Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


New Instant Replay rules?

Benjamin Grimm
Aug 15 2013 11:38 AM

Owners will vote on replay proposal

Get ready for something completely different as baseball prepares to expand instant replay: Managers' challenges, NFL style.

Baseball owners are considering a proposal under which managers would initiate replay reviews.

MLB vice president Joe Torre gave the replay presentation to representatives from all 30 teams on Wednesday and it was discussed Thursday morning in Cooperstown, NY, where representatives of all 30 teams have been meeting for two days.

Under the proposed rules, managers will be allowed two challenges over the first six innings of games and one after the seventh inning. Calls that are challenged will be reviewed by a crew in MLB headquarters in New York City, which will make the final ruling.

Still unclear: Whether umpires would initiate certain reviews — for instance, on disputed home runs — and whether an incorrect challenge would prevent a manager from making additional challenges later in the game.

Commissioner Bud Selig called it a historic moment for the game in a press conference in Cooperstown on Thursday.

Baseball wants to implement expanded replay for the 2014 season, sources said. However, the sport must go through a series of steps before actually introducing any new plan.

The proposal, which is subject to further discussion and change, is to be voted on by the owners in November.

A 75 percent vote by the owners is needed for approval and the players' association and umpires would have to agree to any changes to the current system.

Atlanta Braves President John Schuerholz, a member of the replay committee, says the umpires are receptive to the change. Schuerholz says 89 percent of incorrect calls made in the past will be reviewable.

The addition of managers' challenges would introduce a fresh element of strategy. But some owners might object to any slowdown in play; commissioner Bud Selig has expressed repeated concerns about the pace of game.

Baseball has used replay on boundary home-run calls since 2008. The sport’s most recent labor agreement included a provision to expand replay to decisions on foul lines and traps, subject to an agreement with the umpires. But those changes have yet to be implemented.

The owners are weighing even more extensive replay that would include calls on the bases. Certain calls might be “non-reviewable,” and umpires would continue to be the sole arbiters of balls and strikes, sources said.

Lefty Specialist
Aug 15 2013 01:55 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

You'd need an eye in the press box and a way to communicate with the manager. The dugout is a lousy place to view a play.

Would they throw out a red challenge flag? The big concern is that it'll make games, already too long, even longer.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2013 02:04 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Lefty Specialist wrote:
You'd need an eye in the press box and a way to communicate with the manager. The dugout is a lousy place to view a play.

Would they throw out a red challenge flag? The big concern is that it'll make games, already too long, even longer.


No time in most cases. You'd really only have until the next pitch. But It'd probably only happen on plays the manager was already going to come out and bitch about, and hopefully the people in charge have already started looking it it more closely in anticipation as that happens. Shouldn't take that long. It's just dumb, like it is in Football, to declare that bad calls are okay as long as the manager doesn't want to challenge it as part of strategy. I don't know how they're going to implement it, but hopefully managers can still come out and yell about bad calls and throw a fuss without asking for a challenge. That might be the major difference.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 15 2013 02:12 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Ceetar wrote:
You'd need an eye in the press box and a way to communicate with the manager. The dugout is a lousy place to view a play.

Would they throw out a red challenge flag? The big concern is that it'll make games, already too long, even longer.


No time in most cases. You'd really only have until the next pitch.


Not really. New gamesmanship tactics would evolve. If it's the team at bat contemplating a challenge, the batter will delay his at bat. If it's the team on the field, the pitcher won't pitch.


Ceetar wrote:
But It'd probably only happen on plays the manager was already going to come out and bitch about, and hopefully the people in charge have already started looking it it more closely in anticipation as that happens. Shouldn't take that long.


Not even a clue.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2013 02:23 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

well yeah, that's my biggest complaint is that it'll create more gamesmanship and less game. It seems like an NFL-inspired gimmick to give talking heads something else to talk about since ESPN loves to talk about the people that play that game rather than the game.

I dunno, I guess you can't just allow managers to challenge everything, and what would be the impetus to have the umpires flag a play for review?

