Are we all opting to ignore it, and hope it goes away?

by dayzd toe on Aug 27, 2008 10:13 AM EDT Comment 19 comments

Or are we just not actually noticing it?

I, for one, have no problem with instant replay in baseball. So what if the games get a little longer. One of the joys of the game is the fact that it has no time limit. I think this whole speed up the game thing is just ploy by televisors to fit in more programming and get more ad revenue. Let the game go how its going to go.

The most important thing is that the calls get called correctly!

PS-"F" YOU Jeffrey Maier!!!

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yesterday on XM

Joe West was on giving his opinion on instant replay. He sort of annoys me as an umpire, but he was actually pretty enjoyable on the radio. He gave specific examples for the need for replay in various stadiums, including Fenway, Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and Camden Yards. He said the desire to make fans closer to the game has really affected the umpires abilities to make accurate calls. He said, “they spent $50 million renovating Yankee Stadium and the end result was it allowed a 13 year old kid to change the outcome of a post season game.”

I am not opposed to instant replay as it’s being implemented.

[Guthrie's] president of my heart. ~PhilR8

by Stacey on Aug 27, 2008 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The only problem with replay

Is something not talked about enough. But all I can think of is what it has done to football. Think about it. If I team fumbles the ball, but the ref doesn’t want to call it a fumble, he is pressured to call it a fumble just so that “the play can be played out” because the coach can challenge the call anyway.

I don’t want to see the umpires actually being effected by replay. I don’t want them to call a lot of bounce-back balls in play, so that we can figure out exactly if the runner wants to stretch it to third, if there’s gonna be a thorwing error from the outfield… I don’t want the umpires to think “Lets find out what happens on this play, even though I think the play ended, so that if the play really hasn’t ended, we have some point of reference”

It works both ways too. Lets say that a called home run is reversed and called a double. There are so many things that we don’t know COULD have happened, but never did, because the play was “over.”

The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST

by the fix is in on Aug 27, 2008 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think this will slow down the game much

There will be delay when the umpires are checking the replay, but I’m thinking it will be canceled out because managers should spend less time arguing about the play.

"Whether your name is Gehrig or Ripken, DiMaggio or Robinson, or that of some youngster who picks up his bat or puts on his glove, you are challenged by the game of baseball to do your very best day in and day out. That's all I've ever tried to do."

by spike2131 on Aug 27, 2008 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ah, replay

When I saw the thread title, I thought you were talking about the rest of the season.

But I’m fine with replay. Get the calls right. The NFL is a nightmare because of the way it’s implemented and the bizarre, seemingly sometimes made-up-on-the-spot rules of that league and the way it’s made the refs hesitant to call anything (as the fix points out). But it doesn’t have to be that way.

by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Aug 27, 2008 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Diamond Dave said he’s against instant reply on XM. He wants the game played naturally. WTF? He’s basically saying mistakes are permissable part of game and that getting the call right is secondary to playing the game w/o unnatural interference. Hate this type of illogical thinking.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Aug 27, 2008 12:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You might not agree with it

But its a perfectly logical and defensible position.

by spike2131 on Aug 28, 2008 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

What the rules of a game are is not something that is inherently logical or illogical. The rules of a game should be what the people agreeing to play the game say they should be. If they want to set the rules so there is room for judgement errors to effect the outcome, that’s what they want. In this case the game is too big and insufficiently democratic for everybody to have a say in what they want, but no preference among the participants in right or wrong.

Setting aside the pain of the Maier case, in the regular season I find blown homerun calls (especially some of the egregious foul pole calls) to be a hoot. My gut is with those who find the errors more fun on the whole. Remember fun? It’s kinda where games started. But I’m OK with the limited extent replay is being implemented, so long as it sticks here and doesn’t go farther.

Has there ever been a cooler Oriole than Eddie Murray? I mean, just straight up cool. Like a bad, suave dude. You know what I'm sayin'. COOL. SC 7/24/08

by 33 on Aug 28, 2008 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But its a perfectly logical and defensible position.

