Big Break For Sox

<richardcarlisle DeleteThis @notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lg7l93pvng4u3mohgkvo14ne4jbbpk30v0@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>
>>But now you're reintroducing judgment, the very thing replay advocates want
>>reduced.
>>
> Yes, reduced. Whether it can be completely eliminated is another
> story. But instituting IR can go a long way toward *minimizing*
> judgment errors. And as I said, a set of specific rules can be
> implemented to govern such decisions. I think it will be much better
> than having umpires who really don't have a good vantage point make
> decisions on plays.
>
> RC

Why complicate something that isn't complicated? So, each manager gets a red
flag to throw on the diamond? Does the red flag have to land exactly between
3rd and home plate or can it be anywhere on the diamond? What if the flag hits
an ump? Is that an automatic out? And how many "time outs" can each team have
for IR? 1 per inning? 2 per game? Should the game be timed now? 60 minutes? 90
minutes? If you argued IR for World Series only, maybe I could see it...but
for 162 games? What the...

Come on -- let's get serious - baseball (nor any sport) is THAT important that
we need to rip up the old rules and start fresh.

You want accuracy??? Pick up a copy of "MLB '08" for the PC and play till your
heart's content or your favorite team wins the World Series (whichever comes
first)

Totally accurate - no missed calls.

Completely computerized, too.

Enjoy!

atd1999
http://www.tony-island.com
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:38:51 GMT, "atd1999" <ad2003.TakeThisOut@joimail.com>
wrote:

>Come on -- let's get serious - baseball (nor any sport) is THAT important that
>we need to rip up the old rules and start fresh.

I realize that you think that I am ripping up old rules. All I am
doing is trying to *enforce* the rules with greater accuracy while
keeping the same rules.

Having a DH was a drastic change in the rules OTOH. What do you think
about that change of the rules?

I further understand that you don't want to try to increase the
accuracy of calls using modern technology. That is fine. I just
disagree with you.

RC
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Using fancy 50 dollar words is nothing more than a tactic used by the
intellectually deficiant [sic] to try to impress those around them.

Fred Burton
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

<richardcarlisle.TakeThisOut@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u4cl93pluv0a8hv6d2tf5qlupmei4ect8m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:38:51 GMT, "atd1999" <ad2003.TakeThisOut@joimail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Come on -- let's get serious - baseball (nor any sport) is THAT important
>>that
>>we need to rip up the old rules and start fresh.
>
> I realize that you think that I am ripping up old rules. All I am
> doing is trying to *enforce* the rules with greater accuracy while
> keeping the same rules.
>
> Having a DH was a drastic change in the rules OTOH. What do you think
> about that change of the rules?
>
> I further understand that you don't want to try to increase the
> accuracy of calls using modern technology. That is fine. I just
> disagree with you.
>
> RC
> ----------------------------------------------------------

You're right - the DH was more of a rule-ripper than having IR cameras all
over the field, but I think by enforcing the current rules to the extent
you're asking, it's going to bite us in the ass more than anything.

Remember, this whole argument started because Pedroia got the BENEFIT of a bad
call. What if there was IR? We'd have the guy on 2nd and possibly losing the
game. Or possibly winning 9-4. Or possibly winning 10-6. Or possibly losing.
We don't know. We do know what it was without the benefit of IR.

IR in select instances (such as making sure a HR is accurately called when it
winds up in some field's weird jutting out corner) would work just fine. And
IR (selective) in the World Series would work. But, again, for 162 games, it's
inane.

I've answered your posts yet the best you can do is "I want to enforce the
rules. We agree to disagree."

