Pujols safe at second, review = overturned

[Kevin_K]

 it's like that congressman said back in the day about pornography. I know it when I see it. 

​I can't help it, but the Supreme Court is something I have researched, written about, and teach.

It was Associate Justice Potter Stewart who issued this famous phrase in his opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964.

[Mudisfun]

​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.

​I disagree with using 'hysterics' to define my opinion. The way the current system seems to be evolving my thought that sensors and cameras can be used to judge such mundane acts as safe and out could be a natural end play conclusion. I dislike replay in the current format as it slows the game down considerably, removes the on field official from the decision making process and relegates the final judgement to someone not in the same area code. I understand that the reviewer does not have skin in the game so to speak so theoretically their call should be unbiased which is just another step to making the game antiseptic, non interactive and as inhuman as possible; starting to sound like a video game to anyone?

In my opinion the rules and tradition of the game are being eroded versus reinforced. I highly doubt there was ever any rule writer that imagined ruling a runner out on a slide when the natural motion of their slide into a base carried their body and hand off the bag by 1/8"  at a speed and duration not viable to the unaided human eye due to momentum and the momentary 'bounce' of crossing the raised base. 

I am not living in denial nor sticking my head in the sand as you so eloquently described but sharing my opinion that in my mind replay rarely corrects a irreclaimable 'wrong' on the field. How often are you going to have to opportunity to fix a totally blown call that truly changes the course of a game to such an extent that it would be a miscarriage of justice not to over-rule the on filed decision? I am just curious who feels that such precision is truly required for a game which should be about entertainment. I am a huge Dodgers fan but my life does not really change all that much when they win or lose... and I guarantee that for every game they lose there were many, many, MANY opportunities for them to score or prevent scoring which would hold more sway to the game than just one call no matter how much of a turning that one call happens to be.

Just my $.02. Like it or leave it.

[ElkOil]

​I disagree with using 'hysterics' to define my opinion. The way the current system seems to be evolving my thought that sensors and cameras can be used to judge such mundane acts as safe and out could be a natural end play conclusion. I dislike replay in the current format as it slows the game down considerably, removes the on field official from the decision making process and relegates the final judgement to someone not in the same area code. I understand that the reviewer does not have skin in the game so to speak so theoretically their call should be unbiased which is just another step to making the game antiseptic, non interactive and as inhuman as possible; starting to sound like a video game to anyone?

In my opinion the rules and tradition of the game are being eroded versus reinforced. I highly doubt there was ever any rule writer that imagined ruling a runner out on a slide when the natural motion of their slide into a base carried their body and hand off the bag by 1/8"  at a speed and duration not viable to the unaided human eye due to momentum and the momentary 'bounce' of crossing the raised base. 

I am not living in denial nor sticking my head in the sand as you so eloquently described but sharing my opinion that in my mind replay rarely corrects a irreclaimable 'wrong' on the field. How often are you going to have to opportunity to fix a totally blown call that truly changes the course of a game to such an extent that it would be a miscarriage of justice not to over-rule the on filed decision? I am just curious who feels that such precision is truly required for a game which should be about entertainment. I am a huge Dodgers fan but my life does not really change all that much when they win or lose... and I guarantee that for every game they lose there were many, many, MANY opportunities for them to score or prevent scoring which would hold more sway to the game than just one call no matter how much of a turning that one call happens to be.

Just my $.02. Like it or leave it.

​You make some good points and unless the system evolves and is refined and revisited, you run the risk of it becoming something that harms more than it helps.  Such as it is today, we're seeing examples where I agree it's used in ways (just like this Pujols play) rule writers didn't foresee.  But I'd caution against using that as your litmus test because people who write rules aren't necessarily the same people who are responsible for how the game evolves, and I see IR as an evolution.  And a good one, at that, with all its flaws (be they real or perceived).  It's true that there are relatively few instances when replay has and will change the of course of a game or the history books (Jim Joyce, anyone?  And even that can be argued when looking at that infamous call in slow motion).  And I also agree that the level of non-human precision required to over rule the Pujols play has no practical application in most circumstances.

So when looking at it and seeing it as a tool to help evolve a body of work that includes call accuracy, umpire accountability, officiating evaluations and perhaps even game strategy, I think it has a way to go before it comes into its own and the newness wears off.

 

[Richvee]

​I can't help it, but the Supreme Court is something I have researched, written about, and teach.

It was Associate Justice Potter Stewart who issued this famous phrase in his opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964.

​Sorry