Well, it’s not logical if your primary concern is playing a correctly called game, which I assumed is the number 1 concern of players, managers, and officials. It’s funny because I’m giving a lecture on this topic this afternoon, but it’s a classic case of how tradition impends logical thinking. Here you have case of a new source of data, instant replay, and certain individuals simply refuse to use new forms of evidence because of tradition (e.g." mistakes are part of the game" jazz). Dave’s thinking is only logical if you believe upholding the tradition of the game should take primacy over calling a correct game.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Aug 28, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't a game

what its rules say it is? It is correct if it conforms to what its rules allow. If the rules defer to the fallible judgement of an umpire, then the game is correct whatever the umpire says.

Fans with access to replay can say “that was a blown call.” We know it is incorrect based on the combination of our better information and the other governing rules. But if one of the governing rules says it’s the umps call based on the information HE has, it is still a correct game by its rules.

The distinction is between these rules and those rules, not between traditional and correct.

Has there ever been a cooler Oriole than Eddie Murray? I mean, just straight up cool. Like a bad, suave dude. You know what I'm sayin'. COOL. SC 7/24/08

by 33 on Aug 28, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what its rules say it is? It is correct if it conforms to what its rules allow. If the rules defer to the fallible judgement of an umpire, then the game is correct whatever the umpire says.

Rules are subject to interpretation and application. If the rules state that a ball must clear a fence to be considered a HR but an umpire says the ball cleared the fence when it didn’t then the authority and value of the rule book is severaly undermined. The power of authority is invested in the rulebook NOT the umpire. The umpire is merely there there to enforce and interpret the rules. What he rules, however wrong, is not automatically right merely because he has an umpire’s uniform. You’re argument seems to be say that whatever the umpire calls IS the rule book (“the umps call based on the information HE has, it is still a correct game by its rules”) which isnt’ the case because the umpire can make an empirically verifiable wrong call thus it is not “correct game”. Back to Diamond Dave, what he said is clearly a case of how people’s reluctance to let go of tradition affects logical thinking. If you can’t have an accurately called game, it impends the most important goal of a manager, winning the game. Instead, he would rather have mistakes in the game because that’s tradition when there’s no value in allowing umpiring mistakes (at least none that I can think of).

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Aug 28, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to agree here.

The game is based on the written (or spoken in some cases) rules. If the game were based on what the Umpire says, then the rules can be changed at anytime, depending on the Umpires mood, physical abilities (ability to see, get into position, etc.,), and dare I say monetary influence. Find in the rulebook where it says “These rules are subject to change at anytime without notice to players, coaching staff, observers, or other officials.” The object of any game is win by abiding by the rules of said game, not win based on making the rules fit the situation.

Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...

Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.

-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"

by dayzd toe on Aug 29, 2008 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree the rules don't say that

But the ump is left to enforce those rules. If he does it poorly, 40,000 people boo him, players and managers object. The outcome for that game is that the 40,000 suck it up, the players and managers, if they object strongly enough, are ejected and the ump’s bad call stands. Objections influenced the next play and the next day, but not the play at issue. That’s what the old rules allowed and in the context of those games it was ‘right’ in the sense it was the final answer by the rules everyone agreed to when they took the field.

If the ump does it poorly consistently he is reassigned, fired, demoted, whatever, but not overruled, except by the team of other umps who are invested with the same authority.

My misrepresentation of my thoughts in this exchange was saying “Right” to Spike’s post that it is a logical and defensible position. What I really mean is that it is defensible and logic has nothing to do with it.

Some folks like chess because it is entirely driven by strategy. Some like dice because it is entirely driven by luck. Some like computer games because they reduce physical performance as much as possible. Some like track because it focuses on physical performance as much as possible. Between those extremes, folks like games based on their preferences for how much strategy, performance and luck should be in the mix. A debate about replay is about how much luck you prefer in the game — how much cannot be controlled (since any person’s judgement at any given moment can have whacky things happen to it). If you like more control, you may like replay. If you like less, you may not.

