tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22419499.post7255127784120241859..comments2023-03-23T22:19:24.898-05:00Comments on Siberian Baseball: Well, it's here. No what?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22419499.post-64562389839374430712008-08-28T11:59:00.000-05:002008-08-28T11:59:00.000-05:00See, the human element is a major part of baseball...See, the human element is a major part of baseball - moreso than the other sports mentioned - and that's why scope creep has me worried.<BR/><BR/>It's to the point that current video games "miss" borderline calls now, forcing you to react in a more realistic way, where if it's close, you're swinging.<BR/><BR/>There are just too many other variables in play with baseball - primarily the timing issue for the bullpen - for this to seem like a good idea.<BR/><BR/>For the majority of home run calls, there's no doubt about it. It just seems unnecessary and if the league had such a problem with home run call/no calls, they should have added another ump or two in the outfield before this.Matt Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17232923494409919354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22419499.post-39874126678471577632008-08-28T11:48:00.000-05:002008-08-28T11:48:00.000-05:00Very interesting. I'm kind of the opposite side o...Very interesting. I'm kind of the opposite side of the ledger here. Granted, I don't trust Bud Selig any farther than I can throw him either and the particular process used by MLB that you've pointed out doesn't necessarily make the most sense and can definitely be improved, but at least conceptually, I'm 110% in favor of instant replay for home run calls/foul balls and other calls that are "black and white" in nature. I actually think MLB umpires are pretty good overall (especially compared to NBA and college basketball refs - talk about gawd awful), yet I still believe that getting those crucial calls correct vastly outweigh any time factors. There are going to be instances where it's hard to tell whether a ball is in or out even with replay - just as there are instances in football where it's hard to tell whether a receiver caught a ball or not - but that doesn't mean that replay can't be helpful the vast majority. Honestly, I've found most of the close home run/foul ball calls are relatively clear when you see them on replay, so if it makes that much of a difference, I see no reason why replay can't be used. I think a lot of critics of replay are concerned about future "scope creep" - that replay will eventually expanded to safe/not safe calls or, even worse, balls and strikes. Again, I understand and agree with the sentiment that Bud Selig is an idiot, but similar scope creep concerns were raised for football and basketball and those concerns have never come to fruition after several years of replay being employed in those sports.<BR/><BR/>Above all, I'm just one of those people that adamantly and unequivocally believes that human errors by umpires and refs are NOT "part of the game". The game should be determined by the athletes on the field of play to maximum extent possible and if there are tools in place that can minimize the impact of human error on black-and-white calls (again, I completely agree that replay should never be used for subjective calls such as balls and strikes), then that vastly outweighs any concerns about time, how the umpires feel about it, tradition, etc. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but the "it takes too much time" argument against replay in all of the sports has always irked me - certainly, you don't want umpires taking an hour to figure out a home run call, but honestly, if your team is in the World Series (or a pennant race in September) and winning or losing comes down to that, getting the call right with the best evidence that the umps have available is exponentially more important than any time concerns. I'm more than willing to wait for the right call as opposed to rushing along with the wrong call for the sake of speed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com