"While replay is obviously not applicable in all situations"

But you're advocating that replay be used for balls and strikes. That pretty much implies any other situation in baseball can be reviewed.

The strike zone is purely a judgment call. Even the NFL doesn't review situations remotely comparable to that.

First of all, I never advocated using replay for balls and strikes. I said they should use QuesTech for balls and strikes which a system already used in many parks to check umpires accuracy.

The strike zone is not "purely a judgment call." In the baseball rule book there is a well defined area on the batter that is a strike not to mention there is a plate over which the ball must be thrown.

Calling the strike zone a judgment call is exact problem that this article speaks to. A pitch is either a strike or it is not -- by the rules. It is not based on how the umpire is feeling that day or his ability to track the movement of the baseball.

By using a QuesTech system to call balls and strikes and replay to review homerun calls and other plays that do not disrupt the continuality of the game (runner progression, ect.) you will improve true accuracy of the game as a whole, rather then leaving it to judgment calls.

If video replay should exist, ONLY make it for questionable home run calls, and nothing more. And if MLB was smart, it would implement the system quietly and without spectacle.

Why should baseball be ashamed of implimenting a system to make the game better? They should be proud of the progressive thinking it apparently takes to get these calls correct.

One again we go back to this problem of technology that improves accuracy being seen as an impurity to baseball.

I still don't see a good argument against accuracy.

But yes, homerun calls are the applicable use for replay but QuesTech is just as important when considering balls and strikes.

A baseball game can essetially be effected by one batter and a batter can be effected by one pitch. In a key situation, there is a massive difference for a hitter between a 2-1 and 1-2 count. One blown call can totally change the pitcher's apprach and the hitter's results, altering the outcome of a game. Embracing human error as some quirky part of baseball cannot justify abandoning the goal of determining who is truely best between two teams.

I want to know how people feel about replays being used for calls on the bases.

Replay for home run calls will speed up the game if used correctly. Replay for calls on the bases would probably be a wash. They would cut down on arguments between a manager and umpire, but would take more time to get correct.

Ques Tech would speed up the game because there would never be a need to argue balls and strikes.

Using replay for calls on the bases could be tough in certain situations but I definately think that it should be examined. All technological options should be examined for all situations and then a set of rules can be produced based on those that are most applicable.

On your point concerning QuesTech -- your statement is the main crux behind this whole arguement. It would elimate any kind of dispute from the situation. No longer could there be any claim that poor umpiring at home plate cost a team anything.

My personal opinion is that replay should only be used for homeruns and foul calls.

As a former umpire(little league through High School) I lkie the human element. I know replay would get the calls 99% right. I think home run calls could have the most impact in the game and that is way I favor replay for them.

If we used it everywhere, it would damage the flow of the game. I personaly like a good heated exchange between an umpire and a manager.

If MLB used Ques Tech, you would still need an ump behind home plate to make the base running calls. He would look pretty stupid there if he wasn't also calling balls and strikes.

And I think having slightly different strike zones is good for the game. It makes things more interesting. An ump can turn what should be a run fest into a great pitching duel or vise versa. I also think tha bad calls even themselves out. As many times as a guy gets bad called strike, he gets a bad called ball.

I guess there is no counter arugment towards "likeing" something but the fact is, a baseball game is supposed to determine the true victor in a battle of baseball skills. The outcome is not supposed to be determined by the skill or disposition of an umpire.

The idea that the umpire has the ability to alter what kind of game it is (your "runfest" statement) is repulsive to me. It is not his job to alter the game in this way.

If you've got one pitcher who is finess pitcher and he isn't getting the calls (Mussina for example) he will get rocked when he's forced to groove 2-0 fast balls right down the middle to get a strike. Conversely, when the ump is over generous with the black on the outside of the plate it can destroy the offense in the game.

The game is supposed to be determined by the skill of the players, period. The goal should be to eliminate any other factors that hinder this goal.

I do think umping or any officiating for that matter, have an obligation to do their best to get calls correct. Replay does do a better job of getting calls correct.

But baseball is a game. What makes baseball perhaps the greatest game are all the nuances of it. The game does not have to be correct. Correct sterilizes the game.

The game has to be fair. The teams agree that a human is going to call balls and strikes for both teams. Both teams know that calls will sometimes go in their favor, and sometimes go against them. During a 162 game season, it will all even out. The best teams will make the playoffs.

As long as an umpire's strike zone remains constant and not to tight or to loose, I don't have a problem with it. Both teams have to deal with it. Adjustments are also a fun part of the game.

Now the playoffs are a whole new debate. Much less games means a greater chance that an umpire could give a team a championship and take it away from another.