You give no concrete proposals on what to use (cameras, more umps, etc), how
to call IR into play, who gets to stop the game, if the opposing manager gets
another call overturning the overturned call, if we use a flag or a big beach
ball sized baseball thrown on the field to call time-out. I want answers, damn
it!

atd1999
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:10:30 GMT, "atd1999" <ad2003.DeleteThis@joimail.com>
wrote:

>
><richardcarlisle.DeleteThis@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:u4cl93pluv0a8hv6d2tf5qlupmei4ect8m@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:38:51 GMT, "atd1999" <ad2003.DeleteThis@joimail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Come on -- let's get serious - baseball (nor any sport) is THAT important
>>>that
>>>we need to rip up the old rules and start fresh.
>>
>> I realize that you think that I am ripping up old rules. All I am
>> doing is trying to *enforce* the rules with greater accuracy while
>> keeping the same rules.
>>
>> Having a DH was a drastic change in the rules OTOH. What do you think
>> about that change of the rules?
>>
>> I further understand that you don't want to try to increase the
>> accuracy of calls using modern technology. That is fine. I just
>> disagree with you.
>>
>> RC
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>You're right - the DH was more of a rule-ripper than having IR cameras all
>over the field, but I think by enforcing the current rules to the extent
>you're asking, it's going to bite us in the ass more than anything.

How will increasing the chances of getting a call correct bite us in
the ass? It will only bite us in the ass if most of the bad calls go
our way?
>
>Remember, this whole argument started because Pedroia got the BENEFIT of a bad
>call. What if there was IR? We'd have the guy on 2nd and possibly losing the
>game. Or possibly winning 9-4. Or possibly winning 10-6. Or possibly losing.
>We don't know. We do know what it was without the benefit of IR.

We also know with reasonable certainty that with IR the chances of
getting the call right would be increased.
>
>IR in select instances (such as making sure a HR is accurately called when it
>winds up in some field's weird jutting out corner) would work just fine. And
>IR (selective) in the World Series would work. But, again, for 162 games, it's
>inane.

Why is it inane? How often during a game is a call so close that IR is
needed? A system could be devised to expedite the process. It works
for the NFL and NBA.
>
>I've answered your posts yet the best you can do is "I want to enforce the
>rules. We agree to disagree."

I have explained why I want to use IR. You say you don't want to
change the rules but this is not changing the rules. What more can I
say than to agree to disagree? You have one point of view. I have
another. I explained my reasoning. You have explained yours. Others
can decide with whom they agree.
>
>You give no concrete proposals on what to use (cameras, more umps, etc), how
>to call IR into play, who gets to stop the game, if the opposing manager gets
>another call overturning the overturned call, if we use a flag or a big beach
>ball sized baseball thrown on the field to call time-out. I want answers, damn
>it!
>
Why do I need to talk about the camera set up or the specifics to
implement the system. NFL has a system that seems to work well so we
could model the MLB system on theirs. And in the NFL it is more
difficult since there are more players who are bunched up during the
IR. In baseball there are not as many players to disrupt the viewing
angle.

In any case whatever cameras they have set up at this point seem to
give a very good view of the plays. It is rare for the slo-mo camera
to not give with great certainty what the correct call should be in
most every play I have seen. So it would not require much tweaking to
implement an effective system IMO.

RC


>atd1999
>
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Using fancy 50 dollar words is nothing more than a tactic used by the
intellectually deficiant [sic] to try to impress those around them.

Fred Burton
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:27:03 +0000, richardcarlisle.RemoveThis@notyahoo.com
wrote:


>Why is it inane? How often during a game is a call so close that IR is
>needed? A system could be devised to expedite the process. It works
>for the NFL and NBA.

Well, many people are not thrilled with IR replay in football, and it
has very limited application in basketball. No one would think fouls
can be called with IR in basketball, just stuff about the clock (and
no clock in baseball).

Why just repeat that it works in football when anyone following
football knows that it has some problems? The fact that a team has
only one challenge per half, despite the fact that there are a dozen
or more contested calls every half, indicates it is mostly window
dressing in football. And the delay factor is addressed by penalizing
the team a time out (we don't have those in baseball) for challenging
a play even if the challenge may be right (but is not clearly right).

Anyway, the role of refs in football is very different from the role
of umps in baseball (or refs in basketball or officials in hockey).
Hockey uses IR for goals, and I think that is fine, just as I think IR
would be okay in baseball for HRs. But there is the camel's nose
problem, so I'd probably not be thrillled with IR in baseball even for
HRs. Still, I agree it would not harm the game in principle and would
reduce the very occasional error, which would be good.
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:17:49 -0400, McDuck
<wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:41:55 +0000, richardcarlisle.TakeThisOut@notyahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:33:09 -0400, McDuck
>><wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Why is it so important to get the call "right"?
>>
>>If you don't think it important to get the call right we have little
>>to discuss. I think that anything that can reduce the errors in calls
>>is a good thing as long as its implementation does not create more
>>problems than it solves. You disagree. Fine. We can agree to disagree.
>>
>
>Fine, as long as you understand what we are disagreeing about. I think
>it is important to get the call right, within the current setup.

