Replay, Replay. Three challenges. NFL?

[johnnyg08]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9570618/mlb-expands-instant-replay-2014-include-manager-video-challenges

[BRUMP]

This sounds like good news for any AAA call up. Looks like they're gonna have to hire an additional crew.

[DVA7130]

Wow, this might happen...

[Specks]

I read this on another site: Managers will be allowed two challenges over the first six innings of games and one after the seventh inning

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/08/15/mlb-to-expand-instant-replay-in-2014/#ixzz2c3wxdF1y

 

Either way, there goes the neighborhood.

 

I'm a fan of getting it right but this is going to open issues in conversations with managers after a challenge where a managers might say you got the last one overturned and your wrong again.

[mjr_2013]

Keep in mind that although this was voted yes by the thirty team representatives, the owners, players, and umpires must all agree as well... I don't see that happening, but who knows.

[Thunderheads]

A good view point here is this ............if it happens .....

 

We all know that the calls on the field are overwhelmingly correct, ....maybe this will bring that to light moreso?  Yeah us!

[Larry in TN]

I read this on another site: Managers will be allowed two challenges over the first six innings of games and one after the seventh inning

 

I don't understand why they, and the NFL, do it this way.  Why not like Tennis where you get a set number of INCORRECT challenges but as many CORRECT challenges as you need?  i.e. You start with two challenges and only lose one if your challenge fails.  It's not your (the team's) fault if an official makes a series of bad calls in your game.  It's only your fault when you challenge and lose.

[umpstu]

Would like to get more details on it. I'm not a big fan of instant replay reviews, just for the reason of human error. Guarantee you the umpires are better at their job then almost all of the players. If this happens then will they just replace the umpires with cameras in the future?

[scrounge]

I think it's too many challenges, I'd go with 2 challenges with an additional if you were right on both, but I'm perfectly fine with this. Fix the egregious errors, keep the umps off the front page of Deadspin, and find out it's not the panacea some may think. But it's fine....technology has progressed, we can progress with it.

 

The only thing I'd add other than the challenge number would be that all replay decisions are final AND any continuing discussion, no matter how short, is reason for immediate ejection. Let them yell at NY, very good to have a centralized system.

[zm1283]

I think it's too many challenges, I'd go with 2 challenges with an additional if you were right on both, but I'm perfectly fine with this. Fix the egregious errors, keep the umps off the front page of Deadspin, and find out it's not the panacea some may think. But it's fine....technology has progressed, we can progress with it.

 

The only thing I'd add other than the challenge number would be that all replay decisions are final AND any continuing discussion, no matter how short, is reason for immediate ejection. Let them yell at NY, very good to have a centralized system.

 

They're going to have to put that guideline in.  If you challenge and the call is upheld, you can't argue or will be ejected immediately.  Otherwise it will be a fiasco.

 

I think one challenge per game is plenty, maybe give them a second one if they are successful with the first one.  

[jjb]

I like it, and IMHO it will speed up the game. Don't like my call? Challenge it, or sit your a** down.

[hogsfan787]

I wonder if New York or the umpires will decide where to put runners after a call is overturned?

[Gfoley4]

I hope the umpires can use a phone from the dugout instead of running into wherever the current monitor is set up. That should speed things up a little bit.

[hogsfan787]

And the article says virtually everything... Does this mean interference and Obstructiom will be reviewable as well

[afaber12]

Apart from the number of challenges and the way its split over first six innings/seventh and later, it sounds like a very similar system to what's used in cricket. Each team gets two challenges per inning, and only lose the challenge if the original call is upheld. The decision to review has to made relatively quickly though. The ESPN story did actually say that the number of challenges was for challenges turned down, so if your team keeps getting dud calls throughout the game, you can keep challenging. Be nice to know - apart presumably from balls and strikes - what will be review-able and what won't.

 

I thought the existing system for home runs already had a provision that when a call was reviewed the managers were entitled to an explanation of the ruling, particularly if the call is changed - clarification but no argument. As said above, something like that (if not already in place) would need to be used. I'd also have some pretty strict guidelines about the challenge process itself, if a manager wants a call reviewed then he has to say so, possibly with the particular element he wants checked, eg "the runner was safe because the fielder came off the bag before he caught the ball". If he starts arguing a review-able call without challenging, he loses the right to challenge.

 

One thing that hasn't been discussed in the articles linked to is how extra innings might be handled with this system. You get two challenges at the start of the game which expire after 6 innings, then you get one from the 7th, but will that just be one potentially to the 15th inning? Will it be one challenge every 3 innings, ie one for 7-9, one for 10-12, etc.

 

Assuming they can get the decisions made as quickly as they say they can, and they put the right rules in about how the challenge itself will work and what is and isn't allowed before and after the challenge, I think this could be a good.

[scrounge]

If they're going to do this, just eliminate arguing altogether. It's an anachronism that simply doesn't have a place if we're going to expand replay this much.

 

Now is that an exaggeration? A little bit - but not much. It wouldn't surprise me if NFHS goes this route soon. No other sport allows a coach to storm the field/court like baseball does without repercussion. Maybe it's just time to let this tradition go by the wayside.

[johnnyg08]

There goes the neighborhood play at 2B...especially late in the game w/ 2 challenges remaining. R2 ends up being safe at 2B in scoring position.

Big can of worms. But it's for the good of the game right?

