even if it were only one base, I'm sure the Marlins would have rather taken Hanley at third and Gaby at first over the situation that the blown call induced (Hanley at second and Gaby eventually out). It's not so much that the blown call took bases away; the blown call took away an opportunity for Sanchez to get on base.

 

In other words, it still might not be fair to have only get one base on that, but it's still much preferable for the Marlins than the alternative.

Uhh I dont know what you thought on that last play... but if you had my opinion... that game was over. Yeah, I understand Hanley at 3rd is better, especially with Gaby on base, but regardless that game was over because even if that ball was cut off it was going to be too deep to throw out a runner.

 

In the end, this wasnt a bad call, it was a call literally made by a 'blind ref'. He did not look at the ball, and as a result did not see where it landed.

I don't have a problem with them shifting some of the rules, or creating a few new ones in the process of expanding instant replay.

 

People seem so confused about what would be done in certain situations... well, it's simple: Just draw the line wherever you want. If there's a man on 2nd, with 0 outs, and the LF makes a shoestring catch that's INCORRECTLY ruled as a catch (basically, he traps it), instant replay could award the batter 1st base, and the man at 2nd base could be awarded 3rd base. It's pretty reasonable, really. Think about ground-rule doubles. When a player hits a double, a runner on first base almost always scores, but if it's a ground rule double where the ball bounces over the fence he's forced to stop at 3rd. See how they just drew the line right there? That's basically what it would be like if instant replay overruled a call on the field.

 

Game time, and game pace is a non issue if there's a 5th umpire in a booth with a bluetooth to the crew-chief. Again, you draw another line right here. You know how in Football they're only allowed to throw in the red flag after the Ref makes the call, but BEFORE the team's next down? Again, sort of like that. The booth-umpire needs to radio in the blown call to the crew chief before, let's say, the pitcher makes the next pitch.

 

If you're still worried about the pace of the game, they can tighten the rules about delaying the game. Also keep in mind any and all plays associated with instant-replay can't be argued with by a manager. He can walk to wards the Ump for an explanation, and that's it.

 

Or give both Managers 1 challenge per game. Or maybe one per series, and they get one more challenge if their first one is successful.

 

They don't have to implement a million things at once. Just start SOMEWHERE. I find sports purism absolutely stupid. MLB is in the stone age, and they should get on with the times.

Uhh I dont know what you thought on that last play... but if you had my opinion... that game was over. Yeah, I understand Hanley at 3rd is better, especially with Gaby on base, but regardless that game was over because even if that ball was cut off it was going to be too deep to throw out a runner.

 

In the end, this wasnt a bad call, it was a call literally made by a 'blind ref'. He did not look at the ball, and as a result did not see where it landed.

 

You are completely missing the point.

 

You are saying that replay can't be used under those circumstances (at least that's what you said originally). That's not true. It could not be used to tell the future of what would have happened had the umpire made the correct call, but it could still have been used to the benefit of the Marlins.

 

If MLB had instituted a policy of awarding bases by the judgment of the umpires, the game could have been over. If MLB insituted a policy of rewarding two bases on blown fair/foul calls, the game would have been over. Both are fairly reasonable solutions and while not perfect, would have been better than no replay at all.

Uhh I dont know what you thought on that last play... but if you had my opinion... that game was over. Yeah, I understand Hanley at 3rd is better, especially with Gaby on base, but regardless that game was over because even if that ball was cut off it was going to be too deep to throw out a runner.

 

In the end, this wasnt a bad call, it was a call literally made by a 'blind ref'. He did not look at the ball, and as a result did not see where it landed.

 

 

.... it doesn't matter where it landed. It could have landed 10 feet fair, but if it did squeak by the bag just foul then it would be a foul ball. And is there a replay that shows the ball did actually pass over the bag?

 

Implementing replay for a play like this would be impossible. You would need to have a camera right above the bag, which I guess you could do in domes, but I am not sure how that would work in non-domes.

Uhh I dont know what you thought on that last play... but if you had my opinion... that game was over. Yeah, I understand Hanley at 3rd is better, especially with Gaby on base, but regardless that game was over because even if that ball was cut off it was going to be too deep to throw out a runner.

 

In the end, this wasnt a bad call, it was a call literally made by a 'blind ref'. He did not look at the ball, and as a result did not see where it landed.

 

 

.... it doesn't matter where it landed. It could have landed 10 feet fair, but if it did squeak by the bag just foul then it would be a foul ball. And is there a replay that shows the ball did actually pass over the bag?

