Pujols safe at second, review = overturned

[Thunderheads]

I don't know what it is .....but I have such a problem with this type of call on replay........

[ricka56]

If you think IR review is good for the game, you have to swollen hard on that one.
That's the price of IR review.

[maven]

Why the problem? Do you disagree that he was tagged off the base? Or is it due to the fact that, at the levels we work, he's safe all day, so we have different calls at different levels?

[Thunderheads]

Why the problem? Do you disagree that he was tagged off the base? Or is it due to the fact that, at the levels we work, he's safe all day, so we have different calls at different levels?

​re-read the OP ........

[maven]

​re-read the OP ........

​Yes, I'm helping you explore your puzzlement by offering some possible explanations. If you don't like those, I can come up with others.

[Trakes2]

How do you not have a problem with it? That is the definition of 'Tic-Tac' He was safe, and is safe... Besides that, with all the problems that replay has had this year, they will overturn THAT play? It's stupid. 

[Thunderheads]

​Yes, I'm helping you explore your puzzlement by offering some possible explanations. If you don't like those, I can come up with others.

​I know, I know

I think I'm on @Trakes2 side ......

[Mudder]

WTF? Where is the evidence to overturn?  His lower leg, at the very least his pants, is clearly still in contact with bag!

[LRZ]

"Use of the video replay is not an acceptable practice," Leonard Coleman, then president of the National League, said in a statement at the time [1999]. "The integrity of the game requires that judgments be left to on-field personnel."

And, again, Coleman: "Traditionally, baseball has relied on the eyes of the umpires as opposed to any artificial devices for its judgments. I fully support this policy. Occasionally, however, the umpires too will make mistakes; that is also part of the game."

I know video review is not going away, but....

[scrounge]

How do you not have a problem with it? That is the definition of 'Tic-Tac' He was safe, and is safe... Besides that, with all the problems that replay has had this year, they will overturn THAT play? It's stupid. 

​well, except for the popping up off the bag while the tag is maintained part...yea, it's ticky tack, I guess. But he came off the bag. Slide better next time.

[maven]

Grousing about the concept of replay is sticking your head in the sand. It ain't going away, so let's get used to it.

OTOH, baseball is not very good at it yet. Football was bad at it when it first came out for them, and they've made adjustments and promoted philosophies that improved their consistency. It's very good now, and still improving in football.

That's some reason to expect that replay will get better for baseball. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks that somebody is out to murder the game.

[ElkOil]

Ugh... I have feelings about this.  What it comes down to for me is that in any sport that uses replay, I'd love an ideal (and non-existent) world in which replay is only used to correct errors in judgement and not replace a human eye with a super-human one.  Since there is no way any human would ever believe Pujols was out in real-time, using replay from a different angle and speed nobody would ever have to see the momentary fraction of an inch he was off the bag removes the human element I believe is necessary in the game.

That said, I believe replay is necessary to correct obvious human error.  My internal struggle lies with knowing you can't draw those lines of distinction in practice.  So it is what it is.

[noumpere]

Ugh... I have feelings about this.  What it comes down to for me is that in any sport that uses replay, I'd love an ideal (and non-existent) world in which replay is only used to correct errors in judgement and not replace a human eye with a super-human one.  Since there is no way any human would ever believe Pujols was out in real-time, using replay from a different angle and speed nobody would ever have to see the momentary fraction of an inch he was off the bag removes the human element I believe is necessary in the game.

That said, I believe replay is necessary to correct obvious human error.  My internal struggle lies with knowing you can't draw those lines of distinction in practice.  So it is what it is.

​What's the difference?  Errors in judgment are seeing things "incorrectly".

 

What's "obvious?"  Off the base by 1"? 2"? 12" ? for .1 sec? 1 sec? 5 secs?

[ElkOil]

​What's the difference?  Errors in judgment are seeing things "incorrectly".

 

What's "obvious?"  Off the base by 1"? 2"? 12" ? for .1 sec? 1 sec? 5 secs?

​That's what I mean.  There isn't a way to draw those lines of distinction.  Thus my conflict of wanting it to be defined, but knowing it can't be.  Adopting a system like this means accepting that it will be used to discern things no human being can discern as well as correcting glaring mistakes.  The yin and the yang.

[Richvee]

​

 

What's "obvious?"  \

​I think this is the crux of my dilemma. What's obvious? I see @ElkOil feels exactly like I do. I don't feel like this is what IR should be doing. It should be fixing safe/outs when we se the ball in the glove and the foot is clearly off the bag. We should be fixing tag plays when we can clearly see a tag/missed tag. We shouldn't be worried about a basestealer's leg and hand a fraction of an inch off the bag for maybe a 1/4 second. We shouldn't worry about a runner's heel 1/8 inch off the top of the plate when his foot was wel over the plate before a tag. I don't know where the line is drawn other to say it's like that congressman said back in the day about pornography. I know it when I see it. 

