Plate reviews? Believe me a booth review is a lot faster than a manager on the field.So, you want to addmorestoppages to a game already littered with them, because of a bad strike call? They already review homeruns, there isn't a whole lot else they can review that isn't going to slow down an already slow game. Besides, the umpire's union is too strong, they aren't going anywhere.
So, you want to review every safe/out call? Just the close ones? 5 a game? What's the plan, here? Even on some of the "close" safe/out calls, the manager doesn't come out to argue.Plate reviews? Believe me a booth review is a lot faster than a manager on the field.
Are you honestly this dense? Can't you figure this out on your own?So, you want to review every safe/out call? Just the close ones? 5 a game? What's the plan, here? Even on some of the "close" safe/out calls, the manager doesn't come out to argue.
Aren't we at a point where technology could pretty easily do this? I almost never watch baseball on TV, but I swear the announces review the pitches all the time on TV and have a grid that shows if it was a strike or not.I want robots calling balls and strikes.
You've offered absolutely 0 in the way of what you'd like to see reviewed. Other than "plate reviews". What do you want that to entail? Balls/strikes? Safe/out calls at home? Only the close ones? Only the ones managers argue? Being ambiguous about it isn't helping matters.Are you honestly this dense? Can't you figure this out on your own?
You're still going to need a plate umpire for safe/out calls, foul tips/balls, swing throughs, hit batsmen, etc. Then you're adding a few second delay after every pitch, for the computer to determine if it was indeed a strike or a ball. Like I said, now you're adding even more stoppages to a game that is already considered slow.I want robots calling balls and strikes.
There are a million things you could do and most of them have been discussed ad naseum by anyone who's had this discussion. Since you seem to need the exact details on how to accomplish officiating improvement without slowing down the game I'm not going to bother to waste my time explaining.You've offered absolutely 0 in the way of what you'd like to see reviewed. Other than "plate reviews". What do you want that to entail? Balls/strikes? Safe/out calls at home? Only the close ones? Only the ones managers argue? Being ambiguous about it isn't helping matters.
I dunno dude, the NHL has been continually revising the system and at any given moment almost no one is completely happy with the NHL's policies on video review. The vast, vast majority of hockey is still not subject to review. The only thing that is reviewable is goals basically. Seeing as MLB apparently only does it for homeruns, you can almost say the two are equivalent. If you were to expand that to everything from objective aspects (line calls like offside etc) to subjective ones (like penalties), it would open an absolutely massive can of worms. The same thing goes for baseball, I would imagine. Any change to the rules has to be carefully thought out and tested before it can be adopted. Even something as simple as the delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass seemed like a good idea to most people when it was brought in, but after a couple years almost everyone fucking hates the rule now.Abefroman_sl said:All sports should adopt Hockey's replay system.
That's what I thought. No details given. Just..."REPLAY!".There are a million things you could do and most of them have been discussed ad naseum by anyone who's had this discussion. Since you seem to need the exact details on how to accomplish officiating improvement without slowing down the game I'm not going to bother to waste my time explaining.
ESPN hates hockey because they can't air any of the games, so they give it the minimal amount of coverage. I'm sure one of the more informed people here can talk about how/if Bettman screwed that up.I don't see how anyone in this country even likes the NHL unless you are fairly hardcore... I'll admit it's been a year or two since I actively watched Sportscenter, but they didn't even have the fucking Stanley Cup in their opening montage.
Women's NCAA Basketball Championship? You betcha!
NASCAR? Hell yeah!
I think it's an obvious judgement call. The strike zone shouldn't be reviewed. That's rarely an issue. I'm talking about the extremely close/safe calls on base running or double plays. That's about all you can review. Accidentally calling a ball foul when it should have been fair shouldn't be reviewed. That brings in far too many "what-ifs" if the play were to occur - unless it was just ruled a single.That's what I thought. No details given. Just..."REPLAY!".
I think baseball is far from perfect. The problem is, I just don't see how you can review many more things, without slowing down the game evenmore. The game being "too slow" is already one of its largest problems. Expanding that is only going to drive more fans away.
That's fine, except what determines "extremely close"? That's the issue. Do you give managers 1 challenge a game? 1 an inning? Is it only for calls at the plate? It just seems to be opening a can of worms for no reason, other than the fact that the umpires occasionally make the wrong call. Hell, some of the plays arestilltoo close to call, even after the instant replay. How do you call those?I'm talking about the extremely close/safe calls on base running or double plays. That's about all you can review.
You're making it extremely too difficult. It could fall in line with the same concepts the NFL uses. Certain, minimal number of challenges. If the play is too close and it doesn't have "overwhelming evidence" it goes with the call on the field. After seeing that guy lose his perfect game last year on that terrible call at 1st I find it amusing that baseball is still living in the past so much.That's fine, except what determines "extremely close"? That's the issue. Do you give managers 1 challenge a game? 1 an inning? Is it only for calls at the plate? It just seems to be opening a can of worms for no reason, other than the fact that the umpires occasionally make the wrong call. Hell, some of the plays arestilltoo close to call, even after the instant replay. How do you call those?
I should have been more clear. What I meant was having a central command center and contacting the referees without the need of them going under a hood or some other stupid time wasting mechanism.I dunno dude, the NHL has been continually revising the system and at any given moment almost no one is completely happy with the NHL's policies on video review. The vast, vast majority of hockey is still not subject to review. The only thing that is reviewable is goals basically. Seeing as MLB apparently only does it for homeruns, you can almost say the two are equivalent. If you were to expand that to everything from objective aspects (line calls like offside etc) to subjective ones (like penalties), it would open an absolutely massive can of worms. The same thing goes for baseball, I would imagine. Any change to the rules has to be carefully thought out and tested before it can be adopted. Even something as simple as the delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass seemed like a good idea to most people when it was brought in, but after a couple years almost everyone fucking hates the rule now.