When Will Baseball Add Instant Replay?
Can you think of any reason why baseball doesn’t currently have instant replay? Ever since the call last night, I’ve been trying to think of any possible reason why the sport has been so reluctant to make the switch to an obvious improvement. I can’t think of any reason.
I can’t think of any reason, because baseball doesn’t object to reviewing plays. We saw that earlier in the year when they went back, reviewed a call, and took away a hit from Andrew McCutchen, in a game that happened a few weeks before the call reversal. That decision ended Andrew McCutchen’s hitting streak at the time.
I can’t think of any reason, because the old “instant replay slows down the game” theory ignores the fact that the game is already slowed down by an automatic argument between the manager and umpire in such calls. Meanwhile, we get instant results of whether a pitch was a ball or a strike, and a quick look at a replay can give us a better idea of whether the correct call was made, all in the time it takes for a manager to charge out and get in a minute long argument.
I can’t think of any reason, because baseball isn’t even totally against instant replay. They currently have instant replay on home run calls. So they’ve agreed that instant replay is needed, but at the same time, they won’t apply it to the entire game.
I want to compare baseball and instant replay to people who refuse to have a cell phone. But it’s hard to make that comparison with that last fact. Instead, baseball is like a person who finally decides to purchase a cell phone, but only uses the phone at home, thus totally negating the value of even having this modern technology.
The only argument that seems to exist against instant replay is that it maintains the “human element”. The human element is part of the game. It basically revolves around the fact that humans aren’t perfect, and are prone to errors. However, it’s one thing for a team to make an error that might cost them the game. It’s another thing for an umpire to make an error that will cost a team a game. The goal of umpiring is to oversee the game, and make sure the correct calls are made. That doesn’t always happen as it should, and it’s because of the human element. So basically, the only advantage to the human element is that it allows us to have more bad calls.
We’ve reached an age in technology where there’s very little need for umpires. Balls and strikes can be instantly called by cameras, and with much better accuracy. You don’t have different strike zones for different umpires. You don’t have different strike zones for different pitchers. You obviously need someone making the calls on the field, but close plays can’t be judged with the proper accuracy by one person making a split second decision.
Baseball purists will argue that this is how the game has always been. Pitchers adjust to the strike zone of the night. Good pitchers get the benefit of the doubt on calls. Mistakes are made on the field by umpires on close calls. This is how the game has always been played, but the only reason it’s been played that way is because humans are incapable of making correct calls with 100% accuracy, and for the majority of baseball’s history, we didn’t have the technology that would allow us to improve the accuracy of such calls. The “this is how the game has been played” argument would prevent every advancement in society if it was applied to everything in life.
Last night was a situation where a bad call clearly decided the game. You can argue that there was a small chance that the correct call was made. Replays and still frame shots don’t show the tag being made with 100% certainty. However, when you’ve got everyone, including the Atlanta Braves announcers, saying the call was missed, you’ve got a strong case that an incorrect call was made.
Any time a call is made that impacts the game in a major way, there are always arguments brought up which point out that the blame isn’t totally on the call. Even if the correct call was made last night, that didn’t guarantee the Pirates would end up winning the game. You could point out how the Pirates didn’t score for 17 innings, and argue that they would have never reached the blown call if they would have capitalized on their chances earlier. Of course, that’s a two sided coin. The call would have never been made if the Braves would have taken advantage of their many chances in extra innings.
It’s true that the call might not have changed the outcome of the game. It’s true that the Pirates had their chances to win earlier in the game. It’s also true that the Braves could have won earlier. None of this changes the fact that the game did go to 19 innings, and a bad call was made to end the game. You could go through any game in history that ends with a controversial call and point out something earlier in the game that would have avoided the call being the deciding factor. But does that excuse the fact that a bad call was made?
The fact is that a bad call decided the game last night. The outcome might have been the same if the correct call was made, but at least then it would have been the Pirates’ fault that they lost, rather than the umpire’s fault. If you have instant replay, you avoid this whole mess. A quick check to a central office, or a fifth umpire, and you get the right call. A great game continues, and you eventually get a conclusive result. There’s really no reason why we can’t have this option in baseball. Baseball has a chance to improve the accuracy of calls on the field. They obviously agree with the method enough to implement instant replay in part of the game. Why not add instant replay to the rest of the game? Forget how the game was played for a hundred years before we had computers and all of the modern technology that gives us the capabilities to add accuracy to the game. This is Major League Baseball in the year 2011. The year 2011 has the technology for a computer to call balls and strikes, and for replay from multiple angles to avoid botched calls like the one that was made last night. Baseball has no reason to avoid this technology.