NFL-stlye instant replay coming to MLB

[Denny]

I can already see how the challenge rule will be abused: manager sees his guy on the mound is getting gassed, but reliever isn't warmed up yet. Simply throw the challenge flag on any even quasi-close play just to buy time.

I'm in favor of using instant replay to correct calls where possible, but this system seems not well thought-out in my opinion (gee, what a surprise Bud Selig would produce something like that).

[Mike Dunn]

I'm not wild about this, but I do doubt it was make games much longer. The MLB says the average disputed call under the new system can be settled in 1 minute 15 seconds. Say they're being optimistic, so let's double that to 2.5 minutes per call x 6 maximum (three per manager) that's 15 minutes total per game. Subtract the time managers now spend arguing per game. I have no idea what that would be, and it certainly doesn't happen each game, but lets say it averages out to 5 minutes total (both managers arguing) per game. So the net increase would be ten minutes. If you accept the MLB's predicted time per call, then you're talking about two minutes longer per game, in other words one additional beer break.

I will miss the manager rants though.

[Tyler]

Completely fine with the concept, iffy on the execution.

[Coqui]

On instant replay, I'm happy with the concept (as long as they don't use it for balls and strikes), and mostly agnostic on the implementation.

I couldn't help but respond to this, though:

If they really cared about getting PED's out of baseball, they would make it zero tolerance. One strike and you get a lifetime ban. It worked in the Navy, there were no accidental false positives, the drug tests can be very quality. They also watched the fluid leave the body and enter the cup, and the cup had to be in sight of a Chief the entire time. We even had to roll up our sleeves and couldn't put our mouths near the cup(some people were hiding a cleansing pill that would throw the test in their mouths). It is pretty close to foolproof. With a system like that, people aren't going to risk using PED's in the game, it just isn't worth it. The problem is really just Bud Selig. He doesn't care about PED's or instant replay, otherwise he would make sure they are done the right way, it would cost too much money, and that is the bottom line. It is the cheapest way to show the public that he is "trying" to make steps toward doing what the masses want.

What you propose is simply not feasible. There's absolutely no way that the players union would go along with such a personally demeaning and humiliating process. And that's not a criticism of the players' union, mind you. I think they have come a long way in trying to clean up the game. If you want to criticize them or Selig for being late to the table, that's fine. And tests for known drugs by the Navy are a whole different ball game than millionaire athletes who have almost unlimited funds to pursue undetectable designer drugs. From a resources category, MLB is dealing with a much hardier mouse than the U.S. Navy, and the mice are always going to tend to outpace the best mousetrap that MLB can design. Heck, this latest spate of suspensions wasn't even based on drug tests was it? I haven't folllowed the story closely, but would drug tests have even caught these guys? MLB got lucky (or unlucky, I guess, depending upon your perspective) that records leaked out. They wouldn't have caught these guys on their own, and neither would have the U.S. Navy.

[Daniel Diemer]

On instant replay, I'm happy with the concept (as long as they don't use it for balls and strikes), and mostly agnostic on the implementation.

I couldn't help but respond to this, though:

If they really cared about getting PED's out of baseball, they would make it zero tolerance. One strike and you get a lifetime ban. It worked in the Navy, there were no accidental false positives, the drug tests can be very quality. They also watched the fluid leave the body and enter the cup, and the cup had to be in sight of a Chief the entire time. We even had to roll up our sleeves and couldn't put our mouths near the cup(some people were hiding a cleansing pill that would throw the test in their mouths). It is pretty close to foolproof. With a system like that, people aren't going to risk using PED's in the game, it just isn't worth it. The problem is really just Bud Selig. He doesn't care about PED's or instant replay, otherwise he would make sure they are done the right way, it would cost too much money, and that is the bottom line. It is the cheapest way to show the public that he is "trying" to make steps toward doing what the masses want.

What you propose is simply not feasible. There's absolutely no way that the players union would go along with such a personally demeaning and humiliating process. And that's not a criticism of the players' union, mind you. I think they have come a long way in trying to clean up the game. If you want to criticize them or Selig for being late to the table, that's fine. And tests for known drugs by the Navy are a whole different ball game than millionaire athletes who have almost unlimited funds to pursue undetectable designer drugs. From a resources category, MLB is dealing with a much hardier mouse than the U.S. Navy, and the mice are always going to tend to outpace the best mousetrap that MLB can design. Heck, this latest spate of suspensions wasn't even based on drug tests was it? I haven't folllowed the story closely, but would drug tests have even caught these guys? MLB got lucky (or unlucky, I guess, depending upon your perspective) that records leaked out. They wouldn't have caught these guys on their own, and neither would have the U.S. Navy.

