Instant replay in baseball

[bluegoose]

Did anyone see the Angels/White Sox game last night?

What an incredible way for the Angels to lose. Whether the call was correct by the ump is one thing, but to ring him up on strike 3, not once but twice, and still allow him to take the base. Amazing.

Why don't they want to institute instant replay in baseball? Granted the game is slow enough as is, but how many bad calls is it going to take to get it right. I say don't allow replay on the strike zone but on other controversial plays which may affect the outcome of the game, look it over and get it right.

[il Padrino Ute]

tradition.

Baseball has been around longer than the other sports and the rules of the game have never been changed. It's played the same way today as it was 100 years ago.

The human element of baseball is as much a part of the tradition as anything. While umpires do make mistakes, the bottom line is that because the game played in 9 separate innings, what happens in one inning really has no effect in the other 8. (The same could be said for other sports, but it's more easily applicable in baseball.) In this particular case, the Angels had plenty of other chances during the rest of the game to win, or at the very least to not be hurt by the dropped 3rd strike.

I'm against instant replay in baseball to overturn anything that happens, even though it would have shown without any doubt that that little punk in the right field bleachers did interfere with the ball that was hit and a HR was awarded to the Evil Empire. And yes, I am bitter.

[bluegoose]

I can't say that I necessarily agree with your reasoning.

Of any of the major sports, and I still consider baseball one of them, baseball is often determined by a single play over the course of a dreadfully boring 3-4 hour game. A single swing of the bat, a single fielding error, a single wild pitch. Just look at the Cubs last year(??) with the foul ball to left field that was caught by the fan. They would have been out of the inning, with the momentum in their favor possibly heading to the world series. Instead, the fan catches the ball, the inning continues for several more runs and the Cubs get routed. All because of a single fan interference. Not much different than Pierrzinski stealing first on a bad call by the ump that changed the course of the game. There are plenty of other examples. In a low scoring sport like baseball, it happens all the time.

I do agree with what you said about tradition. There are still enough purists out there (ie. Peter Gammons) that want to preserve the integrity of the game. Sometime they need to realize that the game has changed and will continue to change, so long as there are new metabolic aides which are available, and yet undectable. As far as I'm concerned, the single season and career home run record are no longer a measure of the greatness of the player as it is the greatness of the "juice" and the trainer. And don't try to tell me that steroids don't make a round bat hit a round ball. There are plenty of home runs now which would have been long fly balls back before the "cream" and the "clear".

Sorry about the long, boring baseball blog. It was more tiring for me to write it than it was for you to read it.

[il Padrino Ute]

that could change an entire game, such as the fan interference in the Cubs game you refrerenced. However, after it happended, the Cubs still melted down and choked. The fan interference was just a part of that sequence. IMO, that was more of the exeption to the rule. At the same time, you make a compelling point that I'm willing to concede. I will not concede, however, that baseball is a boring game. I love it and am never bored watching it.

My point is that each inning is separate from the others moreso than each quarter in a football or basketball game.

And yes, baseball is changing, but it shouldn't. I'm a purist's purist and don't apologize for it.

[bluegoose]

I agree, I don't bore of baseball, especially in October. 162 game seasons can get a little tiring, but for me, it doesn't matter who is playing on October.

My wife cannot for the life of her figure out how I can watch a 3 hour game and not want to miss a pitch.

For example, yesterday as we were preparing to leave the hospital with the new baby, I'm catching part of the Astros game.

Her: Can I change the channel now?

Me: What do you mean? It's the bottom of the eight!!!

Her: But isn't there 9 innings? It could take an hour.

Me: Yes, but Albert Pujols is coming up in the top of the inning.

Her: Who?

Me: (Gasp, choke, Gag) Who's Albert Pujols??? Sometimes I don't feel like I even know you.

Well, it was something like that. You get the picture. Great game though. Lidge sure knows how to bring the drama, doesn't he.

[il Padrino Ute]

My wife figured out long ago that there is never a good reason to ask me to stop watching baseball, even if it's for a single at bat.

Your wife doesn't know who Albert Pujols is? But I'm sure she can tell you who will be on Oprah or Dr. Phil today, right? I feel your pain brother.

Congrats on the birth of the newest. Teach her that baseball is important and she won't go astray, but it seems you already know that.

[bigpiney]

My wife is a big Cards fan.

She does know who Albert Pujols is, she just thinks it is a very unfortunate last name. she suggests that he change the pronunciation.

Reminds me of that scene from Robin Hood: Men in Tights :

Prince John: "Such an unusual name, 'Latrine', how did your family come by it?"
Latrine: "We changed it in the 9th century."
Prince John: "You mean you changed it to 'Latrine'?"
Latrine: "Yeah. It used to be 'Shit House'."
Prince John: "Good change, that's a good change."

[bluegoose]

Thanks piney,

I haven't heard that one for a long time.

Now everyone around me at work can't figure out why I'm laughing when they are talking about this guy here who hasn't seen his wife and daughter in Mexico in 2 years.

I'll apologize when I stop laughing.