Gentlemen,
Sitting here tonight watching the first inning of the game, I couldn't help thinking of the path the Rockies took to the World Series. They were well under .500 in May/June, finally got management to place the balls in a humidifier equalizing the playing field (take note Mr. Castellini), went on a tear in the 2nd half and finally won something like 16 of 17 to reach the one game playoff.
Did you guys watch that game vs. the Padres? If you remember, San Diego scored 2x in the top of the 13th to go ahead, and the Rockies came back with 3 off of Hells Bells Trevor Hoffman to win it......BUT, did they actually win?
Matt Holliday slid home with the winning run, but never touched home plate. The ONE RUN that propelled the Rocks into this historical post season run should never have counted. The game goes to the 14th inning and who knows what happens...
Should the MLB institute a replay system for homeruns/basecalls? I believe putting a replay system in for balls/strikes would take too much away from the game and cause the game to be even longer...but with an effective replay system, the Padres would not have had their season end on an apatheic call by umpire badboy Tim McClelland.
I'm merely setting up the conversation and debate. What are your thoughts?
I believe replay should stay out of the game...while it has been labeled "unpure" due to HGH, steroids, Bonds etc...one true part of the game is the human element and it should stay that way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Baseball is already losing younger audiences because it is slow and over analytical. Adding instant replay would just make it slower and more analytical. so despite the increased attendance and ratings numbers this year, if the national past time wants to stop losing fans and players to NASCAR and Lacrosse they need to speed play up, not slow play down.
Besides, with instant replay Baseball tonight would have nothing to bitch about.
I completely disagree. I agree that baseball is already slow and analytical, but I think taking a little more time to get things right might actually draw in more fans. There is no way to compare X-games and baseball, so baseball shouldn't try and be something that it is not.
I am a huge fan of an instant replay system that reviews every play and keeps "challenges" out of the hands of coaches who often use them unnecessarily and do waste time. It seems absurd to me that millions of people can watch replays from nearly every angle from their televisions at home, but the officials on the field who must make the actual decision have nothing.
I think instant replay would increase baseball's flagging credibility.
And can we PLEASE stop singing "God Bless America" in the middle of the game. What happens when the Blue Jays play in the World Series!? And what about the millions of Hindu baseball fans watching from New Delhi or Bhagalpur (located in the mountainous north-east near the Nepal border)???
Baseball has gradually quickened their games over the past few years after five decades of lengthening, so I don't think that would be a problem.
I think each manager should have a couple challenges a game. That wouldn't be too tough, right?
And it could ONLY be used for plays in the field, NEVER EVER EVER balls and strikes.
I think this wouldn't be too difficult.
QuesTec is in place in several MLB stadiums for the purpose of reviewing umpires' performance in regard to balls and strikes. What would be ideal is if they could manufacture a system that would offer instant feedback on balls and strikes. Yeah, it might remove the human element of a generous strike zone to your mid-90's Atlanta Braves, but I think that would be phenomenal. The human element of a game should be the participants, not the officals.
This is off the topic of baseball, but is along the lines of human judgement/ human error, etc.
Try to follow along with me...
The game of football is built around a couple of key measurements: Down and distance. While the down is seemingly simple enough to measure (sorry Missouri fans), the distance is open to a lot more subjectivity. Ever notice an umpire place a ball from the middle of the field when the spot has been determined on the far sideline? Ever see a ref barely move as he walks in to mark a spot? My question is this: Do all the tiny differences in the spot of a football add up? Could it be possible that a butterfly effect is at play, where change the spot of a ball a tiny bit on one play, in one game, and see how the entire course of a game and season changes? Probably not, but it's kinda interesting to think about. What if a crucial 4th down was a result of 3 tiny mis-spots leading up to it? What if the 'real' spot should be a first down? Further, what if a team fails to convert the 4th down? What if that team ends up missing out on a national championship? Essentially, what if LSU is that team?
Hopefully that makes sense...
I was discussing the very topic Phil brought up just the other day.
We are rapidly approaching the point, if we're not already there now, when the idea of measuring 10 yards with a chain is simply ludicrous. Considering how controlled the number of footballs that are used in a game, it seems like it would be very probable to insert a GPS microchip in game balls.
It wouldn't necessarily be used for every play, but it would be able to accurately and precisely pinpoint where the ball is at any moment. That way when the ref goes to the replay, he could know EXACTLY where the ball went out of bounds, if it crossed the goal line, where exactly the ball is when the runner goes down, etc. It would also make tracking statistics much easier and more accurate as well.
Post a Comment