Well, i say…Nah…the human error and interpretation of umpires calls and rulings are part of the very fabric of the game.
I’d say use the technology to review umpires accuracy to use as a tool tool to grade them. don’t screw up the game with more long interuptions that have umps second guessing themselves.

I used to buy into the whole human error thing, but this postseason has changed my mind. I’m tired of watching games in which shockingly bad umpire calls affect innings. The Posada/Cano/Napoli play was the worst, but there have been too many others for my comfort.

I’m for it on:

• HR fair/foul/double calls.
• Tag plays
• Tag up plays
• Trap/catch plays.
• No on balls and strikes. Too fuzzy.

In all cases, there would have to be indisputable evidence to overturn a play. I prefer the “5th umpire in the booth” approach to the on-field challenge approach. I’m also ok with doing it in the postseason only, because the resources are there.
-j

The Don Dekinger plays of the world are part of what make the game special IMO.

There are 2 places, in my mind, where it would be OK: Whether a ball is over the fence or not, and whether a HR ball is fair or foul. Except in the playoffs (when there are umps in the OF), umps are simply too far away to make those calls correct all of the time, and they should welcome the help.

Anything else is detrimental to the game. The officials on the field have to be seen as THE authority; if not, every call will get questioned: Balls and strikes. Whether a runner was trying to take out the pivot man on a DP. On and on and on.

How many calls do umpires make in a typical game – 300-400? And how many are we talking about as bad calls – less than 1 a game, on average? And that includes the ones that take super-slo mo reverse angle high resolution replays to see (like the lineout to 1B on Thursday).

Quite honestly, I think if you expand replay, you might as well get rid of the umps.

If we want to eliminate all mistakes from the game, let’s put the ball on a tee, tell the hitter which way to hit the ball; position the fielders where the hitter is going to hit it; set up safety nets beyond where the ball is supposed to go so it can’t go any further; and if someone still messes up call a doover. Batters make mistakes. Fielders make mistakes. Managers and coaches make mistakes. Umpires make mistakes. It happens. Get frustrated. Boo if you are so inclined. Get over it.

such as an outfielder traps the ball, the umpire calls an out, or the ball is far and the umpire calls it foul. Even if they reverse the call it still fucks up the game, because it stops the immediate action after the call.

I can’t think of any really good reasons to expand replay review, and I can’t think of any really good reasons not to. The only effect I see it as having on the game is making things a little more predictable, making analysis slightly more significant (by occasionally removing the variable of human error). In the long run, I think that umpire errors even out: the results of single games are based so much on chance anyway.

It may lengthen the game a little, but with appropriate limitations, probably not by much. I think that most teams will be reluctant to abuse the system out of a sense of traditionalism. I really think that the introduction of home run reviews is indicative of how future expansions would go – there’d be a little sound and fury, but it’s all pretty much the same to a lot of people.

if human error isn’t necessary, then the possibility shouldn’t be there.

A PitchTrax type system should call balls and strikes, and sensors should be used to determine borderline homerun calls and fair/foul calls.

“As for replay, I’m not sure it has a place in baseball, though I’m open to it. There are 30 calls a game where you could make an argument for replay, so yeah that would slow down the game. Balls and strikes, hell no. out/safe calls at the bases, hell no. whether it was a catch or he dropped it? maybe, but then how do you position the runners not involved in the play fairly, since they rely on how the play is called. If there was a runner on base and that happened, the infielder would have had a good chance to throw out a runner trying to advance since the runner would have froze on the line drive. If replay overturns it, then all runners I guess would just be called safe.

long story short, absolutely I would be willing to consider it. But it’s not this easy thing that everyone seems to think it is."

that was all off the top of my head, I didnt really give much thought to other situations that it might screw over someone by overturning it, and I bet they exist. But I’m open to it so long as it’s quick and fair.

would no longer be a catcall at the games
unless you’re Marge

I understand the advantages to using it, but I feel like replay is something baseball just doesn’t need. And I think it gets confusing on certain calls- Like where do you put baserunners, etc if a call is overturned? Home runs might be okay, but other than that, I just think we should leave it alone.

every play during a playoff series is potentially game changing, review has to be instituted in such a way that it doesn’t slow down the game with constant consultation. Sticking the extra umpires in the booth, using the same technology Fox has at its fingertips to call up a replay in a split second, seems like it would largely solve the problem of delays.

The workflow would have to be figured out. What plays would the booth umpires weigh in on and would their ruling – presumably given to the on-field umps through an earpiece – always trump the on-field decision? I think homerun are a no-brainer. It’s an incredibly high impact play with no awkward re-start. Either all runners score or everyone goes back to one. Fair and foul within the field of play is trickier. This is something where replay could be used to make the umpire team more accurate, but it’s clear that an immediate decision is needed, unless players can somehow be said to assume a borderline case is fair until told otherwise. If the technology can provide an immediate decision when runners are on base, then there’s no reason to settle for flawed outcomes. Safe-out plays and tagging up that can be overturned without affecting the outcome of the gameplay (runners, player behavior etc) could be reviewed in the booth as well, though it seems awkward to make this standard. I would still rather have more accurate decisions from the umpires.

You could allow challenge flags, but if replay can be used quickly, for a set of predetermined plays – and is available for the umpires to consult on the fly – I don’t see the necessity other than as a device to heighten the drama.

there are so many complications that it wouldn’t work out. Many of those advocating for replays are not accounting for the consequences of this. Say a line drive past first base is called foul, and then a coach throws his challenge flag. The replay shows it was clearly a fair ball. What happens? Does the player get an automatic double? A single? What happens to the runners on base in this situation?

There’s too many complications involved. Home runs, sure that makes sense as there’s no play in the field with those. Maybe on a tag-out, or a force out, some situations it would make sense, as those are generally at the end of a play. Even that could get complicated—imagine a double steal attempt for example. Replay doesn’t really work for baseball because, unlike NBA and NFL there is no stoppage of play. This is especially true when there are runners on base.