Friday, September 5, 2008

Stark on Instant Replay

Jayson Stark from ESPN is a pretty out-of-the-box kinda guy. He loves triviality, wacky stuff. The "y" in his name shows him mom probably knew that from birth.

His article yesterday, in addition to the usual "around the league rumblings" about potential free agents and stuff, had his list of ways to EXPAND the use of IR. I know many of you (yes, looking squarely at you, Ron!) already find the use of IR as anathema. So cover your eyes if you already hate IR:

So what other ways could replay (or other technological gizmos) be applied? Here's our list:
1. Fair or foul.
2. Trap or catch.
3. Correctly positioning runners after fan interference or an overturned call, and …
4. Sorry to be sacrilegious, but (gasp) even for selected out-safe calls on the bases.
To be fair, he suggests the use of one "challenge" on a safe/out calls per game. He notes that the managers would likely not waste those challenges early in games, only late when the game's on the line. I'm not in favor of this idea, but I will reserve the right to keep an open mind.

To conclude, Stark noted Selig's thoughts on the subject, relayed via an unnamed "official" (emphasis mine):
But will they view it that way? Not likely. So convincing the commish and the umpires to point the cameras at those out-safe calls is going to take time. We know that.

"
Bud is not there yet," said an official of one club who has spoken with Selig. "But most clubs think this is just the beginning. Bud's feeling is, 'Let's go slow and start from there. We can't ask the umpires to accept it all too fast.' But I bet, in the next bargaining agreement [with the umpires], this will be a big issue."

5 comments:

Carl the Big Fool said...

3. Correctly positioning runners after fan interference or an overturned call

Tony Tarasco. Jeffrey Maier.
HELL YES.
(Still bitter about that one.)

Jason @ IIATMS said...

How come I knew you'd bring that one up, Carl?!?

tHeMARksMiTh said...

I wrote about this earlier. The problem with the "challenge rule" is what to take away. If you limit the challenge, then what happens if you have a bad safe call in the first and a bad home run call in the fifth? You still have the problem of a missed call. Even if they do wait til the last inning, they may use it anyway? What would you take away from them if they lost the challenge (like football with timeouts)? I've never liked this because I felt the game could go on without it, but this just brings up more problems to deal with. Maybe someone will think outside of the box, but I haven't heard a good idea yet.

tadthebad said...

Mark, why do they need to take away anything for a lost "challenge"? If you get only one challenge, and you lose on the replay, that's the penalty right there: no more challenges for the later innings. On the other hand, if the challenge is upheld, then that team gets another. And obviously, challenges wouldn't necessarily be the only mechanism for initiating replay.

Oh yeah... right on, Carl. Still makes me sick. I wonder how Jeter feels about that call after these many years.

Mark said...

Balls and strikes.

I don't know how -- Questec was the beginning, not the solution -- but umpires' "judgement" cannot be allowed to further warp the strike zone.

A properly calibrated machine is accurate 100% of the time. An umpire is not, to say the absolute least.