Instant Replay In Baseball

by cofan17 on Apr 14, 2008 2:03 PM MDT Comment 7 comments

ESPN's Jayson Stark ran a chat debate today over whether or not people think that baseball should be using instant reply. There were many different points of view ranging from using it solely for home run vs. non-home run, fair vs. foul, and catch vs. non-catch, to using it for anything and everything that an umpire would make a call over.

One particular quote from the debate caught my attention (for obvious reasons):

Steve (Bensalem,PA): Ask the Padres fans about safe/out calls. Matt Holliday still hasn't touched home!

Jayson Stark: See, I think that's one safe-or-out call where I would use replay -- a call in the ninth inning or later that allows a critical run to score. Anybody disagree?

OK, so in a case like that particular play, I want someone to tell me what they would have to do in a situation like that if they did have instant replay. Here are the keys to my arguement:

1. After Matt slid, the umpire called Matt safe. At that point, there is no need for Matt to go back and re-touch home plate. By the umpire calling him safe, the ump is indicating he saw Matt touch home.

2. The catcher did not hold on to the ball, and after the "safe" call, the catcher never bothered to get the ball and tag Matt.

So if there were instant replay in baseball, and they determined that Matt indeed never did touch home plate, what would be the ruling here? You can't call him out, because he was never tagged out. Send him back to 3rd base? I don't think that would be fair because there are then two outs in the inning, so his chance to score would be greatly reduced without the possibility of a sacrifice fly.

My argument here is that I just don't see how baseball lends itself well to using instant replay as some other sports do. For home run vs. non-home run type calls, I don't have any problem with it, but I just don't see how it could be completely used given situations like this one from last year. Even if they did have instant replay, and even if Matt didn't touch the plate, there is no way they could have reversed that call given that there was never a tag, and the umpire had already called him safe.

I'm curious to know what the general opinions are of the folks here on Purple Row regarding instant replay in baseball. And for those of you that are all for instant replay in ALL aspects of the game, how would you propose the above situation should have been resolved if it was determined that Matt never did touch the plate?

Go Rox!

Eat. Drink. Be Merry. But the above FanPost does not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or views of Purple Row's staff (unless, of course, it's written by the staff [and even then, it still might not]).

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think

We need to let the (not so) kind folks at Gaslamp Ball know whenever Holliday touches the plate this year, especially in games against the Padres.

Every day is a Holliday!

by free7694 on Apr 14, 2008 2:20 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

"I was tied to a chair and he had a baseball bat. Pissing him off was the smart thing to do."

by DbacksSkins on Apr 14, 2008 4:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

if catchers knew that replay were an option, they would likely make sure to tag a runner just in case, even if they were called safe. So my answer is basically, had replay been in use, the catcher would have known that and would have made sure to tag him anyway.

But in a hypothetical situation where it did go down as you outline, I think the umpire would have to determine, whether the "safe" call had not been made, the catcher would have been able to tag Holliday before he went back and touched the plate. In that chat they also talked about situations where umpires have to determine how many bases a runner would have been able to take had a play gone differently. This would be the same type of situation.

Anyway, I think Padres fans need to let it go already, but I tried to answer your question objectively.

by holly96 on Apr 14, 2008 2:34 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Replay

Replay on disputed home runs? YASE

Replay on anything else. NYET

This isn't football. Unless people really love five-hour games, there's no way an extensive replay system helps or enhances the game.

And, oh yeah, here's another crying towel thrown to Steve in Bensalem.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Apr 14, 2008 2:53 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Some let Steve know...

That Atkins DID homer in the 7th inning of this game. Had this HR counted, this would have made this debate a moot point, as extra innings would not have been necessary.

Heck, didn't the Rox get hosed out of 2-3 game winning HR's during 2007? Assuming Instant replay got those calls correct, then Holliday doesn't even have to get out of bed on Oct 1, 2007.

Point is that umpiring is, and always has been subjective. NO sense going back and changing history. Ya win some, lose some...but in the end, the better team wins 99%of the time.

by GreeleyRoxFan on Apr 14, 2008 3:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also think

Instant replay would lend itself to letting umps get "lazy" either behind the plate or in the field. I'd rather keep their motivation high to get the call right to begin with.

And even with the Matt Holliday slide, even though it appeared he did not touch home base on the slide, it really isn't totally conclusive from the replays. So let's not hold up the celebration on the field with a 15 minute delay up to the replay booth.

Interesting discussion, but overall I'm against instant replay and like the "human" element of the game, for better or for worse.

by dstorm on Apr 14, 2008 4:11 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

with your point about keeping the umpiring motivation to get the call right high. Baseball has always had the unique human element of the umpire calling them as he sees them, and the manager getting to argue the call. By instituting video replay, you eliminate that human element, and end up taking away what is special in the game. "Man, that umpire sure has a wide strike zone tonight." "No, it's just that the camera has a wide-angle lens on tonight."

However, I am an advocate of instant replay to determine HRs. Such a thing shouldn't be subjective, because it is designed to be objective. We have lines in place for a reason, to delineate between home run and the mysterious "2 base home run" (see: 10/1). That is the only aspect of the game that I would be in favor of instituting an instant replay-type of system. Anything else is just asking for trouble.

by oo_nrb on Apr 14, 2008 11:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs