[moses millsap]

Tune into Sportscenter and watch the highlights of the Rangers/Giants game and you'll know what I'm talking about. Worked out well for me in the end, but that was outright robbery by the first base ump.

It was bases loaded, 2 outs, and Texeira up, he hits one down the RF line and it hits right on the chalk, dead center, and it's called foul, lol. He gets ejected. Accardo couldn't hit any of his spots, but somehow managed to get the final out.

[DrSlamm]

I am a giants fan.. watched the game live.. called it fair without replay... and then laughed as the giants somehow avoided losing when it appeared they had been trying to (yet again)

[onlooker]

I was watching it live as well. It was clearly fair, hit right on the line and you can see the chalk fly up. I dont know what the hell the ump was looking at, because I think everyone in the stadium new it was fair.

With that being said, Im glad the call was missed.

[Chuck Sims]

What is it going to take for these MLB idiots to bring in instant replay? Maybe a game winning foul ball to win GM 7 of a world series will get these dumb asses up to speed with the other major sports.

[Willie Bee]

That was too easy a call to need any dadgum replay. There are many closer calls than that one in every game. Stopping the game and asking for replay on every bang-bang play at first, on every borderline pitch, or just when a manager wanted to put on a stall as he got a pitcher up in the bullpen would add another 10-30 minutes of dead time to a game.

Hire more competent umpires, and encourage them on a play like that to get help from one of the other crew members instead of standing steadfast by their initial ruling. No replay, please.

[isetcap]

What is it going to take for these MLB idiots to bring in instant replay? Maybe a game winning foul ball to win GM 7 of a world series will get these dumb asses up to speed with the other major sports.

I agree with Chuck. It doesn't need to be used in menial situations, but for the important points in a game when the umpires need "assistance" it should absolutely be an option. It's very easy for a replay official to make a reversal decision on a blatant error well within the time it takes for the on deck batter to step into the box. If it's a situation during the course of an at bat (homerun called foul), the batter can just take his sweet time stepping back into the box while the replay official gets the call right.

[moses millsap]

It looked even worse on the local replays on FSN Bay Area than the shot they showed on Sportscenter, but like Looker, I needed that result.

[tacomax]

That was too easy a call to need any dadgum replay. There are many closer calls than that one in every game. Stopping the game and asking for replay on every bang-bang play at first, on every borderline pitch, or just when a manager wanted to put on a stall as he got a pitcher up in the bullpen would add another 10-30 minutes of dead time to a game.

I hear what you're saying, but baseball is such a slow paced game with so many breaks that it is going to hardly kill the game with the occasional replay.

What about a system where you give both teams two outs per game available on everything but the strikezone. If they query a call and it's proved it was a good call then one of their outs is used. When both of their outs are used up, they can't query any more calls for the rest of the game. That would ensure that bad calls are rectified and that the managers will have to be selective in the calls that they query.

Hire more competent umpires, and encourage them on a play like that to get help from one of the other crew members instead of standing steadfast by their initial ruling. No replay, please.

And with a system that highlights when bad calls are made, it will ensure that the refs making those calls can be re-trained or retired. That would then (hopefully) lead to better refs, a reduction in bad calls and so less replays.

Hey, I'm starting to sound like Mudcat on his "How To Make Soccer Better" threads.

[Mudcat]

Most excellent.

[Willie Bee]

What about a system where you give both teams two outs per game available on everything but the strikezone.

I will disagree with you about baseball being 'such a slow paced game,' but that might be a better debate for another time.

And I'll also preface this with the reminder that I've worked as an ump, albeit on youth levels (up to age 14) and not even close to pro levels. So temper my notions with the fact that I'm a bit biased in that regard.

The reason I don't like installing a system like the NFL (with the flags and putting timeouts on the line) is if you're going to use replay, then use it and get the calls correct without leaving it up to a coach to decide whether or not to challenge now or save it for later.