The more I think about it the more I think I'm actually okay with it. It's really just the managers getting three times they can ask the umpires to ask for help and actually be listened to. But if a manager storms out because a guy missed a safe call at worst and the umpires realize they were in fact wrong, they should simply correct the call, not stand by the wrong call and say "well, up to you to challenge it".

Frayed Knot
Aug 15 2013 02:29 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

I'm awaiting the details before comment.
My fear is that they (Selig, Torre, probably others) have been so intent on expanding replay that there are going to be 'we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it' aspects of this that the outcome will be to is simply exchange old arguments and controversies for different ones.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2013 02:40 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Frayed Knot wrote:
I'm awaiting the details before comment.
My fear is that they (Selig, Torre, probably others) have been so intent on expanding replay that there are going to be 'we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it' aspects of this that the outcome will be to is simply exchange old arguments and controversies for different ones.


deadspin seems to have most of the details, whether they're correct or not, who knows. (I closed the window already, google for yourself)

you're allowed 1 challenge in the first 6 innings, 2 in the last three. And it seems like that only applies to challenges in which the ump was right. (To keep you from bitching constantly about anything close) No recourse if you complain early and then there's a legitimately bad call later on. It feels like this might keep managers from getting too challenge happy and only challenge plays that seem clearly wrong.

Review handled by MLB office in NYC. I don't know what the logistics will be. hopefully the chief ump has a phone or something.

Frayed Knot
Aug 15 2013 02:54 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Those aren't the details I'm most concerned about. ALL replay ideas work REALLY WELL in theory and on paper.
But more importantly ...

- what is and what is NOT going to be reviewable?

- What happens to actions that were the result of the initial call after a play gets reviewed & changed? Catch vs Trap for instance; also a foul call changed to fair.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2013 03:12 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Frayed Knot wrote:
Those aren't the details I'm most concerned about. ALL replay ideas work REALLY WELL in theory and on paper.
But more importantly ...

- what is and what is NOT going to be reviewable?

- What happens to actions that were the result of the initial call after a play gets reviewed & changed? Catch vs Trap for instance; also a foul call changed to fair.



I hope they make it a rule, rather than an umpires interpretation. Not quite sure how you'd do that though.

Not that it'll ever be perfect. Take Turner's bloop last night. If that had been called foul and overturned, Byrd undoubtedly would've been placed safely at third base.

And what about the other way? Runner going from first, bloop to LF, called fair. first and third now, but on review it's overturned as an out. If the call goes correctly the first time, that's an easy double play, but I can't see them ever calling it that way.

Frayed Knot
Aug 15 2013 04:41 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

And then there's the whole thing about MLB deciding on the reviews but having to rely on the local feed(s) for the evidence. Not all teams televise every game and can we always rely on the local feeds, not to hold back an angle that might be detrimental to their team, especially in cases where the team and station are owned by the same people?

"Minor" things like those are why the simple pro-replay argument of--"well if it corrects just one bad call then it's worth it"--doesn't paint the whole picture.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2013 05:27 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Frayed Knot wrote:
And then there's the whole thing about MLB deciding on the reviews but having to rely on the local feed(s) for the evidence. Not all teams televise every game and can we always rely on the local feeds, not to hold back an angle that might be detrimental to their team, especially in cases where the team and station are owned by the same people?

"Minor" things like those are why the simple pro-replay argument of--"well if it corrects just one bad call then it's worth it"--doesn't paint the whole picture.



supposedly there is a complicated 'add cameras' process that's going to cost like 50million.

Frayed Knot
Aug 15 2013 06:01 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Well the 'add cameras' thing should have been in place when they went to replay for HR calls - except that, at the time, they were so intent in getting that aspect of replay into effect (following the Delgado HR-denied on national TV) that they couldn't even wait until the end of that season to implement it much less put cameras at the walls in order to make calls involving the walls.