I don’t have a dog in that because I find games with blown home run calls fun to watch. I expect to find games with corrected home run call fun to watch. So I think it’s all good. The only thing that bothered me was talking about correct games and logic.

I think it’s about values and preferences, not about logic and correctness.

End feckless pedantry. (And everybody probably said ’amen’)

Has there ever been a cooler Oriole than Eddie Murray? I mean, just straight up cool. Like a bad, suave dude. You know what I'm sayin'. COOL. SC 7/24/08

by 33 on Aug 29, 2008 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mean

“That’s the end of my feckless pedantry for the day” I didn’t mean it as a rallying cry, like “End ambiguous sentences” or something like that.

Has there ever been a cooler Oriole than Eddie Murray? I mean, just straight up cool. Like a bad, suave dude. You know what I'm sayin'. COOL. SC 7/24/08

by 33 on Aug 29, 2008 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

all that’s well and good, but rules are rules and they are in place to be followed to govern the game. If the rules are broken, the game is not being played correctly. When you’re playing Sorry and you get your last piece to the last space for HOME (or whatever it is) and you roll a 1 (because IIRC you have to get the exact number of spaces in that game) but you have some guy in a blue polo shirt with a doofy looking hat telling you “no, that’s a two, you have to to back to the beginning of the safe zone” that plays a direct effect on the outcome of the game. The rules are meant to be followed, not jacked up by some person on a power trip. To me, correct calls are more important that shorter games.

End feckless pedantry… AMEN!

Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...

Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.

-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"

by dayzd toe on Aug 29, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh yes, AMEN

Sorry if I came off as pedantic. It just annoyed the crap out of me when I heard Dave blabbing idiotically.yesterday and it fit in perfectly with a talk I had to give later that day.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Aug 29, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Objections influenced the next play and the next day, but not the play at issue. That’s what the old rules allowed and in the context of those games it was ‘right’ in the sense it was the final answer by the rules everyone agreed to when they took the field.

I hear what you’re saying here and I guess I’m saying that it’s an interesting way of using the word “right”. And I imagine it’s only “right” in the sense that you use it because you can’t overturn a wrong call post-game most of the time. Once an umpire makes a mistake, it sets the game on a particular course that can’t be reversed post-hoc. You would essentially have to replay the game from the point of mistake which, of course, will never happen.

What I really mean is that it is defensible and logic has nothing to do with it.

I think it’s about values and preferences, not about logic and correctness.

Sure, and as I said earlier, Dave’s stance is perfectly logical if you’re goal is to uphold traditoin. And in many cases, I’m all about upholding tradition. Wooden bats and natural grass for example. But, as I said earlier, what exactly is defensible about upholding tradition in this case? In other words, what is defensible what allowing mistakes in the game? Look, I understand your point about how much you’re willing to allow luck in the game. A lucky bounce of the ball can allow hit and that’s a fun part of the game. But the RULES should not be subject to luck. It’s in everybody interest to have a game called corectedly. Maybe people will say, playing luck with the rules is FUN. Jeffrey Maier was not fun.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Aug 29, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what the old rules allowed and in the context of those games it was ‘right’ in the sense it was the final answer by the rules everyone agreed to when they took the field.

And to give an example of why I think your usage of “right” in the above sentence isn’t quite right (ha!), see here.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Aug 29, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

where was

the emprical verification in the rules before now?

Has there ever been a cooler Oriole than Eddie Murray? I mean, just straight up cool. Like a bad, suave dude. You know what I'm sayin'. COOL. SC 7/24/08

by 33 on Aug 28, 2008 6:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

After thinking hard about it

I am still concerned about the “slippery slope.”

But there is one thing that sepparates the Home Run call from the rest of them: The HR call is the only call in the game when almost EVERYBODY EXCEPT the umpires have a better view than the umps do. Other than the Home Run call, the umpires are mere feet or inches away from the play.

So even though I oppose instant replay in principle, if this is as far as it goes, I couldn’t say that it’s not good for baseball.

You know, as long as the managers can’t force the umps to look at the replay. As long as the umpires still have total control…

The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST

by the fix is in on Sep 1, 2008 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs