NFL-stlye instant replay coming to MLB

[John]

MLB Set to Expand Instant Replay in 2014

Calling it a historic moment, Commissioner Bud Selig said Thursday that Major League Baseball plans to expand its video review process next season, giving managers a tool they've never had in an effort to dramatically reduce the number of incorrect calls made in games.

Selig made the announcement after two days of meetings with representatives of the 30 teams. The proposal is to be voted on by the owners in November.

''I'm proud of them,'' Selig said of the replay committee. ''It's worked out remarkably well. It's historic. There's no question about it.''

A 75 percent vote by the owners is needed for approval and the players' association and umpires would have to agree to any changes to the current system...

Managers will be allowed one challenge over the first six innings of a game and two from the seventh inning until the completion of the game. Calls that are challenged will be reviewed by a crew in MLB headquarters in New York City, which will make a final ruling.

A manager who sees a call he feels is incorrect can file a challenge with the crew chief or home plate umpire. Only reviewable plays can be challenged. Non-reviewable plays can still be argued by managers, who can request that the umpires discuss it to see if another member of the crew saw the play differently. Reviewable plays cannot be argued by the manager.

Challenges not used in the first six innings will not carry over, and a manager who wins a challenge will retain it.

The home run replay rules currently in use will be grandfathered in to the new system, Schuerholz said.

I'll share my thoughts on this later, but for now, I just want to get the conversation ball rolling. First question: Do you approve of instant replay in MLB? Second question: Do you like the NFL-style challenge system? Discuss.

[Steel Dragons]

The game is slow as it is and gets slower every year. If you want to fix the human error factor of umps in baseball just get what many have asked for is a laser set up calling balls and strikes and review all plays like in college. It takes 10 seconds to review a play on instant reply and 99% of the crowd knows if they were safe or not safe. They will find a way to mess it up even if they pass it...4 hour games will be 5 hour games.

[roncollins]

I don't get the value of the central reviewer of all plays.

[John]

I don't get the value of the central reviewer of all plays.

This system actually works quite nicely in the NHL. Refs have access to a phone down on the ice. They call in to the central review room in Toronto, get the word from the guys there who are reviewing the tape, and announce the verdict to the crowd. The whole process usually takes about one minute.

[Borealis]

Horrible... Stupid... Ridiculous... Did I say Stupid?

I agree with Mark - why slow the game any more? Why make the distinction between the first 6 innings and the last three - the play effecting the game and needing replay may be in the 5th inning and a teams relief corp could strike out the side the last three and you still lose; replay was zero help!!

Umps get well over 90% of the calls right - what will you do when there is that play that is too close to call? Over turn it because a third party sees it differently? Bogus.

Tom Tolbert on KNBR had a great idea to 'incentivize' the umps - pay them a flat salary; fines for bad calls and bonus for good, tough calls (I have no idea how you quantify that). Umps will bust their butts to be in position and they'll be more willing and less egotistical when it comes to looking for help on a call.

I hate, Hate, HATE the whole idea. Talk about an assault on the history of the game - the human error is an ingrained element of the games history!

[Leones]

I agree, I don't like it. We in this country seem to be, more and more, demanding black and white answers to everything. Perhaps it's a byproduct of living in the binary age. The grey areas hold the most interest and promise for engaging debate.

Anything that increases the length of the game and takes humans out of the loop is bad. Baseball is about life and people. People make mistakes, and have differing opinions. That's life, accept it grow up and move on. Life is better when the edges aren't so sharply defined.

[Borealis]

I agree, I don't like it. We in this country seem to be, more and more, demanding black and white answers to everything. Perhaps it's a byproduct of living in the binary age. The grey areas hold the most interest and promise for engaging debate.

Anything that increases the length of the game and takes humans out of the loop is bad. Baseball is about life and people. People make mistakes, and have differing opinions. That's life, accept it grow up and move on. Life is better when the edges aren't so sharply defined.

WELL SAID!!!

[Matt]

I think we all hate the blown calls, especially the obvious ones. But I also hate eliminating the human factor. For instance, I love that different umps have different strike zones. The game has been that way since the beginning of time. Pitchers would have to adjust to the umpire, and the good ones know how to do it. I though Glavine was a magician at the way he would know the umpires strike zone, and work to it. If he could get an umpire with a wide strike zone, he would slowly over the course of the game keep bringing the umpire further and further off the outside of the plate. It was beautiful to watch.