This latest thing they've at least put a bunch more thought and time into it so I hope (but am still wary) that they've thought this through. My main concern (aside from just the general Murphy's Law kind of thing) is that both Selig & Torre proclaimed going back nearly a year ago that MLB [u:10dkrxaz]WOULD HAVE[/u:10dkrxaz] expanded instant replay starting in 2014 before they ever had a plan or anything resembling the even partial approval they've got so far. It's like instead of examining the problem then coming up with a solution, they started with the solution and were prepared to shoe-horn whatever process they could in order to get there.

metsmarathon
Aug 15 2013 07:50 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Ceetar wrote:
Frayed Knot wrote:
And then there's the whole thing about MLB deciding on the reviews but having to rely on the local feed(s) for the evidence. Not all teams televise every game and can we always rely on the local feeds, not to hold back an angle that might be detrimental to their team, especially in cases where the team and station are owned by the same people?

"Minor" things like those are why the simple pro-replay argument of--"well if it corrects just one bad call then it's worth it"--doesn't paint the whole picture.



supposedly there is a complicated 'add cameras' process that's going to cost like 50million.


oh, god, i hope mlb has the money to be able to afford it!

Fman99
Aug 15 2013 09:06 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

I hate it.

Zvon
Aug 15 2013 09:32 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Have they ever considered having line umps during the season, like they have in post season play?

Frayed Knot
Aug 15 2013 09:45 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Zvon wrote:
Have they ever considered having line umps during the season, like they have in post season play?


Have you seen how many line calls are missed during post-season?
Maybe it's just because they stand out more because of the importance of the games, but it certainly seems in recent years like line calls get worse in October!

Zvon
Aug 15 2013 09:51 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Frayed Knot wrote:
Zvon wrote:
Have they ever considered having line umps during the season, like they have in post season play?


Have you seen how many line calls are missed during post-season?
Maybe it's just because they stand out more because of the importance of the games, but it certainly seems in recent years like line calls get worse in October!

That is true. I think what I said in the IGT goes. If umps didn't suck as bad as they do these days they wouldnt need any more additional replays.

Frayed Knot
Aug 15 2013 10:02 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Aside from the gaining the ability to force retirements on a handful of the men in blue who have stayed past their 'sell by' date, it's not like MLB is going to find a group of guys who are suddenly going to be immune to missing some now and then. The question is, can they find a system that will improve on what's going on now without opening up more holes than it closes?
I'm hopeful but wary.

MFS62
Aug 15 2013 10:03 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

I'm all in favor of anything that can prove that Angel Hernandez really is incompetent.
One of the "baseball experts" on ESPN radio tonight (missed the name) said that this will probably pass because Selig doesn't put something to a vote that he knows won't pass.

Later

sharpie
Aug 16 2013 08:08 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

The close play at the plate with the umpire calling the runner safe or out is maybe the most thrilling part of the game. For that to be only a preliminary call really sucks. I'm agin' it.

MFS62
Aug 16 2013 08:31 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

It wouldn't be the first time a call was held up to get it right.
In Joe Garagiola's book, Baseball is a Funny Game, he told a story about Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem.
The ball and the runner arrived at second base in a cloud of dust.
The second baseman jumped up and asked, "Is he safe or out?"
Klem said, "He ain't nuthin' until I call him".

Just remembering. Back to the replay thread.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 16 2013 09:16 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Terry Collins with an interesting thought on instant replay and the neighborhood play:



Mets’ Collins Concerned That Expanded Replay May Increase Injuries
By ANDREW KEH
Published: August 15, 2013

SAN DIEGO — Like every other major league manager, the Mets’ Terry Collins spent Thursday morning pondering the implications of baseball’s announcement that it planned to give teams the ability to use instant replay challenges during games. Collins supports the rule change, but he also wonders about the unexpected consequences it could have.

Take the neighborhood play. Many around baseball believe and accept that umpires will call an out at second base on a double play even if the fielder does not properly touch the bag, so long as everything else about the play — the throw, the rhythm, the timing — is properly executed.

The benefit is that the middle infielder covering the base can avoid being wiped out when the runner from first comes sliding into it.

No matter how accepted this practice might be, no matter how little a manager might protest such a play each season, Collins said managers would not hesitate to challenge it if a game was on the line.

“What you’re going to see happen one of these days is, someone’s going to challenge that the second baseman was off the bag and call the guy safe,” Collins said. “And now you’re going to make the second baseman stand on the base.”