[scrounge]

There goes the neighborhood play at 2B...especially late in the game w/ 2 challenges remaining. R2 ends up being safe at 2B in scoring position.

Big can of worms. But it's for the good of the game right?

 

There goes the neighborhood play at 2B...especially late in the game w/ 2 challenges remaining. R2 ends up being safe at 2B in scoring position.

Big can of worms. But it's for the good of the game right?

 

I don't see that as a problem, really. Let them be mad at the anonymous guy in NY. If he's safe, he's safe.

[dumbdumb]

There goes the neighborhood play at 2B...especially late in the game w/ 2 challenges remaining. R2 ends up being safe at 2B in scoring position.

Big can of worms. But it's for the good of the game right?

And what are they going to do in NY about the Hurdle ejection call at second that we have been discussing.

http://wapc.mlb.com/...7&query=dispute

Can they freeze frame it like iankellyumpire did for us?

It was the right call. 

 

 

 

So, what if the guy in NY says out on the play on Tuesday night but the guy working Wednesday night calls the same play safe???

Just like several calls where the umpires have gotten together and switched the call, just to find out the original call made by the umpire was correct to start with.

 

Oh hell, just spend the money and set up Zone evaluator in all the AAA parks and just put the guys from AAA that score the best on Zone evaluator on the call up list, and then the best of the call ups based on Zone evaluator eventually get full time. There will be no reason to grade umpires on their base skills anymore, only their plate skills. Also, since we have IR for anything and everything with potentially a minimum of 6 requests and possibly more if the managers are correct, there will be no need for situation handling skills either. Just whoever grades out the best in Zone evaluator will get the future jobs, and grading out best on Zone evaluator will get the playoffs. End of story.

 

Or????? Maybe we will get a lot more ball/strike arguments to take the place of lost arguments in the field. Also, a continuance of the managers trying to weasel their way into trying to chew the umpires out on balls and strikes under the guise of coming out to get the player away from the umpire when the batter starts to argue balls and strikes, especially when they do not get there in time.

[zm1283]

I can't imagine the umpire's union signing off on this with three challenges a game.  That just seems like it would slow the games waaaay down.  But hey, that's potentially six more commercial breaks to sell advertising.  I just don't like it the more I think about it.  Boundary calls are one thing, but reviewing things like INT/OBS, catch/no-catch/placing runners, etc. just seems like it's going to be a mess.

 

And I'm with whoever said managers should be ejected immediately if they come on the field to argue and don't immediately challenge the call.  Either go to the CC and challenge or keep your ass in the dugout.  

[CentralOhioUmp30]

If they're going to do this, just eliminate arguing altogether. It's an anachronism that simply doesn't have a place if we're going to expand replay this much.

Now is that an exaggeration? A little bit - but not much. It wouldn't surprise me if NFHS goes this route soon. No other sport allows a coach to storm the field/court like baseball does without repercussion. Maybe it's just time to let this tradition go by the wayside.

I could be wrong, but they way I read it, if any manager comes out to argue a play that CAN be reviewable (even if it isn't being reviewed) he can be ejected on the spot. Now plays that aren't eligible to be reviewed can be argued.

[carolinablue]

I may be old school but I say don't fix what ain't broke. That seems to be a bad habit these days IMO. Baseball is a great game just like it is, human element and all. If it were not so it would not have been around for more than a hundred years. Since man can't achieve peferction, I say don't screw with near perfection. All this stuff they are trying to fix is a part of the game they are going to miss when it's gone. 

[JimSmith25]

I, for one, am a little worried this might make it tougher for the actual good umpires to move up to the Majors or AAA. I feel this might lower the standard for all umpires in the future, where getting challenged enough times will make you get the call right enough times as a guy who gets challenged and doesn't overturn it. We've seen in MLB already on a few homerun replay situations where, even though it was reviewed, we still held with the call even if that call was wrong. Who's to say this will still make us get the call right when it's challenged? I feel as if I'm not making a good point with this, but perhaps you folks will understand what I'm trying to say.

[Lindsay]

Watch as the MiLB promotion criteria unofficially and unfairly gravitates towards "reviewed call reversal percentage."

 

The HR replay reversal ratio already exists, after all... (for those wondering, Dale Scott leads regular crew chiefs with a .462 reversal percentage; Cederstrom's .458 is a close second...lowest on the totem pole is Ted Barrett with .000 [0-3], Hirschbeck's .083 [1-12] is the lowest for a 10+ sample size)

[CentralOhioUmp30]

Keep in mind that although this was voted yes by the thirty team representatives, the owners, players, and umpires must all agree as well... I don't see that happening, but who knows.

 

If you believe that MLB put this out there publicly without consulting the owners, players and umpires then refer to me as the Nigerian Prince and I'll be sending you $15 million from my estate in exchange for a small fee that I'll pay the bank to release the funds.

 

That being said, in my opinion doing this for the regular season is dumb.  Each team plays 162 games.  Even if umpires made several game ending calls against a particular team they would still have an exorbitant amount of games left.  This type of review is necessary for the NFL and NCAA FB because teams don't have a margin for error as far as wins and losses are concerned.

 

I'll concede that the playoffs should have review, but allowing the potential for over 29,000 challenges (if my math is correct) during the regular season without any repercussions is utterly ridiculous.  Think about it, if you're a manager and you don't use all three of your challenges each and every day you're not doing your job correctly.

 

Overkill if you ask me.