The problem with the current set up is that there are times when an
umpire's view gets obstructed and he must guess about what the right
call is. And when that happens sometimes none of the referees have a
good view.


Also when a play involving whether a player's foot touches the base
before the ball is caught is often very difficult when it is close
since it is virtually impossible to see both the catch and the foot on
the bag at the same instant. With slow-mo freeze frame you will get it
right with much greater frequency.


> So I
>want umps to be trained and reviewed. I'm not saying mistakes don't
>matter. But getting it right (getting a consensus view on what the
>call should be) is not so important that I'd change the game in a
>fundamental way to obtain that right.

The fundamental change to the game that my suggestion would result in
would be that more calls would be correct IMO. What is the fundamental
change that you see that would be so bad. Be specific.
>
>Or, in your language, I think your solution to errors is worse than
>the problem it is intended to solve.

What do you think makes it worse? Do you disagree with the NFL and NBA
utilizing IR to correct bad decisions? I think that the institution of
IR has dramatically reduced bad calls with no real significant
downside. Maybe you disagree.
>
>Now, if you disagree with that, fine. Not much left to debate.

Fine. If you disagree with the points I made in this post we can agree
to disagree.

RC
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Using fancy 50 dollar words is nothing more than a tactic used by the
intellectually deficiant [sic] to try to impress those around them.

Fred Burton
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

Perplexed at an "Instant Replay" rule in baseball..... I do know ONE
thing that bothers me....

the "CLOSE" call at 2nd .. traditionally when ball is hit to SS then
thrown to 2nd Baseman who is 2-3-or4 feet from bag and runner from 1st
is called OUT.

Defensive player, where I come from, HAS to have part of body on 2nd
Base before runner to be out.

Irritates me to no end when "IN THE AREA" is an OUT.

Just my midnight thought !
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:27:56 -0400, McDuck
<wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:27:03 +0000, richardcarlisle.DeleteThis@notyahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>
>>Why is it inane? How often during a game is a call so close that IR is
>>needed? A system could be devised to expedite the process. It works
>>for the NFL and NBA.
>
>Well, many people are not thrilled with IR replay in football,

Well, you cannot please everyone. Just because many are not thrilled
does not mean that it is not a useful way to reduce errors.



> and it
>has very limited application in basketball. No one would think fouls
>can be called with IR in basketball, just stuff about the clock (and
>no clock in baseball).

I guess you don't watch much basketball. Often there is a question
about whether a basket is a 2 or 3 pointer determined by whether the
shooter is behind the line. I have seen many cases where a decision
was reversed when the question involved a possible three point shot.


>
>Why just repeat that it works in football when anyone following
>football knows that it has some problems?

I never said it was a perfect system. I just opined that it is better
than letting the referees make bad calls. No system is perfect.

>The fact that a team has
>only one challenge per half, despite the fact that there are a dozen
>or more contested calls every half, indicates it is mostly window
>dressing in football.

It is better than nothing. And if that is the problem then it could be
tweaked.




>And the delay factor is addressed by penalizing
>the team a time out (we don't have those in baseball) for challenging
>a play even if the challenge may be right (but is not clearly right).


One can create a system in baseball that would fit the game more
closely. In fact umpires on very close plays can request the help of
IR. And managers can have up to two challenges per game if the
referees don't think that the play is close enough. Or something like
that.

Again it would not be perfect but it would be better IMO than the
current system where so many bad calls are made. And I don't think
that the bad calls are necessarily the fault of the ref. It sometimes
is very close and difficult to call in real time but with IR it
becomes obvious what the right call is.



> Still, I agree it would not harm the game in principle and would
>reduce the very occasional error, which would be good.

We finally agree on something.

RC
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Using fancy 50 dollar words is nothing more than a tactic used by the
intellectually deficiant [sic] to try to impress those around them.