 

Implementing replay for a play like this would be impossible. You would need to have a camera right above the bag, which I guess you could do in domes, but I am not sure how that would work in non-domes.

 

... of course it matters where it landed. If the ball is on the line, where it lands is solely dependent on which direction it goes. It just so happens that the ball landed just over the line in the infield in fair territory. As it crossed into the outfield, which is a bang bang play that it hard to judge unless you're at home plate looking directly down the line, it landed in FAIR territory. There is no way a ball can land in fair territory, bank left into foul territory, and before hitting the ground turn back into fair territory. Especially a ball that stays as close to the ground as this one did.

 

I dont mean to be rude, but you honestly just want to fight if you think that ball was questionable on the replay. The only reason it was called foul was because the umpire made a predetermined call, well before he could actually pass a judgement.

Uhh I dont know what you thought on that last play... but if you had my opinion... that game was over. Yeah, I understand Hanley at 3rd is better, especially with Gaby on base, but regardless that game was over because even if that ball was cut off it was going to be too deep to throw out a runner.

 

In the end, this wasnt a bad call, it was a call literally made by a 'blind ref'. He did not look at the ball, and as a result did not see where it landed.

 

 

.... it doesn't matter where it landed. It could have landed 10 feet fair, but if it did squeak by the bag just foul then it would be a foul ball. And is there a replay that shows the ball did actually pass over the bag?

 

Implementing replay for a play like this would be impossible. You would need to have a camera right above the bag, which I guess you could do in domes, but I am not sure how that would work in non-domes.

 

... of course it matters where it landed. If the ball is on the line, where it lands is solely dependent on which direction it goes. It just so happens that the ball landed just over the line in the infield in fair territory. As it crossed into the outfield, which is a bang bang play that it hard to judge unless you're at home plate looking directly down the line, it landed in FAIR territory. There is no way a ball can land in fair territory, bank left into foul territory, and before hitting the ground turn back into fair territory. Especially a ball that stays as close to the ground as this one did.

 

I dont mean to be rude, but you honestly just want to fight if you think that ball was questionable on the replay. The only reason it was called foul was because the umpire made a predetermined call, well before he could actually pass a judgement.

 

In this case it does not matter where it landed once it passed third base because it bounced before getting to the bag. That is the rule in Major League Baseball. Once a ball bounces before either first or third it is considered a "bounding" ball. And a "bounding" ball is judged fair or foul by where it is the moment it passes the bag, not where it eventually lands. A bounding ball can pass the bag fair, land 10 feet foul, and be a fair ball, or vice-versa since it is called based on where the ball was as it passed the bag.

 

As for the kinds of curves and paths balls can take: baseballs are unpredictable. You are talking about, in this case, a ball that bounced twice, is rotating a ridiculous amount of times per second off of a jagged surface, it is not all that crazy to believe it could pick up a little bit of english. I am not well versed in aerodynamics, but I understand enough to know why knuckle balls work, and why bouncing balls do not travel in a straight line.

 

This is what I said in another thread on the matter, and I think it is relevant here too:

 

It's not impossible, it could have taken a "bad" hop on the second hit, and curved around the bag just slightly. Harold Reynolds demonstrated how balls can curve once they bounce on the MLB Network tonight (on a smooth studio set, not even a pitted, beat up dirt infield): http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10663381&topic_id=7417714

 

And a lot of people, including in that clip, do not understand MLB rules. Once a ball has bounced before passing the bag, it is all about where the ball is when it passes the bag. The ball tonight could have landed 10 feet fair, and everyone could have seen it, but if it really did curl around the bag it would be a foul ball. Davidson was right there and didn't flinch an inch, he watched the entire play and believes he made the right call.

 

Any ball that "bounds [which means it bounced at least once before reaching the bag] past first or third base on or over foul territory" is a foul ball according to MLB rules: http://mlb.mlb.com/m...on_of_terms.pdf

Uhh I dont know what you thought on that last play... but if you had my opinion... that game was over. Yeah, I understand Hanley at 3rd is better, especially with Gaby on base, but regardless that game was over because even if that ball was cut off it was going to be too deep to throw out a runner.

 

In the end, this wasnt a bad call, it was a call literally made by a 'blind ref'. He did not look at the ball, and as a result did not see where it landed.

 

You are completely missing the point.

 

You are saying that replay can't be used under those circumstances (at least that's what you said originally). That's not true. It could not be used to tell the future of what would have happened had the umpire made the correct call, but it could still have been used to the benefit of the Marlins.

 

If MLB had instituted a policy of awarding bases by the judgment of the umpires, the game could have been over. If MLB insituted a policy of rewarding two bases on blown fair/foul calls, the game would have been over. Both are fairly reasonable solutions and while not perfect, would have been better than no replay at all.