Collins offered a hypothetical situation: the second baseman will have to stay on the base with his back to the approaching runner, a star player like Robinson Cano will get hurt, and the league will consider taking another look at allowing a challenge on that play. “You’re going to see some banged-up second basemen,” Collins said.

Collins also wondered how the challenges would be timed. All players and coaches have access to video replays inside the clubhouse. Would they not be able to run inside and check for themselves before wasting a valuable challenge?

Still, Collins was far more enthusiastic about the rule change than the players at the ballpark Thursday, who seemed more cautiously curious.

“I’m intrigued,” said Chris Denorfia, an outfielder for the San Diego Padres. “We have some talking to do between the associations. Anything that can make the game better, I’m intrigued to see how it might work, how it might shake out.”

Dillon Gee, a Mets pitcher, echoed an oft-expressed concern that games would be extended and that momentum would be disrupted.

“We hate changing,” he said of players. “At the same time, these games, the way it comes down to one call, you want to get those right. So I’d be on board, as long as we can find out a way to do it efficiently.”

Several players declined to comment on the proposal, perhaps indicating a lukewarm attitude toward it, or at least wariness about its breadth.

Mets reliever LaTroy Hawkins said he did not care one way or another about the rule, but he said he did not understand why the announcement was made. “We haven’t agreed on it,” Hawkins said of the players union. “The umpires haven’t agreed on it.”

Hawkins went on: “I don’t know what the purpose was of making an announcement. I know every party has to agree, if I’m not mistaken, so what’s the purpose of it? Trying to put public pressure on us? No. It doesn’t work like that.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/sport ... .html?_r=0

Ceetar
Aug 16 2013 09:30 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

good words by Hawkins.


Is Terry Collins implying there is an unwritten rule between managers to not bitch about the neighborhood play?

Frayed Knot
Aug 16 2013 09:38 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

sharpie wrote:
The close play at the plate with the umpire calling the runner safe or out is maybe the most thrilling part of the game. For that to be only a preliminary call really sucks. I'm agin' it.


This is part of the problem I have with watching football - it's morphed into a game akin to being lorded over by lawyers.
A guy scores and then--either because of a flag, a replay challenge, or an automatic review--the guys in the striped suits/shirts get together and decide whether or not he actually scored.

Frayed Knot
Aug 16 2013 09:43 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Ceetar wrote:
Is Terry Collins implying there is an unwritten rule between managers to not bitch about the neighborhood play?


I don't think there's an agreement so much as the knowledge that bitching isn't going to get you anywhere.
But if a replay shows that the fielder's toe was a half-inch off the base when he received the call how do the powers justify NOT overturning it? And once it's shown that they will overturn such calls challenges will be thrown all over the place for late-game DPs.

metsmarathon
Aug 16 2013 09:53 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

well, heaven forbid they call the game accoridng to the published rules...

Benjamin Grimm
Aug 16 2013 09:55 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Yeah, really. I'd rather see an increase in offense because of the elimination of the phantom double play than by the DH or PEDs.

Frayed Knot
Aug 16 2013 10:08 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

metsmarathon wrote:
well, heaven forbid they call the game accoridng to the published rules...


I'm not saying it shouldn't happen that way (although most pivot men are so good around there I think that replay scrutiny would show players ARE in contact with the base a lot more often than many fans think) only that it will open up challenges that aren't necessarily the ones that fans think of when they correcting bad calls.
Again with a football analogy, what started as 'did the ball hit the ground first?' calls for instance have morphed over time into almost microscopic examinations of whether the ball was moving in the receiver's arms or other similar minutia. The overall point is that it's tough to stay just a little bit pregnant on these matters and what starts off as an attempt to overturn obvious bad calls inevitably becomes an episode of CSI: CitiField for calls that no one would have thought of as wrong prior to the rule change.

dinosaur jesus
Aug 16 2013 10:11 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

Frayed Knot wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
Is Terry Collins implying there is an unwritten rule between managers to not bitch about the neighborhood play?


I don't think there's an agreement so much as the knowledge that bitching isn't going to get you anywhere.
But if a replay shows that the fielder's toe was a half-inch off the base when he received the call how do the powers justify NOT overturning it? And once it's shown that they will overturn such calls challenges will be thrown all over the place for late-game DPs.


