Umpire Gon Wild

[Swifty]

I think one legitimate argument against implementing replay is that it would make an already lengthy game even longer. Baseball games can already run 3.5 or 4 hours, I think people are afraid the use of replay could create 5 hour long games. I understand this argument, but I'm not sure I care. I want umps to get shit right.

That was the argument in the NHL and it really didn't lengthen the game, disrupt the rhythm or make it more watchable.

If you're anticipating having to overturn multiple calls a game, is the problem replay or the umpires themselves?

[Beef]

Guys on ESPN saying the ball could have bended around the bag, that is one tight curve ball in such a short span.

I'm going to get e-punched in my face, but when I got extra close to the TV in anger right after the live play, the replay did look like it was very near foul on its last bounce on the infield and perhaps foul or very close to foul over the bag. If he saw that live and really thinks he sees it on the replay, I dont think its that outlandish for him to stick up for his call.

[MiamiHomer]

I just don't see how that movement for the ball can happen is such a short span that it would bounce fair once, curve around the bag and then bounce fair in the outfield in no more than about 7 yards.

[Beef]

It would surprise me if that happened as well, but I do think it was close and I can see where he is coming from and I don't blame him for sticking up for his call given that I kind of thought the same thing when I saw it. He was probably wrong, but I think it was much closer than most think. I go to game now

[MiamiHomer]

I never knew about the rule that even if it bounces in fair territory after it passes the bag that it depends on where the passed the bag decides whether fair/foul on like a chopper or w/e. It just seems so weird that detail is so minimal that it seems like a pointless rule.

[HUGG]

Yeah, that's the one thing about replay. I don't think that call last night gets overturned. It wasn't that easy to see where the ball went over the bag and honestly where it landed after it went over the bag isn't really relevant, you could use it to make the case that it meant it was over the bag, but it doesn't prove it.

I think they would have upheld the call if you're going by the usual replay rules of conclusive evidence.

[CrimsonCane]

Guys on ESPN saying the ball could have bended around the bag, that is one tight curve ball in such a short span.

None of them have a degree in physics.

Reminds me of when a bunch of ESPN commentators become instant tax experts once the Heat started signing everybody. "He makes as much money because of the taxes in Florida." I didn't know ESPN announcers got their CPA overnight.
--------------------

I think one legitimate argument against implementing replay is that it would make an already lengthy game even longer. Baseball games can already run 3.5 or 4 hours, I think people are afraid the use of replay could create 5 hour long games. I understand this argument, but I'm not sure I care. I want umps to get shit right.

Think about all the time that will be saved by eliminating managers arguing with umpires. I can't see Lou Pinella or Bobby Cox yelling and kicking dirt at a computer.

[HUGG]

I can

[Branch]

I can too. I agree with Fritz about cutting out other delays, then implementing expanded relay would pose no legitimate problem.

[Ice]

Our opinion matter a lot. I know Bud Selig personally. And I am drunk. Sucking his balls, tuesdays, thurdsdays and also on sundays. I'll tell him the thoughts of TnB....errrr...SFM.com...

[MiamiHomer]

Something happened in Thursday's Philadelphia Phillies-Florida Marlins game that summed up exactly what's wrong with baseball's replay system.

But it wasn't just that Bob Davidson screwed up the fair/foul call on what should have been a game-winning, ninth-inning double down the left-field line by the Marlins' Gaby Sanchez.

No, it was actually more nuanced than that.

A half-inning after that call -- which, of course, wasn't reviewed on the old replay machines -- the very same umpiring crew did review its call on another ball hit down that very same foul line by the Phillies' Ben Francisco.

So why was that? What was the difference?

Well, the rules allowed the umps to review their 100 percent-correct "foul" call on the ball Francisco hit -- simply because it would have been a home run.

But they weren't allowed to review their incorrect "foul" call on the ball Sanchez hit -- because it would have been "only" (ahem) a game-winning double.

So am I the only sane human on earth who thinks that makes no sense?

How exactly does this sport justify that one fair/foul call is more important than another, merely because one of them happens to travel a little farther?

If a ball happens to hit a seat in the outfield, it becomes A Big Call, worthy of the use of this sacred technology? But if it hits a blade of grass, it's just another call in the game, even though it would have decided the game?

C'mon, friends. Everybody knows that's ridiculous. And it's one more reason baseball needs to expand its use of replay sooner, not later.

As I've written and said many times, I'm not in favor of reviewing every call on the field, every inning of every game. But, just for starters, why is this sport not allowing umpires to review all fair/foul calls?

Fair/foul is made for replay. It works on home run calls because there's a giant pole in each corner that lets you know if a ball is fair or foul. But it also works for non-home run calls because there's a big white chalk line that runs from the batter's box to the outfield walls that also lets you know. Same thing.

Now maybe Bob Davidson is still convinced his call on that non-double Thursday was absolutely right. Fine. He seems to be the only one, but whatever.

The problem is, it makes no sense whatsoever that he and his crew weren't allowed to look at it again seconds after it happened. And Marlins manager Edwin Rodriguez wasn't even allowed at the time to ask the crew chief to have another set of eyes take a look. All he could do was stomp around the field, asking Davidson to at least ask his fellow umpires for help -- a request which Davidson stubbornly declined.

So does baseball want to get these calls correct or not? I'm always told that it does. Of course it does. So why not use this spectacular technology, which is already in place, to make sure it does?

If Bud Selig wants to go slowly on this, I understand. But if he's looking for the next small step for replay-kind, he got a tutorial in that Phillies-Marlins game Thursday.

Fair or foul, Bud. Think about it.

The "wrong" team appeared to have won that game Thursday, in large part because the commish hasn't signed off on a simple, logical and reasonable extension of the replay system already being used.

It's time to take that next step -- before a big game in October is won by the "wrong" team for the very same reason.

Baseball must expand its use of replay