 

No, the point Im making is that Im against making new rules to supplement replay because I dont want this going down the same path as football. I think replay is great, but not in a sense where it should change a game. It wouldnt be a huge deal, and I see the other side, I just dont personally want it.

 

But in my opinion this isnt a matter of needing replay, it's a matter of needing the ref to see all aspects of a play before making a call. This is like an ump calling the runner out because it looks like he's about to be out, yet the throw hasnt arrived yet.

 

The reason this ball looked like it was out was because it bounced UP, and it was pulled from a righty batter, so it makes it look like it's turning left. But once you take all 3 aspects into view, the ball bouncing on the line in fair territory in the in field, the ball crossing over the 3rd base on a hairline, and the ball landing further inside fiar territory than it had landed before gives it clear evidence that the ball was fair. Bob Davidson just thought he was so good at his job that he knew it was a foul ball.

In this case it does not matter where it landed once it passed third base because it bounced before getting to the bag. That is the rule in Major League Baseball. Once a ball bounces before either first or third it is considered a "bounding" ball. And a "bounding" ball is judged fair or foul by where it is the moment it passes the bag, not where it eventually lands. A bounding ball can pass the bag fair, land 10 feet foul, and be a fair ball, or vice-versa since it is called based on where the ball was as it passed the bag.

 

As for the kinds of curves and paths balls can take: baseballs are unpredictable. You are talking about, in this case, a ball that bounced twice, is rotating a ridiculous amount of times per second off of a jagged surface, it is not all that crazy to believe it could pick up a little bit of english. I am not well versed in aerodynamics, but I understand enough to know why knuckle balls work, and why bouncing balls do not travel in a straight line.

 

This is what I said in another thread on the matter, and I think it is relevant here too:

 

It's not impossible, it could have taken a "bad" hop on the second hit, and curved around the bag just slightly. Harold Reynolds demonstrated how balls can curve once they bounce on the MLB Network tonight (on a smooth studio set, not even a pitted, beat up dirt infield): http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=10659457

 

And a lot of people, including in that clip, do not understand MLB rules. Once a ball has bounced before passing the bag, it is all about where the ball is when it passes the bag. The ball tonight could have landed 10 feet fair, and everyone could have seen it, but if it really did curl around the bag it would be a foul ball. Davidson was right there and didn't flinch an inch, he watched the entire play and believes he made the right call.

 

Any ball that "bounds [which means it bounced at least once before reaching the bag] past first or third base on or over foul territory" is a foul ball according to MLB rules: http://mlb.mlb.com/m...on_of_terms.pdf

 

 

Again, not trying to be rude, but I dont need a lesson in baseball my friend. Where it lands is still indicative of where it originates from, unless there is some strong, strong wind, that's just physics. Bob Davidson made a premature call, because he clearly did not know where the ball was over the base.

 

Yes, I understand a ball can curve due to it's spin. A bad hop would do nothing but send it in one direction, it would never send it out and back in. A ball cannot at that speed sneak out and back in, let alone at high speeds without an outer force effecting it. You've got to remember that the ball is already moving in one direction! A ball cant complete a 180 degree arch after going almost 0 degrees out of nowhere. That ball doesnt have enough energy to be going towards the outfield, turn left, then quickly turn right again, and then continue towards the outfield. There was not strong enough wind to move that ball in the air either. The ball defnitely can be heading one direction and then after another bounce be heading another direction, but it can change directions in air. You cant even significantly see that with pitches, which are traveling at a much higher velocity, and have much higher energy than that ball did.

 

You're ignorant to think Davidson watched the entire play, I'm sorry. A ball moving at such speeds cannot change directions without an outside force acting on it. It cant "sneak around the bag". It can definitely bounce and turn, Im not doubting that, but it wont be a 8 inch curveball (moving left to right rather than up to down) off the ground. It hit the line, it went over the base directly over the line. Davidson figured since Gaby pulled it that it's only direction would have been FOUL. It makes sense, because it was very hard to see. But since the end of fair territory is the end of 3rd base, and the ball was traveling in fair territory directly over the line, and crossed the plate on a bang-bang play, and landed fair, it's evident that even though the ball was hit towards the foul territory, it took a hop off the dirt and changed directions, once, into fair territory, and then went back towards foul grounds.

 

Davidson simply made his decision too soon, because he tried to put 2 and 2 together when in fact the other number was 3.

How about a "Do-Over" rule for when the Marlins make a defensive error!!?? Just kidding