Mlb to explore instant replay only on homerun calls, opinion?

Question

first top ask it, should they go ferther with it, or not do it at all

Answer 1

Good idea, umpires are sometimes not in a good position to see exactly where the ball landed. Since I am not a fan of instant replay I would limit the replay to homeruns only and one challenge per game for each team.

Answer 2

Unless the cost is very minimal it hardly seems worthwhile just for homeruns. I don't think enough homeruns are that close. Its seems like the configurations in new parks have contributed to this somehow. I may be wrong but it seemed like it used to be that a ball went over the fence and landed in the seats or it didn't. The only controversial play I remember years ago was when Frank Robinson jumped or fell over the (at the time) low outfield fence in Yankee Stadium, disappeared from sight (by the umps or anyone else on the field) and came up with the ball and the umps ruled it a catch. Those umps down the left and right field lines in the post season seem to be all but useless at times. Maybe it would actually be better to have them stationed by the fence to rule on a questionable home run call.

Answer 3

I have mixed feelings on this.

The reason I believe they should have umpires watch replays is because there was a game this season where the Red Sox played the White Sox. J.D. Drew hit a home run that hit the top of the green monster right above the yellow line and the umpire didn't call it a home run. When you watch the replay that tv shows you the ball clearly hit right above the yellow line.

The reason why I would say not to explore replays is because baseball can be a long enough game with out any reviews. Unless they were to limit it to maybe one challenge play per game.

Answer 4

absolutely not. it's a waste of time and how many times could there possibly be such a questionable homerun that professional umpires couldnt make the right call? not very many


Kris - It would be pretty hard to replay a foul call because if the play [initially called foul] were overturned, it would ruin the initial play because it wouldn't be natural. for a foul ball - once it is called - the player stops running and heads back to the plate. if it were overturned, the umpire would also have to decide which base they should be awarded which could make it more controversial due to speed and the player at bat as a whole.

Answer 5

It's the "camel's nose in the tent".

How many times can YOU think of where the wrong call was made on a Home Run?

If they do it for home runs, next they'll be doing it for check swings, close plays on the basepads, strikes and balls... they'll need cots in the dugouts, because the games would go on and on and on... why am I thinkng about that stupid pink bunny beating the drum all of the sudden?

No, leave the judgement calls to the "judges", the umpires who are on the playing field. Are they perfect? No, but most of the time they make the right call, and I wouldn't want to go to a game where I had to pack a lunch and dinner. It would only lengthen the time of play which is already long enough.

Answer 6

I think they should just review plays to determine whether the runner was safe or not getting to a base, those are the most controversial. A play like that costed the Cardinals the 1985 World Series when the Line Umpire blew the call, and called the runner safe at first before he had even touched the bag.

As for ball and strike calls, those can't nor shouldn't be reviewed and foul ball plays are fairly obvious.

Answer 7

This year's ALCS???? No game-changing calls were botched that would've changed the outcome. That's just an Indians' fan grasping at straws. Come on now.

I like the idea of instant replay - BUT only on home runs and fair and foul calls. The strike zone and plays at bases should NEVER be reviewed.
.

Answer 8

They should take it even further, even though it is time consuming. There were important playoff games that were decided by bad calls like the Rockies-Padres game this year and game 2 of the ALCS Whitesox-Angels. Maybe each manager should be allowed a certain amount of challenges like in football

Answer 9

I think it is a good start. See if it slows down what some view as a slow game already. I think the umps take enough time talking about it that someone could be up in a booth reviewing it and calling down a decision. I think its good for now, but lets see how it goes.

Answer 10

I have mixed feelings on this especially after the 2007 ALCS. However, it still would not have resolved the issue of whether or not Kenny Lofton was safe at second which was also a pivotal play.