My main point was about zero tolerance. The way that the drug tests are performed was to emphasize my point rather than propose that MLB should do it the same way. A lot of people in the Navy didn't like the zero tolerance policy because they were terrified that a mistake would end their career, but with a strict system of controlling the samples you don't need to worry about that. By a foolproof system, I meant that they would need to do as much as possible to protect themselves against the lawsuits that would surely come with a zero tolerance policy once a player popped positive.

The point I was trying to make was that even with millions of dollars spent on ways to hide the drugs players are using, how many players would really continue to take that chance if they knew that one positive test results in a lifetime ban and no more money for them. Why would we have anything other than a zero tolerance policy if they really wanted to do away with drugs? My problem with Selig is that he doesn't like to make hard decisions. There would obviously be backlash from the payers union on this issue of they tried to make it zero tolerance, but if Selig really cared about making the game as clean as possible, which he likes to talk, he would have pushed this issue. Remember what he first tried to do with the drug policy? If I remember correctly, the first offense was either a warning or just a few games. I think it had five levels before the lifetime ban. That stupid policy isn't about making the game clean, it is just to appease the masses. He does the minimum to get by. He knew that it was past time for a instant replay system, fans were complaining, but instead of coming up with a good system like the NHL, he again does the minimum and throws something together because he didn't have another choice, just like the drug policy. The reason the A's don't have an answer on their stadium issue is because they are a smaller market team and the public isn't making a big deal about it like they did about replay and drugs. If it was a team like the Yankees, they would have had an answer years ago. Selig is a wimp.

Sorry I'm rambling here. I didn't really have too much of a problem with Selig until I moved out here several years ago and have been following the A's. They want to build a stadium in San Jose, where the Giants have the rights to currently. The Giants aren't giving up their rights, but Selig can say that they need to, or he can decide no, they belong to the Giants. It is isn't a complicated issue. It is a hard decision, but taking years to make one is inexcusable. I'm livid about that how he can just shelve an issue like that because they are a smaller team and have since started seeing a common theme with Selig and his decision making skills.

[Mike Dunn]

I just saw what I think is the first use of this new system. The MLB Network tonight is showing an Arizona Fall League game, and they're testing it out. Early in the game there was a close call at first and they went to the replay, with two umps in a truck outside the stadium reviewing the tape. And they confirmed the first base ump's call, that the runner was out. The whole process took probably less than a minute. I'm not sure I like it, but it doesn't seem like it would add much time to the games.

Tony LaRussa, who is involved in this for the Commissioner's Office, is there at the game and talking about it with the announcers.

It'll be a brave new world next season.

[Arroyos]

And here's the link to that very first reviewed call. Things went smoothly, as you can see.

[Borealis]

And here's the link to that very first reviewed call. Things went smoothly, as you can see.

Smooth, yes... correct? IDK... I stopped the video and frankly it looked like the literal tie? I saw no evidence visually (in that last replay- the best view in my opinion) to suggest the call was wrong - or have they re-written the rules and added 'tie goes to the runner'? Isn't it supposed to be refutable evidence? This one looks like it would have been called differently by 20 different umps: 10 safe, 10 out...

[Arroyos]

And here's the link to that very first reviewed call. Things went smoothly, as you can see.

Smooth, yes... correct? IDK... I stopped the video and frankly it looked like the literal tie? I saw no evidence visually (in that last replay- the best view in my opinion) to suggest the call was wrong - or have they re-written the rules and added 'tie goes to the runner'? Isn't it supposed to be refutable evidence? This one looks like it would have been called differently by 20 different umps: 10 safe, 10 out...

I don't think so. Umps are pretty well trained in the rulebook: there's no such thing as a tie because the rule states that the runner has to beat the throw. It's in the rules twice, just to make sure:

Rule 7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out.
And:
Rule 7.09 (e) A runner is out when he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base."

If the runner doesn't touch the base before the ball arrives, the runner is out. In other words, the default ruling is always against the runner. And I believe that's the way it's taught in the umpire schools.