[scrounge]

Eh, IR should be used to fix points of fact, whether they're elephants or amoebas. That's the strategic part of using your challenge. Want to use it on a ticky-tack steal in the 1st inning? Ok...don't cry if you don't have it later and need it but don't have it because you lost it going after a nit. And if you win, good for you. If there's definitive evidence of being off the bag, then he's off the bag. If 1/8 inch isn't enough, how about 2 inches? 4 inches? 0.736 inch? All I ask is that it's definitive and the decision is made in a timely manner. Other than that, I'm not really sweating it.

[ElkOil]

Eh, IR should be used to fix points of fact, whether they're elephants or amoebas. That's the strategic part of using your challenge. Want to use it on a ticky-tack steal in the 1st inning? Ok...don't cry if you don't have it later and need it but don't have it because you lost it going after a nit. And if you win, good for you. If there's definitive evidence of being off the bag, then he's off the bag. If 1/8 inch isn't enough, how about 2 inches? 4 inches? 0.736 inch? All I ask is that it's definitive and the decision is made in a timely manner. Other than that, I'm not really sweating it.

​That certainly speaks to the other side of my conflict.  Since the system exists, it will be used for these things and bravo to a team that uses it to its advantage.

While I'm thinking about it, I know MLB is making crew decisions based, in part, on a umpire's ratio of calls upheld vs. overturned.  I hope they don't factor in calls that are as close as Pujols' was.

[noumpere]

​That certainly speaks to the other side of my conflict.  Since the system exists, it will be used for these things and bravo to a team that uses it to its advantage.

While I'm thinking about it, I know MLB is making crew decisions based, in part, on a umpire's ratio of calls upheld vs. overturned.  I hope they don't factor in calls that are as close as Pujols' was.

​Why not?  An umpire who called him out (for oversliding; not on the initial call) would be "better" (on this one example only) that the umpire who called him "safe"

[DVA7130]

I hate instant replay, and always will. I despise even more slow motion. In fact, I think I dislike this new "get it right" idea. We work hard to get in the best position we can. We use our best judgment. Calls will go both ways. Everybody who played baseball remembers a time they got an out in the field they "shouldn't have". They also remember times they got called out when they "shouldn't have".

Baseball at the MLB level lost a portion of its character when this rubbish replay was added. Umpires are not just walking rule books.

Nobody calls these plays on the field. I say if there "must" be replay, only let them watch it at 100% speed. See how much of a better "look" or "angle" the damn camera on the concourse has than the umpire on the field then.

 

[Richvee]

​Why not?  An umpire who called him out (for oversliding; not on the initial call) would be "better" (on this one example only) that the umpire who called him "safe"

​I disagree. If an umpire makes this call live, he's guessing. Because he sure didn't see it with his naked eye at full speed.  I was always told we can't call what we can't see. 

[JaxRolo]

Can't believe anyone saw this so quickly to ask for a review right away.

[Mudisfun]

Wow... just another nail in the umpire coffin. Wonder how long before they start experimenting with virtual umpires since the human element is slowly being removed from the game. Can't expect the players to play perfectly but darn if they expect 100% of the officiating to be spot on.

When did a game require such precision? I think aerospace uses less rigid tolerances in building aircraft/space vehicles.

[JaxRolo]

Can't blame the umpire at all. There is no angle that he would have seen that.

[maven]

Wow... just another nail in the umpire coffin. Wonder how long before they start experimenting with virtual umpires since the human element is slowly being removed from the game.

​That's what the hysterics said when football went to replay. In 1986, nearly 30 years ago.

Obviously, that worry is silly. The rules of baseball define when a runner is safe and when he's out. Technology can be used to enhance, not replace, our calls, though it has to be balanced against a host of other considerations (not least lengthening games and dead time, which is boring on TV: NFL put a clock on replay for this reason, and MLB might yet adopt one for the same reason).

It was one thing to "live and die with your call" when nobody could go back and determine that you were dead wrong. It's quite another to stick one's head in the sand and live in denial. The game will continue to evolve and change, along with everything else. We can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[Richvee]

I dunno. The argument that baseball replay will get better with time just like, football took it's lumps when they introduced replay back in 1986. To compare it to what MLB is going through now doesn't hold water with me. Half of the NFL's problem was a ref running under a hood to look at a grainy replay of the play with 1986 technology.  The huge advancements in video quality, slower speeds, zooms, etc. has lead to better reviews in the NFL. Seems to me baseball doesn't lend itself to better results through technology and scrutinizing every little detail and every tag/slide etc. I liked the idea of replay last year. Something has happened this year. May more reviews seem too "technical"