Balta1701 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 If only baseball would listen to, um...baseball... For the first time Tuesday, baseball general managers recommended instant replay be used to help umpires make close calls. The recommendation, by a 25-5 vote, was limited to boundary calls -- whether potential home runs are fair or foul, whether balls go over fences or hit the top and bounce back, and whether fans have interfered with a possible homer. Five general managers -- Dan O'Dowd (Rockies), Josh Byrnes (Diamondbacks), Jim Bowden (Nationals), John Mozeliak (Cardinals) and Billy Beane (A's) -- were in charge of the recommendation. "We have a very technologically savvy group of GMs," Solomon said. "I was surprised that we had five teams that said no." Baseball commissioner Bud Selig opposes the use of replays but said last month he was willing to let GMs examine the issue. "I don't like instant replay because I don't like all the delays. I think it sometimes creates as many problems or more than it solves," Selig said then. But Jimmie Lee Solomon, an executive vice president in the commissioner's office, thinks Selig's stance has changed a bit recently. "He seemed to be softer, at least on the consideration of the subject," Solomon said Tuesday. He added it was unclear how the proposal will proceed and acknowledged there is "glacier-like movement in baseball" when it comes to innovation. Solomon said if Selig is willing, the commissioner probably would run the idea by owners. The plan needs approval from the players' association and umpires. Solomon said GMs favored having a Major League Baseball official in a central place with access to all camera angles. If there is a disputed call, that official would be contacted and would view the television replay to make a decision. A baseball executive told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney that instant replay is not likely to be implemented in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 freaking excellent. there's nothing wrong with getting a call right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I'd almost bet the Sox and Yankees were two of the teams voting no because of their staying behind Selig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I'm actually ok with this... after seeing that play in game where the rockies had a HR taken away i KNEW this was going to happen. told a friend of mine right there that just wait, the replay things gonna come up. cept if it's limited to JUST HR calls i'm totally fine with that. I just dont want to see it spill into everything else... even though it probably will with time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox It To Em Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I guess I could support this, but in my opinion instant replay should stop here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Welcome to the slippery slope. In 3,000 years it will include balls and strikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linnwood Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 QUOTE(Sox It To Em @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) I guess I could support this, but in my opinion instant replay should stop here. In a vacuum I could support replay for home runs, but this is why I can't. It won't stop here, it never does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) I'd almost bet the Sox and Yankees were two of the teams voting no because of their staying behind Selig. "All anybody is interested in is getting it right," White Sox GM Ken Williams said. "It will be a lot easier and less time to get that right than some of these arguments that ensue when a call is disputed." It looks like Kenny Williams really does not care what Jerry Reinsdorf thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 So what does this actually mean? Who ultimately makes the rules? And why are GMs voting and not owners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 04:25 PM) So what does this actually mean? Who ultimately makes the rules? And why are GMs voting and not owners? Replay eventually would have to be approved by the unions for players and umpires, and possibly in a vote by owners. And it appears from the story it would have to have Bud's approval too, which it does not have at the current moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 We were the victim of a bad hr call in the WS IIRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) We were the victim of a bad hr call in the WS IIRC You mean Crede's double that should have been a HR in Houston? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 QUOTE(Linnwood @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 04:13 PM) In a vacuum I could support replay for home runs, but this is why I can't. It won't stop here, it never does. Why would you want it to? I'd love to see as many things able to be replayed, if necessary, as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 03:02 PM) You mean Crede's double that should have been a HR in Houston? No, there was a ball hit off of Garland in game 3 that bounced on the "in the park" side of the vertical yellow line in the OF. Rowand either didn't know the ground rules or didn't see where it hit, played it as a home run, and the umps treated it as a home run. Without that, maybe we win that game in 9. And I still remember that ball Crede hit in 04... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 In the same measure, the Sox got quite a few breaks, a few of which were missed by umpires (the non-catcher's interference call on AJ with Finley up, the HBP on JD which wasn't, and perhaps more that I can't think of). I'll take the sweep all the same, and that put Geoff Blum into White Sox lore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linnwood Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) Why would you want it to? I'd love to see as many things able to be replayed, if necessary, as possible. Because human error is part of the game. Because the game doesn't need to be slowed down anymore. If you can review one type of call why not another? Why not balls and strikes? Why not just eliminate the umpires all together and put some fancy RFID/GPS tag in the ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 QUOTE(Linnwood @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 12:13 AM) Because human error is part of the game. Because the game doesn't need to be slowed down anymore. If you can review one type of call why not another? Why not balls and strikes? Why not just eliminate the umpires all together and put some fancy RFID/GPS tag in the ball? Yep, since they review every play in the NFL and NBA too. All this is merely doing is making sure big calls aren't missed; a home run is a big call, especially when there are few of them in a game. Balls and strikes? There are about 300 of those combined a game. Let's review every single one. Strikes and balls are a judgment call, but a home run should be clear cut as to whether it is or it isn't. A foul ball should be clear as to whether it is or it isn't. A strike? That's up to the umpire (and Quest-Tec in certain parks, but Quest-Tec is an abomination and should be destroyed and flown straight into the sun). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Finally. Umps shouldn't be expected to get HR calls right from hundreds of feet away with the way people build their ballparks nowadays. Railings, fences, fan interference, vertical lines. I'll be interested to see the exact process for review of a home run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 7, 2007 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 The holdouts in the vote to support limited use of instant replay (which passed 25-5) were the Reds, Cubs, Astros, Brewers and Twins. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) It looks like Kenny Williams really does not care what Jerry Reinsdorf thinks. I did finally find an article about the Chicago part of the vote, KW voted yes, and Jim Hendry voted no, based on the "slippery slope" arguement. It is really unusual to see 80% of MLB go against Bud. I don't know that I remember that happening before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm glad to see this, until it screws over the Sox at some point. That's how I am with football too, I love it unless it hurts the Chiefs, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linnwood Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 04:00 AM) Strikes and balls are a judgment call, but a home run should be clear cut as to whether it is or it isn't. A foul ball should be clear as to whether it is or it isn't. A strike? That's up to the umpire (and Quest-Tec in certain parks, but Quest-Tec is an abomination and should be destroyed and flown straight into the sun). You just made my point for me (re: slippery slope/ Quest-Tec) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Law Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 QUOTE(Linnwood @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 12:13 AM) Because human error is part of the game. Because the game doesn't need to be slowed down anymore. If you can review one type of call why not another? Why not balls and strikes? Why not just eliminate the umpires all together and put some fancy RFID/GPS tag in the ball? Damn correct home run calls! Speeding up the game with managers no longer arguing on the field for no reason for 5 minutes! I want my human error! Just like football with their instant replay of the spot of the ball after every single play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Law Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) KW voted yes, and Jim Hendry voted no, based on the "slippery slope" fallacy of logic. fixed the Hendry part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.