Big Break For Sox

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r73l93halema3bvtkpoev0ihhp2vlesano@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:41:16 GMT, Keith Willoughby <keith DeleteThis @flat222.org>
> wrote:
>
>>"bayskater" <efhunter DeleteThis @nospamcomcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> I don't think the players should have to have a book on umpires to
>>> learn their strike zones. If it takes machines to keep a consistent
>>> strike zone, then "bring 'em on"
>>
>>I used to be against automatic balls-and-strikes calling. I thought I'd
>>rather take the human element, warts-and-all. That was until the
>>umpires' union posted an incorrect definition of the rulebook strikezone
>>on their website a few years ago, and I read an interview with an ML
>>umpire who was bitching about Questec making him give up his personal
>>strike-zone. Then I realised that many of the umpires don't deserve my
>>support, and they'll have nobody to blame but themselves when they're
>>forced to listen to a beep in their earpiece in a few years time.
>
> Well, the ump's union took it on the chin, which is why we have video
> monitoring of umps, which I think is a good idea. Having a good system
> for amanging the umps solves many problems and keeps the human element
> in the game. Anyway, I want human umps for the game, not for the
> benefit of the umps.

Bullcrap!

The "human element" in the game is the PLAYERS!!!! Not the umpires!!!
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

"atd1999" <ad2003.RemoveThis@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:jeumi.672$I76.620@trnddc05...
>
> <richardcarlisle.RemoveThis@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b4hk935mmdjn0oko0h0kmj09oahdqm533p@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> See above. The important thing is to get the right call. It should not
>> be that difficult to figure out a way to determine the fairest way to
>> resolve issues that you have raised after the play is reversed.
>>
>> RC
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> NO! The important thing is to ENJOY the gawd-damn game! That's the
> important thing!


NO! Getting it "RIGHT" is always the important thing in ALL phases of life!

If getting it right doesn't matter to you, I wouldn't hire you to do
anything, because
you don't care about getting it right.

"It's just a game" is a totally lame-ass excuse for defending incompetence.


>
> You're saying we need to take a 100 year old game and clad on all sorts of
> technology to "get the call right"? For what? FOR WHAT, I ask? For a one
> point standing in the rankings?? Come on! It's a game for chriss-sakes!
>
> Over 162 season games, things will even out.

Not true. That's a statistical myth.



>We're complaining because WE got the benefit of a botched call? Yikes! Why
>not give Toronto a 4-out inning this game? Or how about a one run lead to
>start the game today?
>
> Name me one World Series that was totally determined on one (or two or
> three or...) bad call(s)? The only bad calls that affect a game would be
> Game 7, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs with the winning RISP...has that
> happened? If so, oh well - the "losing" team should have worked their
> asses off harder to get such a lead that any bad calls are negated.
>
> Why have umpires if they're not part of the game? Let's eliminate the home
> plate ump. No called strikes; have a batter out only when he SWINGS and
> misses 3 times (we could have 12-15 pitches per batter; 3 innings per
> starter). Let's rely on a runner to determine if he's out at first on a
> close call or whether or not he was brushed by a glove. We'll use the
> "honor system". "Gee, I didn't feel that tag, but gosh golly I'll leave
> 2nd base because it's the right thing to do."
>
> Silly! Pure silliness. They use the K-Zone on national games and it shows
> the Umps pretty much on the money - give or take a certain percentage of
> acceptable error on some calls.
>
> How many cameras are enough? What if 3 of 4 cameras on first base show an
> "out" and the fourth camera shows "safe"...which is it? What if it's 2
> outs and 2 safes?
>
> Remember, we're looking at the action from TV cameras that are not ground
> level - so you can't judge what's a ball and what's a strike from TV
> coverage alone.
>
> Football and basketball are completely different animals. They are mass
> team sports with 10-22 guys moving all at the same time. Calls can be
> easily missed and some sort of replay system makes sense (to a degree).
> And football's limited season schedule makes big swings in a game the
> difference between making the post-season and missing it (or even winning
> a playoff or not). And, don't forget that lots of people bet on football
> games - you'll be damn sure when big money is sloshing around that things
> are gonna be called "right"....
>
> Leave baseball in human hands.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vvhl9311m4e5ln03s08ab2ij22pqgh3rv2@4ax.com...
> 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.

McD, it's very fair to say that different sports are better suited to IR
than others. I tend to think that in hockey, IR is only really needed
for goals. Pretty much everything else are relatively loose judgement
calls.

And arguably, using IR for home runs, not just foul-pole HR issues,
but all questionable HRs, is not all that different from using IR for
goals in hockey, except that it's a bit simpler to implement in hockey
simply cuz the goal is small, whereas the region you'd have to pay
attention to for home runs is vastly wider.

