The Silly Reason We Won't See Instant Replay

by Lord Duggan on Oct 27, 2009 2:56 AM EDT

There has been a lot of talk this postseason about the possible advantages of using some type of instant replay. While most of the posters here would quibble about which calls would be reviewable, how many calls may be reviewed, etc., 73% of us voted "Yes" on Travis's post asking "Should MLB widen the use of video review?" I would expect that these results would be typical of any fan base. Most baseball fans (excluding hard core traditionalists) would at least be open to an attempt to get as many calls correct as possible. At this point, I would also think that most players and umpires would be for it.

But none of that matters.

For the same reason that there are a ridiculous amount of off-days in the playoffs, and the World Series of a summer sport is played in November on the East Coast at 8 PM. Bud Selig and his lackeys would gladly trade the desires of their most devoted fans for an extra point of ratings.

By American standards, baseball is considered a "slow" game. It is synonymous with the "national pass-time" and lazily sipping beer, eating hot dogs, and relaxing on a summer day. The idea exists that if coaches are allowed to use replay, an already slow game gets painfully slower.

Now, I think that I speak for all of us in saying that if A-Rod rips a double down the line in the World Series, any one of us would gladly wait an hour for the call to be corrected. But we would be watching the game anyways. We like baseball too much. We're already in Bud Selig's pocket.

He's more concerned about the casual fans, who may or may not be inclined to watch the World Series. And for them, if there's no action on the field, they're even more inclined to flip to something else. And that is more important to MLB than getting calls right, making the game fair, or giving the true fans what they want.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Of course....

also, you don’t think all these bad calls has piqued interest in these playoffs?

I know someone who merely only watched the playoffs and WS, not a single regular season game (aka fairweather fan……he is my boss tho), yet has watched the games from inning 1-9 just to see if the umps would blow another call….

So, the bad calls may have ADDED viewers.

..."I predict...the Giants are #1"...

...."That's not a prediction meatman, that's a FACT OF LIFE"!.

---Carl

by FreeBradshaw on Oct 27, 2009 7:02 AM EDT reply actions

Disagree

The biggest knock on Bud Selig, besides selling out to FOX, is that he’s not proactive at all. He is, however, pretty reliable when it comes to reacting to bad PR. When the All-Star game ended in a tie, he did something – something stupid imo making it decide home field in the WS – but something. In the face of the steroid controversy, despite sleeping on it for a decade, he eventually put in testing. MLB has gotten a ton of bad PR due to the umpiring this postseason so I think we’ll definitely see expanded instant replay next year, even if its not everything we want.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Oct 27, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

yes!

Bud has completely sold out to FOX (exclusive Sat. afternoon games that prevent me from seeing almost every Yankee sat. 4 pm game), letting FOX decide when to air playoff games, letting them extend commercial breaks almost twice as long as normal, etc.

he’s most definitely reactive and not proactive. frankly, he won’t fix any problem until it jumps up and bites him on the ass.

by Travis G on Oct 27, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

8:20 p.m.

for 2 East Coast teams?!

by Travis G on Oct 27, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

A football game takes 3 hours to play despite a 60 minute clock. The last 3 minutes of the game usually take a half hour all on their own.
Don’t tell me baseball is slow.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 27, 2009 8:09 AM EDT reply actions

totally agree

But that also makes a bad case in being FOR replays. I don’t like football anyways, too many stupid rules & too many people drool over it like it’s the best thing ever.

by BriGuy27 on Oct 27, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't think baseball is slow

I think baseball is awesome. I think there is a perception that baseball is slow.

This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons.

by Lord Duggan on Oct 27, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I know.
I just get frustrated with the perception. I was trying to explain to my girlfriend the other day why the most exciting part of the game is when it’s 0-0 and she thinks I’m crazy.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 27, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

And...

During the 60 minutes of playing time how much is taken up running the play clock down? I have read that the actual playing time is in the range of 12-15 minutes.

by YanksFanSince64 on Oct 28, 2009 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Replay

would take care of that the ump is on the take rant that every non yankee fan uses.That in itself is worth it.I really do not know why Selig even has a rule book for the MLB.Save money and print on 1 page Everything is up to the umpires interpritation of what he thinks the rules should be.Simple and honestly what goes on anyhow.

by cashman bashman on Oct 27, 2009 10:35 AM EDT reply actions

Wait until the first time a replay call gets blown.

If we go with reviewable replay (and I do support that, so long as it’s implemented right) we will inevitably see a call reviewed by replay, where the play is interpreted one way and called accordingly, then a gazillion pundits jump all over it as being a terrible call… from the same replay! It’s going to happen, and it will be interesting to see how that all plays out.

by pinstriper on Oct 27, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions

my response to this

is simple: if the call is not seen as definitively wrong after 30-60 seconds, the call on the field stands. so if the ‘review ump’ is still unsure after 1 minute (and no more), the call stands.

most of the time though, we can clearly determine the correct call within 10 seconds of replays.

by Travis G on Oct 27, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

You can argue the opposite actually too

I don’t know if anyone else heard it, but Joe Buck actually said something intelligent during the ALCS: I can’t quote him, but paraphrasing, he said something to the extent that the integrity of baseball itself is called into question with errant umpire calls. That in and of itself could also lead to decreased ratings….For instance, a borderline baseball fan who is watching a play off game (like a friend of mine during the ALCS) throws his hands up and turns the channel because an obviously incorrect call goes against the yankees.

I think you can argue this point either way back and forth forever. We will all continue to debate whether or not reviewable replays have a place in MLB until (and I do believe it’s inevitable) the commish institutes it. And we’ll probably continue to argue about it after that too.

by jlaporta on Oct 27, 2009 1:21 PM EDT reply actions

What this post fails to recognize

Is that the “Casual” fan makes up at least 60%-75% of the viewing audience and therefore the revenue. Us super geeks maybe represent 20% at most! Who cares about us. You see, we’re not going anywhere. We’ll be here no matter what.

Obviously it’s not a good idea to completely piss us off, but MLB is going to put their “Mouth where the Money is”.

As for replay solution: A MLB official is in a booth with all the tv angles at his fingertips, when a ump makes a bad call, it’s corrected, automatically, but the guy upstairs. No requests, no red flags, no umps leaving the field to view the tape. We have all seen the replays where the obvious wrong call was made. 1 replay from the right angle (which usually comes almost immediately after the play) clears up 99% of the bad calls.

Strike zone on the other hand…

by MidwayCityLivestock on Oct 27, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions

Actually dude.....that was the entire point of my post

“But we would be watching the game anyways. We like baseball too much. We’re already in Bud Selig’s pocket.
He’s more concerned about the casual fans, who may or may not be inclined to watch the World Series.”

It makes better financial sense for baseball to NOT have instant replay, because it panders more to the casual fan, hence “The Silly Reason We Won’t See Instant Replay”

This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons.

by Lord Duggan on Oct 27, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions