Quote:
Officials aren't supposed to call the game objectively? They are supposed to favor the dominate? Roy Halladay should have a larger strike zone than Jamie Moyer? Albert Pujoles should have a smaller strike zone than Kahlil Greene? If you advocate one, you advocate all, because you are arguing against impartiality in favor of preferred outcome. Why not advocate calling a biased game in favor of the Yankees vs. any opponent, since they have the largest following in the country, and are the most dominate, and most people would prefer that outcome. If you want to watch entertainment instead of sport, I would suggest the WWE.
Based on circumstance, refs should change the way they call a game, yes. It happens in every sport. I'm glad it does too. What if refs called "unbiased" calls every time they saw a penalty in a playoff hockey game in overtime? What'd happen if these same "unbiased" refs called ticky tack penalties on the closing drive in the Superbowl? Be glad refs have some discretion. It's not all just about being objective. I find it ironic you probably desire to keep umps in the game because of the human element, yet you want unbiased, nonobjective rulings. If you want completely nonobjective, unbiased calls, they should institute a fancy robot with laser guided strike zones for behind the plate. The fact that there are humans out there means they will be somewhat biased and/or objective. If you don't want that in the game, you're going to have to eliminate officials entirely.
Quote:
As to implementing instant replay, the reason baseball suffers in the ratings is because most people don't have the patience to watch it for the duration of time it takes to play the game. The most common complaints are that the game is too long and too boring. What you advocate has the potential to add 10-15 minutes to each game.
Easy solution: Each manager gets one reg flag, like in football. Each call would be over in 2 minutes, like football. An extra 4 minutes total doesn't seem like that much to prevent things like last night. This is just another lame excuse traditionalist throw out there to prevent having instant replay. Get with the times or get your head out of your behind. There are ways around the time factor for instant replay. Look at the NBA. They get it right, but it doesn't slow up the game. It's not like it'd be used over and over. They could limit it however much they want, they make the rules.
Quote:
As to your statement about Bud Selig's game, and tradition? That's foolish. You play the game by the rules established prior to the game. You don't change the rules in the post game because you didn't like the outcome, and then apply them backwards. Your stance is ridiculous.
You're right, let's never change the game for the better. I'd rather live in the past anyway. You know why they didn't have replay when Babe Ruth was around? It wasn't technically feasible. It didn't even become an option until the past 20 years or so.
At the end of the day, the kid pitched a perfect game and he'll go down in history for it. In fact, he may go down in history more so than almost all of the rest of them who've done it in the past. I suppose there is some good to come from this.
*Edit*
Just a few quotes from some of the 85% of people who feel it should've been overturned:
Quote:
I've said baseball should've instituted replay years ago. I don't know why baseball purists are so bent up on this issue. And after all the bad calls last postseason...in someways MLB deserves this bad publicity for this circumstance. The saying is, you reap what you sow. As long as Bud has his head up his arse when stuff like this happens, baseball's never going to move forward. That may be too strong, but stuff like this is a microcosm of what plagues baseball. A seeming disconnect with the fans on some levels.
Quote:
Well put. MLB has a long history of waiting until something drastic happens to finally change its ways, though. It seems like they try to deliberately piss off its fans. In my life I've seen the strike, a tie in an all-star game, home field advantage being decided on a alternating basis - then by the winner of the all-star game (both make no sense), dragging its *** on steroids, and dragging its *** on instant replay. MLB is like a stubborn old man who likes to yell at kids to get off its lawn.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I know umpiring has to be hard, and I have to imagine this umpire was a bit jumpy already with so much on the line... but to err on the side against the pitcher, especially to such a big margin given that the call wasn't even close? I guess it had to do with the pitcher putting his foot down on the base after making the catch that adds some trickiness to this one, but it still doesn't really seem that close to me. If that runner was a bit faster, I could definitely understand with the wrong call, especially with a tie going to the runner and all that, but... ugh. Appeal, please.