I'm sorry but I have a real problem with calling the idea that umpires can hijack a game a nuance.

The teams agree that a human is calling balls and strikes because they have no other choice; thats how it is done. Saying they agree is like saying that both teams are given an option and then come to a joint conclusion that this is what they want.
Obviously thats not the case.

You say the game has to be fair and yet how is it fair that issues like where the umpires sets, his eye sight, and his preferances on how he interprets the rules, decide a player's at bat. Even the base concept that the human eye can accurately read the break over the plate of a pitch ranging from 75 to 100 mph is assinine in itself.

I've seen no statistical evidence that it "all evens out" in the end. Take the 90's Brave's staff. Did all those calls on the black that the staff received even things out? Not until they had to deal with American League umpires in the WS.

How about personal records and statistics which is another thing that makes baseball great? One homerun, a tenth of a percentage point on a batting average, a strike out, all of these things can have an important impact on history.

So we've basically determined that the only counter argument to using technology in baseball is that some people like that idea of using humans because humans screw up and thats a cute part of the game. Again, unexceptable.

If you really want to understand the impact of the strikezone on the league as whole I'd refer you to the "Bill James Baseball Abstract." He documents the various rule changes in the zone since 1870 and its overall impact on the league.

First, this is great dialog.

Your arguments are absolutely correct.

But if replay were used on all calls, what is the point of the umpire.
We might as well have a booth set up in the press box and a big sign on the score board that lets us know if a guy is out or safe.

This would change the flow of the game. It would change a big dynamic that exists between game officials we have now (Umpires) and managers, fans, everyone. This dynamic would not exist with a booth.

You cannot tell me that some controversy is not good for the game. Media attention increases ratings, which means more money. And controversy can be fun. Can you imagine never getting to see Lou Pinella dirt shine an umpire's shoes, or pick up third base and throw it into left field?

If MLB goes to too much replay it will sanitize the game too much. And you want records to mean something, what about all the records that have been set using umpires judgment. Do we throw them away? Do we add a few more homeruns onto Berry Bonds record since at some point an ump made a bad strike out call?

Obviously a system with rules would need to be worked out but the umpires would serve much the same function as an NFL referee.

Calling guys out or safe is definately more of a gray area then homerun calls or balls and strikes. Maybe this means a challenge system? I'm not really sure.

The point is that the umpires would still be making the calls on the field. Replay would simply be a tool to make sure the call is right.

As to your point about the records, you actually hit on one of the true nuances of the game; evolution. In the same way we don't dispute the dead ball era records even though the game was far different (Silver King throwing 500 plus innings anyone?) we would also have to look at the new records in a slightly different light. Again, there are statistics to compensate similar to ball park variance (again, Bill James Baseball Abstract).

I understand your point about taking the passion out of the game Pinella style. As someone who deeply loves the game I enjoy this the same way I use to enjoy watch Bob Probert destroy someone's face in hockey. Just because we enjoy it doesn't make it the best scenario.

You cannot compare the NFL and MLB as far as officials and replay.

There are no gray areas in baseball when you think about it. A guy is safe or out. A pitch is a ball or strike. Where is the gray area? If you use replay that is.

In the NFL you have a contact sport. And contact can be interpreted. Sure you could replay pass interference for instance, but even at slow speeds it can be a debatable thing.

We both agree replay now for homeruns. But what is the point of having umpires if you open up replay to beating out a throw to first, or a slide at home, or even a trapped catch.
If the guy on the field does not have the final say, he is meaningless.

Would you go to a challenge system? What happens when you run out of challenges?
Does the game revert to what we have now? Human error?

I'm all about progress. But progress that completely changes the history of baseball is not the kind of progress I want.

By gray area I meant that its questionable whether it should be used for on base calls.

The problem here lies in runner advancement and the overall continuality of the game.

My point with the NFL was that even though they replay things like whether the knee was down or whether the runner got both feet in bounce, the ref still makes the call and if there is INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE the play is overturned. The system can be similar for baseball.

Ump calls the runner safe. Play is reviewed. If there is not enough evidence to over turn the call then it is not over turned.

As for a challenge system, there are many different options. You could have an umpire at a screen in the booth that could choose which plays to review or you could do a challege system, although as in football, you would run out of challenges.

I'm not trying to construct a perfect system without flaws here. The point is to push forth the evolution of the game without being stuck in nostaglia for ways that are no longer best practice.

Really, if the umpires become useless then they do. When the printing press was invented scribes became useless. Should we have shut down Guttenberg because we liked the human and traditional eliments of scribing?

