This discussion was sparked by the Cleveland Indians GM, Mark Shapiro, who has been widely reported as saying: "If we could do it efficiently and fast — and it's a call we know we can get right — then how can we not?" (USA Today).
Commissioner Bud Selig's response on the issue: "I'm asking the general managers to look at the subject and I'll ask the owners, but I don't like it. The best I could ever be convinced would be to use it in a limited form — but I wouldn't want to tell you today I'd even do that" (USA Today).
So, next week, we'll officially know where the GMs stand, and then it'll be up to Selig to enforce their recommendation or not.
The press seems to be evenly split on the topic. The Seattle Times' Steve Kelley feels that adding instant replay would slow baseball down to an unbearable pace:
Baseball doesn't need instant replay. Disputes are part of the fabric of the game. Do we want electronics to erase the possibility of a Lou Piniella eruption? Or rob us of yet another Bobby Cox ejection?
Replay might sound like a good idea, but it doesn't fit the pace or the fabric of the game. The split-finger, not the split screen, is high-tech enough for baseball. The umpire's judgment, good or bad, is part of the beauty of the game.
What's next, a robot that can call balls and strikes?
Baseball is different from football, basketball, ice hockey and tennis, which use the latest technology to get the calls right. It already has more built-in stops than those other sports. The game doesn't need more interruptions.
The New York Sun's Tim Marchman agrees:
The main question in implementing a system would be in deciding when it would be used and who would decide that it was needed. This involves limiting its use. Unfortunately there are no practical ways to do so.
Marchman goes on to list the inherent limitations of an instant replay system. What innings would it be used? How many times can a manager challenge a call? Will umpires be willing to admit their own mistakes, or will they never allow calls to be challenged because they wouldn't want to admit their errors? And so forth...
On the other side of the fence, ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski is all for instant replay:
How many Don Denkinger/Game 6 moments of the 1985 World Series do we have to endure before Selig and the owners give instant replay a chance?
The umpires wouldn't resist the move. At least, the smart ones wouldn't. Why would you resist technology that can help you do your job better? After all, the NFL uses it. College football uses it. The NBA uses it. NASCAR uses it. Pro tennis uses it.
MLB, its owners, the baseball media, the old-timers shouldn't resist. This isn't about preserving history. This is about improving the accuracy and the integrity of the game.
And FOX Sports' Kevin Hench:
Embracing "the human element" means endorsing mistakes. Game-changing, series-changing, history-changing mistakes. It means saying you're happy that the Royals won the 1985 World Series instead of the Cardinals thanks largely to the (easily reviewable and reversible) mistake of Don Denkinger. It means you like the fact that we all know Jeffrey Maier's name because Richie Garcia froze with the game on the line. It means you don't want justice to prevail. It means you're happy with the wrong team winning the World Series because of a mistake by a human being that could be corrected.
Despite the old-school crowd defending the umps and their truly unacceptable mistake rate on close calls, I'll let you in on a dirty little not-so-secret: the state of umpiring in Major League Baseball, when subjected to the jeweler's loupe of instant replay, is not so good. Which is why baseball desperately needs instant replay.
Yes, baseball is full of human errors (both by the players and by the umpires). But that's the beauty of it. In an age where it seems like every football play is inspected with a microscope, baseball is a sport where people have to "go with their gut."
I don't really believe in the idea that games are lost on bad calls. Perhaps if it's one of the final plays of the game, but often that blown call is just one of the millions of decisions that affect the outcome of a game. Sure, your team could think, "If only we had that call go our way, we would have won." But how are you to know exactly what would have happened if that umpire's call went your way? Perhaps its effect would have been zilch. Who knows? It's fun to speculate. It's fun to complain about the umpires. It's fun to know that sometimes you'll get a lucky break and sometimes you'll be left in disbelief.
And besides, instant replays just slow everything down. One of my gripes with football is that its instant replays, its timeouts, its TV commercials, etc., extend what should normally be a two-hour game into a three or sometimes four-hour marathon. It's especially painful for the people at the game. They paid good money for their seats, and now they have to sit around for five minutes as absolutely nothing happens. It ruins the momentum of the game.
Baseball is a leisurely paced game to begin with. I like it that way. But adding replays would finally tempt me to concur with what many of my friends have already been saying about the sport for years: "Baseball can sure be boring sometimes."