To be fair, I think that baseball could reduce some of the questionable
home run issues without the use of IR. For starters, adjust some seating
in a few parks so that no fan can ever interfere with a potential home run
ball. They should only be able to catch balls that are CLEARLY homeruns
and cannot be reached by any player. I like parks where there's a bit of a
buffer zone between the fans and outfield fence that prevents any fan from
reaching any catchable ball. IMHO, this would resolve a LOT of the
questionable home run issues. Think of a couple of questionable home
runs/non-home runs in Yankee Stadium. One in the 2004 ALCS game
6 that Mark Bellhorn hit, and struck a fan in the chest and bounced back
into the field of play, initially ruled a double, but properly overturned
into
a homer. The other was that infamous ball in a 1990's ALCS or ALDS
against the O's where a young fan in the RF bleachers caught a catchable
ball and it was wrongly called a home run. Those are both examples of
plays where if there was a small buffer zone between the fans and the fence,
fan interference wouldn't have been possible, and there'd be no need for
the use of IR, because there'd have been no issue.

There are ways in some instances of reducing the apparant need for IR
by merely making pre-emptive adjustments to make confusing circumstances
from occuring in the first case, whereever possible.
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:06:43 -0400, McDuck
<wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:42:45 +0000, richardcarlisle.RemoveThis@notyahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:27:56 -0400, McDuck
>><wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.RemoveThis@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.

Actually instant replay is used to a limited degree for basketball
fouls. When there is a question of a flagrant foul and how much of a
penalty should be exacted, it is used. It is also used to see who
should be at the foul line and in situations where a fight breaks out
to see who instigated it to determine appropriate penalty. And they
are considering expanding the use of IR in other situations.

In yesterday's game there was another situation in which Lugo was
clearly (on IR) shown to be out at first as the catch preceded his
touching the base but he was called safe. This would have been
reversed using IR. But perhaps cosmic justice resulted in him getting
picked off first:-)

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 

"Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:f7iioj$tl8$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
>
> NO! Getting it "RIGHT" is always the important thing in ALL phases of
> life!
>
> If getting it right doesn't matter to you, I wouldn't hire you to do
> anything, because
> you don't care about getting it right.
>
> "It's just a game" is a totally lame-ass excuse for defending
> incompetence.

Considering that you're not out there playing, you are not part of the game
and therefore your opinion doesn't matter.
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:f7ij1m$tq8$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> "Ryan Robbins" <redbird007 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:lBwmi.5261$yx4.1870@trndny08...
>>
>> "Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>> news:f7d378$2akt$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>>
>>> "Lamneth" <lamneth DeleteThis @thefountain.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2vmdneVSEJw8OgTbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "J Buck" <jbuck41 DeleteThis @webtv.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:9420-46999C6F-793@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
>>>>> <I think some of the older umpires feel that if the ball gets there
>>>>> well
>>>>> ahead of the runner, then the runner should be out for being stupid
>>>>> enough to try and stretch the single into a double.>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope those older umpires retire soon. Umpires are supposed to guess
>>>>> what a batter/baserunner 'should' do?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I'd love to see is some infallable laser system at home plate for
>>>> balls and strikes and a standby ump there for anything else. Probably
>>>> won't happen in my lifetime but one can dream. Then again it would take
>>>> away the human aspect of things but balls and strikes would be called
>>>> consistently at least. I can't count the times I've watched games and
>>>> couldn't believe what I was watching as far as balls and strike were
>>>> concerned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm with you on a system for balls and strikes.
>>>
>>> I've never bought into this mythical "human factor" about umpires. I'm
>>> sorry,
>>> but anyone who thinks that umpires and referees are a part of the game
>>> is
>>> nuts.
>>
>> Then why are we out there enforcing the rules? The rules are part of the
>> game. Umpires are the only official representatives of the game who are
>> on the field.
>
> If you're not PLAYING the game, you're not a PART of the game.

So the bases aren't part of the game? The field isn't? The stadium isn't?
The baseball itself is not part of the game?

> No, what you've described is what is not accurate. Not by a long shot.
> Umpires who refuse to enforce rules will be noticed far more often than
> those who properly enforce the rules, because most reasonably intelligent
> fans have a decent appreciation of the basics of the rules.

Ha. How many times have I heard cries of "the hands are part of the bat"?
People certainly notice me or my partner when we rule a hit batsman in that
situation. People scream bloody murder when balks are called, too.

Ask most fans what a fair ball or foul ball is, and I'm willing to bet not
more than half will get the answer right.
 >> Stay informed about: Big Break For Sox 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:33:09 -0400, McDuck
<wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

>Why is it so important to get the call "right"?
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


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