I think all the players ask for is consistency. If you give the high strike on one pitch, then give it the next pitch as well. And if you have a high strike zone, don't suddenly in the middle of the game start giving the low strike.

I could see an automatic review of HR's. But...and here's an idea...maybe the league should concentrate on making it easier to tell what a hr is and isn't. Bringing the fans so close to the action that balls are bouncing off of railings seems to have made the problem worse over the years. It's hard to say much nice about the old cookie cutter stadiums, but at least there wasn't much doubt whether a ball cleared a wall or not (with some rare exceptions). And get rid of those funky yellow lines in parks like Arizona, where if you hit it above the line it's a HR and under the line it's in play. WTH.

[Lions]

... takes humans out of the loop is bad. Baseball is about life and people. People make mistakes, and have differing opinions. That's life, accept it grow up and move on. Life is better when the edges aren't so sharply defined.

I have to say that my opinion started out like this a few years ago but I have been gradually changing to the point where I don't agree much with it. I still think humans are necessary, but the fact of the matter is that there are calls that get missed that the audience at home and via the jumbotron in stadiums can see were missed within 15 seconds of the play happening. It's those calls that I think some form of replay or corrective system should be used to fix. I am not opposed to human error being involved in the outcome of games. I am opposed to having the ability to correct human error in short order and NOT doing that. That's just willful neglect, IMO. The main thing, though, is that fans know there is technology that can make it better without being too intrusive and they see technology coming into play in all sorts of aspects of their lives. They don't want their team losing advantage in a key moment because an ump blew a call if there's a legitimate way to correct those mistakes. This is amplified in the postseason.

That said, I think this system stinks. I abhor the idea of giving managers 3 challenges per game. The biggest problem with the challenge flag in the NFL is that coaches feel obliged to use them. Fans get upset if coaches don't use them. It has become a strategic tool, not a tool simply to make sure the right calls get made. It interferes with the flow of the game, not because it causes a brief delay, but because it changes the way people manage.

I've seen a few proposals for how MLB replay might work, and the one I like the best was having an extra umpire up in a booth who has access to the camera feeds and can then review close plays as he sees fit. He'd have a way to signal to the home plate ump after a close play that he's reviewing it. He'd have a way to quickly review it with various camera angles, and then communicate any changes down to the field.

I think it's important that ball/strike calls remain at the discretion of the umpires. Most of them are actually quite good and quite consistent in the way they call pitches if you look at the data. Technical solutions like Questec or other systems to automatically call balls and strikes aren't really worth the very small benefit you might get from them. You still need to have a home plate ump for all sorts of other tasks.

The one thing I worry a bit about is the way that having replay might affect how umps call things. I would expect to see a gradual shift in favor of the offense because it's easy to reverse a play. It's not possible to extend a play after it has been stopped. For example, a ball that's close to the foul line will more commonly be called fair because then the play can play itself out and be reversed if replay suggests the ball was actually foul. If it's called foul and was actually fair, well then the play never happens and you can't redo it.

[Bill]

I don't mind having replay in some form to make the game a bit more fair. The only time I do not like replay is exciting plays in college football because they review so much. Your team makes a long TD catch, you celebrate for 2 seconds, then you realize "Oh yeah, they will review this, it might not count", sit around for two minutes, then maybe celebrate again. It is a total killjoy.

[Mike Dunn]

My greatest fear about all this is that we'll no longer see wonderful manager vs ump confrontations.

Like this classic (Note: not safe for work or kids):

[Daniel Diemer]

This system actually works quite nicely in the NHL. Refs have access to a phone down on the ice. They call in to the central review room in Toronto, get the word from the guys there who are reviewing the tape, and announce the verdict to the crowd. The whole process usually takes about one minute.

I just heard this on the radio this morning and figured it would already be on this board.

I am a fan of instant replay, but not in the way they are doing it now, I hate it and think it will slow down the game way too much. However, I listen to the game on the radio and fill my time listening to baseball doing other things, so slowing down the game a bit isn't a big deal to me, I'm not losing any time. Ah, I love to reminisce about those summer nights where my brother and I would always fight to see whose volume on the radio could get louder(he is a Cardinals fan and I am a Cubs fan). But back on topic, I think it will slow down the game way too much for the casual fan. From the moment they started talking about instant replay, I knew the only right way was to do it the way of the NHL, but apparently that way costs too much money, and the owners want to keep every precious penny they have they don't want to give any more up to either have a central review or have an extra umpire at every game. In theory, it would work great, they should be able to have the call down in about a minute or two like the NHL. It works beautifully and barely slows down the game at all, and in the slower paced game of baseball, nobody is going to notice an extra minute or two.