Managers bitch about lots of things they can't do anything about. The neighborhood play doesn't seem to be one of them. I'm sure Collins is right that managers won't hesitate to appeal it if the game is on the line. But I wouldn't be surprised if they generally let it go. Plays like that, where the umpires deliberately give the benefit of the doubt, are different from plays that they simply miss--and those are the ones that replay review ought to address.

Baseball has gone on for a long time with the understanding that some calls are going to be wrong, but that's life and you just have to live with it. That's a healthy, sensible way of looking at things, but now that the idea has crept in that it's possible, in principle, to get every call right, there's really no going back. The question is simply where you draw the line--which plays, and how many, are you going to decide to make sure of. And I think that line is going to keep moving, whether we or the players like it or not.

Ceetar
Aug 16 2013 10:16 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

on the neighborhood play not being challenged or fought now even, it's no surprise that second base is as far from a coach or manager as you can get on the bases.

Benjamin Grimm
Aug 16 2013 10:29 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

It's also a tough thing to judge in real time. There have been times when I've seen double plays that looked like egregious examples of the neighborhood play, but on replay it seemed that the second baseman had the ball in his glove and his foot on the bag at the same time, if only for the briefest instant.

I wouldn't be surprised if challenges to the neighborhood call were rejected frequently enough to discourage managers from abusing the privilege.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 16 2013 10:40 AM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

As a teen-ager, I used to play softball on an asphalt field with painted on bases. First base was longer -- rectangular rather than square -- presumably to allow the first baseman to set up for the play at first so as to minimize the risk of injury from colliding with the oncoming batter/runner.
__________________________

Is the neighborhood play gone for good?
By Larry Granillo @wezen_ball on Jun 27 2013, 12:03p

It's been a part of baseball for decades, but increased supervision and better television cameras threaten the traditional (and technically incorrect) "neighborhood play."

The neighborhood play. It's what we call it when a middle infielder, in making the turn at second base during a double-play, gets the call from the umpire despite never actually touching the bag while in possession of the ball.

Ask any of the older men in blue, however, and they'll tell you it doesn't exist; umpires can (and will) call a runner out only if the fielder touches the bag after cleanly receiving the ball.

But we all know they're lying. The neighborhood play was an accepted part of baseball for decades, no different than a hit-batsman taking first despite no effort to get out of the way or a pitcher running his hand through his greased-up hair before every pitch.

In the 2009 American League Championship Series, when Angels' shortstop Erick Aybar never came close to touching the bag on a double-play in the tenth inning of Game 2, the complaint wasn't that second-base umpire Jerry Layne got the call wrong when he signaled "safe" -- it was that he got it right.

You can hear Joe Buck and Tim McCarver defending Aybar in the original television broadcast: "They will give -- as odd as that may seem to viewers or a casual baseball fan -- they will give that play at second base always." "Always." "Always."

Elsewhere, the Orange County Register excoriated the call. MLB.com spent 600 words explaining how the call -- the correct call, remember -- was a departure from the norm. The New York Times, meanwhile, felt it was important enough to explain to its readers that these unwritten rules don't actually exist, including this quote from a particularly unbiased source.

"There is no such thing as the neighborhood play," said Rich Garcia, a Major League Baseball umpire supervisor for seven years after spending 25 years in blue. "You either touch the base or you don’t."


Umpire says umpires make the correct calls and The Times is ON IT!

Players on the field saw things a bit differently. In 2010, J.J. Hardy admitted that there were "some shortstops and second basemen" who use the neighborhood play. "I might have done it a couple times. Not on purpose. I always try to be on the bag, but maybe there's a time I might be a little bit quick." Not that he was complaining. The play keeps middle-infielders safe, the argument goes, by taking them out of the line of the hard slide quicker. With umpires calling the neighborhood play less and less frequently, as Hardy and a number of other players and managers (including Michael Cuddyer, Mark Grudzielanek, and Manny Acta) attested, the danger goes up.

That's not to say that the play has been completely eradicated from the game. Here is an example, from July 2011, of the White Sox getting the benefit of a neighborhood call over the Cubs. The call enraged then-manager Mike Quade enough that he got himself ejected from the game in only the second inning.