Again, I'd have to sit down with the rules commission and have a good series of meetings to determine exactly how this should be implimented. The point is that the possibilities need to explored immeadiately.

As for progress altering the history of the game -- I guess we better eliminate the DH, ban interleague play, eliminate the divisions, and raise the mound 6 inches if we're really worried about that.

I would argue that lowering the mound had far more impact on the game than getting calls correct. If you don't believe me check out the obscene pitching stats of the late 60's. Gibson, McNally, Tiant, Koufax; they all put up ridiculous numbers before this happened. Check out Yaz's batting title in 1968 when he didn't even hit .301 and was the only AL hitter to top .300. Ref. 1963 to 1968.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

In the short term, home run calls will be reviewed. I wouldn't be surprised if it will be used come playoff time.

Adding the DH, changing mound heights, interleague play, and divisions did not change the way the game flows. Having an umpire make a call right or wrong has ALWAYS been a part of baseball.

Scribes? Better technology in industry/business will always win out.

We are talking about a game. We are talking about having fun. The game is more fun with humans having the final say, not replay. Yes it can be frustrating, but isn't the next mornings argument or venting with co-workers fun?

An old Cinderella song comes to mind: "Don't know what you got, till it's gone...."

I really appreciate your points on this one. It's nice to be able to debate the game and not have substances as part of the coversation.

Trust me, my heart lies with your side while my brain -- everytime I see more blown calls on sportscenter -- tells me something different.

Thanks,

Tony

A story on this is on ESPN.com today.

Here's a great quote.

"Replay is coming," Rich Rieker, who serves as a liaison between MLB and its umpires, wrote in a chat with the Houston Chronicle's Web site. "If done properly we have an opportunity to set the gold standard in replay, learning from pros and cons from other sports. But we must do so in a fashion that will not delay the game further."

---

ok--druxx and tony... i love baseball. it's a team sport, but at the most basic point, it's one-on-one. i think the idea of instant replay on homerun calls is absolutely necessary. but!

i have to agree with druxx. the ump is a crucial part of the game. the batters and the pitchers need to learn the umps' strikezones. it's a crucial part of the game. hopefully the ump won't change the strikezone from team to team. but it is part of what makes the game interesting.

personally, i love pitchers and pitchers' duels. having an ump there deciding such things adds another element. blown calls suck, but they add passion.

the home ump is a crucial part of the game. taking away his call would be a travesty and one step towards irrevocably changing the game.

Irrevocably changing the game to what? To a contest where true skill and ability determine outcomes. Seriously, I hear this argument but it always ends without explaining what, in fact, in will be changed into.

If you love pitchers' duals then you should see that having both pitchers throw at the exact same, consistent strikezone is a far greater test of a pitcher's skill.

I mean seriously, the batter and pitcher need to learn the ump's strikezone? No, the umpire needs to read the rule book and call the strikezone as it is outlined.

If you're advocating a rule change stating that the strikezone must be in a specified general area but is left to the umpire's discretion then make that argument, but saying that batter needs to learn a new strikezone every game is absurd.

Regardless of the disagreement I would still really like to know what the game will be changed into that will be so horrible. A putrid wasteland where umpires are cast aside like yesterday's trash and no one argues calls anymore and instead questions managerial decisions, plays, and strategy?

Tony #19

"Regardless of the disagreement I would still really like to know what the game will be changed into that will be so horrible. A putrid wasteland where umpires are cast aside like yesterday's trash and no one argues calls anymore and instead questions managerial decisions, plays, and strategy?"

Looks like you just answered your own question.

Most baseball fans like the dynamic created between the umpire and everyone else in the stadium. Everyone would like the strike zone to be consistent. The fact is even the rules say it has to change batter to batter. The taller the player is the lager the strike zone should be.

Now try calling a pitch thrown 95 MPH at a player's knee. From ump to ump there will be some inconsistency. But if you really watch an entire game, umps will find a comfort zone and make their calls consistently for that entire game.

These changes in the strike zone are usually small. Maybe an ump is giving the pitchers an inch outside the plate. Yes the batters now have to swing at tougher pitches, but as long as both teams have to do this neither team are hurt.

How much fun is it when a batter takes off for first thinking he just drew a walk, only to have the ump ring him up and make him look silly? How could anyone want to stop seeing some of the crazy called third strikes umps make? Are you going to put a robot back there to replace the ump?

all balls and strikes should use Questech, it would eliminate all arguing, you can't fight with a camera. All fighting in pro sports should bring huge suspensions. We should not show our children that adults settle things with thier fists.

"It all evens out in the end."

Tell that to the Phillies last year.