And the whole challenge thing like football is ridiculous. Get as many calls right as you can or don't do it at all. Football is a completely different sport. Arguably, they could have a faster system also, but because it is the most popular sport in America, they don't have to care.

I say do it right, like the NHL, or don't do it at all. Stupid Bud Selig, worst commissioner ever. And while I'm on my soapbox, he did something else that made a lot of people mad. True, I am a die hard Cubs fan, but since living out here a half hour from Oakland, I became an A's fan as well about four years ago. It frustrates me to no end that the stupid MR. I HAVE TO PLEASE EVERYONE Bud Selig cannot make up his mind about the stadium issue out here in Oakland that has been going on for ten years. He knows that either answer will make somebody mad, and he wants to go down as the commish that everybody loved, so he is just not making a decision. Either tell Oakland they can build a stadium in San Jose, where the Giants currently have the rights to, or tell them no. It isn't that hard. Yes or no. And now he goes off and says that there is another stadium issue that he will step in on, totally just sidestepping Oakland. How has it gone on this long. I despise Selig.

[Arroyos]

I am a fan of instant replay, but not in the way they are doing it now, I hate it and think it will slow down the game way too much.

I am NOT a fan of instant replay, and I agree it will slow the game down. Let the umpires make the best calls they can, and then get back to the game. So what if they miss a few? That's life. That's baseball. That's the nature of games. Luck is the deciding factor in all three.

And the whole challenge thing like football is ridiculous. Get as many calls right as you can or don't do it at all.

Yup. Any rule change that gives managers MORE to do or say or challenge is a bad idea. In fact, I'd make a rule change that prohibited managers from ever leaving the dugout. No more of those damn, stupid, little boy antics while arguing with umpires. The ump makes the decision, live with it.

Stupid Bud Selig, worst commissioner ever. … Either tell Oakland they can build a stadium in San Jose, where the Giants currently have the rights to, or tell them no. It isn't that hard. Yes or no.

Amen to that. Fire the Fool! Burn the Bud! Send him back to Milwaukee. Appoint Pete Rose commissioner.

[Leones]

More breaks in the action mean more commercials and more revenues. What's not to like? (ducks)

[Daniel Diemer]

I am a fan of instant replay, but not in the way they are doing it now, I hate it and think it will slow down the game way too much.

I am NOT a fan of instant replay, and I agree it will slow the game down. Let the umpires make the best calls they can, and then get back to the game. So what if they miss a few? That's life. That's baseball. That's the nature of games. Luck is the deciding factor in all three.

And the whole challenge thing like football is ridiculous. Get as many calls right as you can or don't do it at all.

Yup. Any rule change that gives managers MORE to do or say or challenge is a bad idea. In fact, I'd make a rule change that prohibited managers from ever leaving the dugout. No more of those damn, stupid, little boy antics while arguing with umpires. The ump makes the decision, live with it.

I think the whole problem here is they didn't think outside the box on this. Why make it about the managers and their strategic use of when to throw the flag or not. Instead of making it about whether or not they are going to throw the flag, just stick an extra umpire up in a room in the stadium with a 60" bigscreen, have all the umpires on some sort of a radio system, and if one of them gets a call wrong, just have the guy in the booth radio down, and reverse the call within 10 seconds. Fans with any tv broadcast, or even sitting at the stadium all know within seconds what the correct call is, so why cannot the umpires do that. You could almost just have the umpires watch the tv broadcast. It wouldn't slow down the game at all.

Aside from ball and strike calls, I think they should either have instant replay in this fashion for every call or none at all. The system they are implementing is stupid. Instead of only giving them limited challenges, why cannot we just get all the calls right. It is like everything this stupid Bud Selig does is to appease the fans. That is the biggest problem I have. Putting this system in plays only goes to reinforce the idea that all he cares about is making people happy, he doesn't really care about getting the right calls. Either get a system where you can get every call correct or just leave it how it is.

They way they are doing instant replay is just like their ridiculous drug program(you can do PED's, but just don't get caught three times). 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.