Oscar Gamble Society

With several missed HR calls this week, apparently Osama bud Selig, et al, are finally interested in moving forward with instant replay on a limited basis… maybe:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3408154

According to the article, they approved - by a rather hefty 25-5 margin - or I guess I should say “recommended” that instant replay for boundary calls be used.  Selig’s torpidity in (not) acting on the recommendation is not surprising.  Disappointing… but not surprising.  Can’t you see his mind working, “Let’s wait until a real furor grows before we react - and I don’t want anyone accusing us of being… … proactive!”  Even Gary Bettman’s NHL uses instant replay, on a limited basis, to ascertain goal/no-goal.  That’s right, Gary Bettman is more on the ball than Bud Selig.  Scary.

What is the hold-up, exactly?  These are the objections I can think of - and the accompanying reason(s) they should not be objections….

1.  It’ll take too long.  Currently, the umpires get together to discuss such plays (which is a good thing), in an attempt to get it right.  Um… *that* takes time.  They want to get it right (again, this is a good thing) - so why not give them the available technology to ensure that objective calls (HR/non-HR, and fair/foul) are not only made correctly - but quickly?  If anything, it’d take *less* time.  This would not be the NFL where five minutes are taken on each call.

2.  The cost.  Eric Gagne was signed for $10 million dollars.  I can’t imagine the technology needed would cost that much, and I guaran-damn-tee it would be far more effective.  Many in this country are having financial issues these days… MLB is not one of them.

3.  Tradition.  Puh-leez.  Jim Bouton is touring the country playing baseball the (actual) old-fashioned way.  Tell me how similar today’s MLB is to the game that Bouton plays.  Additionally, most (if not all) of the changes are for the *better* - and this would be for the better as well.

4.  Slippery slope.  The concern may be the call for instant replay to be used for subjective calls - balls/strikes, etc.  So what.  Just say “no”.  If anything, MLB could point out that the technology is indeed used for objective calls i.e. where applicable, not across the board which would indeed be irresponsible and could interrupt the flow of the game.

5.  Potential confusion.  For example, if a ball is originally called foul but is actually fair - or visa versa.  Well, we have ground-rule doubles (among other scenarios) that indicate where runners should be placed when certain things happen - the same could easily be done in this case.  In other words, perhaps like the ground-rule call, two bases can be awarded - to keep it simple.  If a subjective element is introduced such that the umpires determine where the hitter (and/or runners) would’ve ended up, so be it.  Point is… it can be discussed and agreed upon ahead of time.

I just do not see a downside to doing it.  I have no idea why the other two (or three) major professional leagues in this country have been using instant reply for anywhere from several to twenty-plus years… yet MLB still isn’t.

What’s the (continued) delay?

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm and is filed under Sports, Baseball. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.