Fred Burton
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

<richardcarlisle.RemoveThis@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o6jl93dgt4k9okci963ietasl5bjbbnm1p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:27:56 -0400, McDuck
<snip>
> Again it would not be perfect but it would be better IMO than the
> current system where so many bad calls are made. And I don't think
> that the bad calls are necessarily the fault of the ref. It sometimes
> is very close and difficult to call in real time but with IR it
> becomes obvious what the right call is.

I really don't mean to be argumentative here, but the way you describe it,
baseball games are riddled with bad calls that need to be stomped out and
fast. I mean, we can't seem to have a decent game there are so many bad calls
out there.

In today's game (#91), how many bad calls did you see and how many of those
materially affected the game?

When Ortiz whines about a call (instead of squaring up and hitting the
trucking ball), do we stop play and check the tape? How about if Lugo
complains? Or Mirabelli?

As has been said before, I have no problem with a varying K Zone as long as
it's consistent throughout that game.

And what are the penalties that will be enforced if the K Zone varies from
pitch-to-pitch? Will the ump get thrown out and the 3rd base ump move to home
plate?


>> Still, I agree it would not harm the game in principle and would
>>reduce the very occasional error, which would be good.
>
> We finally agree on something.
>
> RC
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

richardcarlisle.RemoveThis@notyahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> One can create a system in baseball that would fit the game more
> closely. In fact umpires on very close plays can request the help of
> IR. And managers can have up to two challenges per game if the
> referees don't think that the play is close enough. Or something like
> that.
>
> Again it would not be perfect but it would be better IMO than the
> current system where so many bad calls are made. And I don't think
> that the bad calls are necessarily the fault of the ref. It sometimes
> is very close and difficult to call in real time but with IR it
> becomes obvious what the right call is.

I doubt it would work, because in football, for instance, the IR occurs
to verify or overturn a call "that has been made," and usually the game
has stopped shortly after that occurrence (or during it).

In baseball, everybody's going to stop running if someone is called out.
Simply, if there are two outs and a man on second and there is a close
play at first and the batter is called out, and the runner on second
hesitates, then continues to home and thrown out, what happens?

If the IR shows the man safe at first, it's obviously the 'scoring
runner's' fault for hesitating, right?

But what if a ball is trapped? A runner tags up and goes and then is
called out. But it turns out the ball was trapped. So what should the
runner do? Wait for the replay and THEN go? Will he be given the base?

There are too many things in baseball that depend on a (disputed) play.
Baseball continues in many instances after a close play. To take that
element out of the game would destroy its integrity. This doesn't occur
in football because most of the time the IR doesn't interfere with the
pure flow of the game (eg, the game is stopped anyway).

IR for disputed home runs? Sure. But anything that 'stops' play and
normal reactions is ludicrous.

mario in victoria
--
"The rules of normalcy have been temporarily suspended. New rules are
being made up. There is no guarantee that the new rules will bear any
resemblance to the old rules. All in all, this would have been a good
day to stay in bed."

Options, Robert Sheckley
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:57:37 GMT, mario <mario5491 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>richardcarlisle@notyahoo.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> One can create a system in baseball that would fit the game more
>> closely. In fact umpires on very close plays can request the help of
>> IR. And managers can have up to two challenges per game if the
>> referees don't think that the play is close enough. Or something like
>> that.
>>
>> Again it would not be perfect but it would be better IMO than the
>> current system where so many bad calls are made. And I don't think
>> that the bad calls are necessarily the fault of the ref. It sometimes
>> is very close and difficult to call in real time but with IR it
>> becomes obvious what the right call is.
>
>I doubt it would work, because in football, for instance, the IR occurs
>to verify or overturn a call "that has been made," and usually the game
>has stopped shortly after that occurrence (or during it).
>
>In baseball, everybody's going to stop running if someone is called out.
>Simply, if there are two outs and a man on second and there is a close
>play at first and the batter is called out, and the runner on second
>hesitates, then continues to home and thrown out, what happens?

If the runner was called out then play stops. If the runner at first
was ruled safe then the other runner goes to third. That would make
the most sense.
>
>If the IR shows the man safe at first, it's obviously the 'scoring
>runner's' fault for hesitating, right?