But how about today? Since neighborhood plays aren't exactly tagged in the MLB.com database, it's very difficult to track them over time. What if, instead, we took it into our own hands and watched every double-play for signs of the neighborhood call ourselves? If this unwritten rule is even a third as common as it was, surely it wouldn't be too hard to find one in a large sampling, right?

To test this theory, I watched every GiDP from last weekend (Saturday & Sunday, to be exact). That's 53 double-plays across 30 games. Of these, seven had no turn at second base. In the remaining 46, there were a few chances where it seemed like maybe, if I just squinted my eyes and believed really hard, the second baseman or shortstop might have pulled his foot off a tiny bit early. But that was it. Nothing to get too upset over, and certainly nothing obvious.

Well, except this one.

That was Saturday afternoon in the third inning of the Marlins/Giants tilt. Marco Scutaro grounded the ball directly at Miami second baseman Ed Lucas, who tossed it to shortstop Adeiny Hechavarria, who made the throw to first. It was a simple enough double-play that San Francisco manager Bruce Bochy barely reacted in the dugout. But watch that turn again. Hechavarria clearly catches the toss from Lucas with his feet straddling the bag. As he fires to first, you can see Hechavarria shift his feet, but enough to tag the base and secure the out? Second-base umpire Laz Diaz thought so, but it's a bit hard to believe. This could very well be the neighborhood play that we're looking for!

Now watch it again.

As Hechavarria lifts up his right foot to make the jump, a bit of infield dirt comes up with it, covering the side of the base for the briefest of moments. When the foot lands on the opposite side of the bag, the dirt falls to the ground. It's from these two pieces of evidence that I feel confident in saying that this was not a neighborhood play.

This proves nothing, of course. The only way to say for sure that the neighborhood play isn't called any more is to watch all 2,000 double-plays in a given year. Even I'm not that crazy! Still, this exercise does provide one data point. Over two days, thirty games, 550 innings, and 50+ double plays, there was not a single neighborhood play. Maybe J.J. Hardy and his pals were right. If this unwritten rule is not yet dead, it's certainly on life support.

That's a win for those of us who hate to see a game decided by a bad call from the umpires, but what about those middle-infielders who feel endangered by wild takeout slides? Is the tradeoff worth it? Well, we don't have much of a choice.

Five or six years ago while working on his outstanding book about umpiring, As They See 'Em, Bruce Weber asked major-league umpire Tom Hallion about the neighborhood play. Hallion acknowledged the existence of the play, called that way if "everything stays in an ordinary progression of what's supposed to happen, what should happen, what normally happens ... even if he's not right on the bag." Why?



Because if I call the guy safe, here's what they say: "Do you want this guy fucking killed?"

But nowadays you can't give them as much, you can't give them a foot off the bag. Your life's on the line to get it right because they have sixteen freakin' cameras on you.


Again, this was five or six years ago. Today there are more cameras, more Web watchdogs, more people watching the games on iPads in the stands.

Video killed the neighborhood play. And nobody's going to miss it, except maybe a few scaredy-cat infielders.



http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/6/27 ... ay-history

TheOldMole
Aug 16 2013 12:12 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

I'd add a video ombudsman, who decides if a play is close enough to merit a replay, rather than making it the manager's call.

Frayed Knot
Aug 16 2013 12:20 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

According to the NY Times story this morning, HR calls will continue to be decided in the current manner under the planned new rules: with the umpires retreating off the field to a replay room in order to confirm or reverse the call themselves.

That seems like a bit of an odd decision.

dinosaur jesus
Aug 16 2013 12:29 PM
Re: New Instant Replay rules?

TheOldMole wrote:
I'd add a video ombudsman, who decides if a play is close enough to merit a replay, rather than making it the manager's call.


I'd like to be a video ombudsman. A freelance video ombudsman. I'm working on my business card right now. I'd travel around the country helping out people who needed their video evidence reviewed. I'd be fair and impartial, of course, with a nuanced understanding of what "incontrovertible" means. But I won't get too high and mighty about accepting cash or favors. A freelance video ombudsman has to eat, you know.