There is another problem with using replay, that being how do you reset the runners on a play like last night's fair ball called foul? When an umpire signals foul, it's the same as a ref in football blowing his whistle: The play is DEAD. The NFL doesn't allow for replay on inadvertant whistles, as they're known. A call last night that gets reversed by a replay official would take a while to sort out. What if it's a batter/runner faster than Mark Teixeira, maybe someone like Carl Crawford with the D-Rays? Do you leave it up to the umpires or some official in the booth to decide if Crawford gets a double or a triple? If you decide on a triple, how long do you allow the other manager to come out and beef about that judgment?

We were taught that a 'perfect game' for an umpire, at any level, is about a 98% score. I'm talking for a plate umpire who has to make 250-300 ball-strike calls as well as some fouls, plays at the plate and rotation plays at the corner bags. You look at any single game and, my guesstimate, 95% of the calls are no brainers (like frickin' chalk kicking up on that play last night). For me personally, it's easier and often less controversial calling balls and strikes than it is calling the bang-bang plays at first or the slides into second on stolen base attempts.

And while we're on the subject of bad calls/bad umpiring, I find myself this morning wishing bad things upon CB Bucknor

[tacomax]

I will disagree with you about baseball being 'such a slow paced game,' but that might be a better debate for another time.

It's not a criticism of baseball, but it is a slow-paced game a with built-in delay after every at-bat, every inning etc. Compare it to football where the ball moves from one end of the pitch to the other with no designated and set pause in play (aside from where the ball goes out of bounds etc.)

There is another problem with using replay, that being how do you reset the runners on a play like last night's fair ball called foul? When an umpire signals foul, it's the same as a ref in football blowing his whistle: The play is DEAD. The NFL doesn't allow for replay on inadvertant whistles, as they're known. A call last night that gets reversed by a replay official would take a while to sort out. What if it's a batter/runner faster than Mark Teixeira, maybe someone like Carl Crawford with the D-Rays? Do you leave it up to the umpires or some official in the booth to decide if Crawford gets a double or a triple? If you decide on a triple, how long do you allow the other manager to come out and beef about that judgment?

What about the match the other day (the game escapes me) where a fan touched a fair ball and the play was designated fan interference. The refs then decided that the hitter would have reached (I think) third base. By default, you must think that system is poor as well?

If it works on the fan interference rule, then it will work on a replay system. And if the refs all decide on what base the runner would have reached etc. then how can a manager try and argue the toss about the decision? No-one can prove how the play might have turned out so let the refs make a judgment. And if you can't make the refs make a judgment on that then you can't really trust them with making any decisions in the game.

We were taught that a 'perfect game' for an umpire, at any level, is about a 98% score. I'm talking for a plate umpire who has to make 250-300 ball-strike calls as well as some fouls, plays at the plate and rotation plays at the corner bags. You look at any single game and, my guesstimate, 95% of the calls are no brainers (like frickin' chalk kicking up on that play last night). For me personally, it's easier and often less controversial calling balls and strikes than it is calling the bang-bang plays at first or the slides into second on stolen base attempts.

Yup, sure thing. Leave the 300 pitches alone and concentrate on the 2-3 big calls in a game.

[Willie Bee]

Good point about the fan interference calls. It is the same type of call in that the play is first ruled dead at that point bevore the umpire(s) decide what would have taken place without the interference. Baseball is different than other sports (aside from golf as far as my brain can think right now) in that the fans can interfere with balls that are in play. Can't do that in football, basketball or hockey (without leaving their seats and coming on the pitch or ice).

Perhaps it's just my stubborn brain, but I still think you're opening up a can of worms having replay in baseball. It's kind of like my feelings about the DH. If you're going to have a designated hitter for one guy, then why not just have full offensive and defensive lineups? If you're going to use replay or cameras to make tough calls, then why not use them for all calls? The technology is there to set up some laser-type strike zone. The drawback is that using cameras or technology to do this would severely drag the game down on the clock. Human umps, good ones at least, actually contribute to the continuation of play and the flow of a game. Like I said before, I'm admittedly biased on this subject.

If you're ever on this side of the pond, taco, I'll take you to a baseball game and show you that there's really not much difference between the 'built-in delays' in baseball and football. A 60-minute football game and a 9-inning baseball game take about the same amount of time on a clock.