See above.
>
>But what if a ball is trapped? A runner tags up and goes and then is
>called out. But it turns out the ball was trapped. So what should the
>runner do? Wait for the replay and THEN go? Will he be given the base?

What is the difference between changing the call using IR and when
the umpires get together after a call that the ball was caught but it
was really trapped. In fact a few weeks ago Manny was ruled to have
caught the ball but then the play was changed to him trapping it.
>
>There are too many things in baseball that depend on a (disputed) play.

So what? Umpires can change a call after the fact without IR.


>Baseball continues in many instances after a close play. To take that
>element out of the game would destroy its integrity.

So you are saying that if the referee changes his call after the play
that the integrity of the game is destroyed. So what should they do?
Stick with the wrong decision to maintain the "integrity"?



> This doesn't occur
>in football because most of the time the IR doesn't interfere with the
>pure flow of the game (eg, the game is stopped anyway).

That is not always true. A runner can be ruled to have scored a
touchdown but then it could be called back if it is shown his knee hit
the ground.
>
>IR for disputed home runs? Sure. But anything that 'stops' play and
>normal reactions is ludicrous.

We can agree to disagree. As I said before, umpires can change the
call after the fact so doing it with IR is essentially the same thing
except with IR we have more certainty that the call will be correct.


RC
>
>mario in victoria
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Using fancy 50 dollar words is nothing more than a tactic used by the
intellectually deficiant [sic] to try to impress those around them.

Fred Burton
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:51:01 GMT, "atd1999" <ad2003 RemoveThis @joimail.com>
wrote:

>
><richardcarlisle RemoveThis @notyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:o6jl93dgt4k9okci963ietasl5bjbbnm1p@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:27:56 -0400, McDuck
><snip>
>> Again it would not be perfect but it would be better IMO than the
>> current system where so many bad calls are made. And I don't think
>> that the bad calls are necessarily the fault of the ref. It sometimes
>> is very close and difficult to call in real time but with IR it
>> becomes obvious what the right call is.
>
>I really don't mean to be argumentative here, but the way you describe it,
>baseball games are riddled with bad calls that need to be stomped out and
>fast. I mean, we can't seem to have a decent game there are so many bad calls
>out there.

I understand that you think I was implying that every game is
"riddled" with bad calls. I am sorry to give you that impression. Bad
calls vary from game to game. In many games there are no bad calls. In
some games there are more than one. IR would help to reduce the number
of bad calls in each game when they do come up.



>
>In today's game (#91), how many bad calls did you see and how many of those
>materially affected the game?

Sorry. Did not see today's game but see above for my comments on
errors in ref's calls.
>
>When Ortiz whines about a call (instead of squaring up and hitting the
>trucking ball), do we stop play and check the tape? How about if Lugo
>complains? Or Mirabelli?

I already said I don't think that we should use IR for balls and
strikes. IR should be used for judging home runs, fair or foul balls,
tags on stolen bases, close plays at a base, tags in general, outfield
catches (traps vs clean catch), fan interference, etc.

I would like to see referees feel free to use the IR on their own when
they think a play is very close and if they don't, to allow challenges
by manager. I like the idea of having 2-3 challenges per game and if
the challenge is upheld to add a challenge back.

RC



----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


Using fancy 50 dollar words is nothing more than a tactic used by the
intellectually deficiant [sic] to try to impress those around them.

Fred Burton
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:42:45 +0000, richardcarlisle DeleteThis @notyahoo.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:27:56 -0400, McDuck
><wallyDELETEMEMcDuck DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> and it
>>has very limited application in basketball. No one would think fouls
>>can be called with IR in basketball, just stuff about the clock (and
>>no clock in baseball).
>
>I guess you don't watch much basketball. Often there is a question
>about whether a basket is a 2 or 3 pointer determined by whether the
>shooter is behind the line. I have seen many cases where a decision
>was reversed when the question involved a possible three point shot.
>
>
Yes, I mentioned the three-point line in the prior post and did not
repeat it. The point is that IR is NOT used in basketball on judgment
calls, on fouls, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox